Lords Sitting of 24 July 1885

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament— The Earl of Aylesford, after the death of his brother.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Heading—Polehampton Estates*(183);National Debt*; Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt Practices)*(199); School Boards*(200); Exchequer and Treasury Bills*; Greenwich Hospital*(201); Post Office Sites*(181); Public Health (Members and Officers)*(194).
Committee—Report—Waterworks Clauses Act (1847) Amendment (127); Cholera Hospitals (Ireland) (182); Turnpike Acts Continuance*(174); Public Health (Ships, &c.)*(186); Artillery and Rifle Ranges *(193).
Report—Submarine Telegraph Cables (203).
Third Heading— Housing of the Working Classes (England) (196); Land Purchase (Ireland) (205), and passed.

GIANTS' CAUSEWAY, PORTRUSH, AND BUSH VALLEY RAILWAY AND TRAMWAYS BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3ª."
  LORD VENTRY, in rising to move—
  "That so much of Standing Order No. 116 be suspended as requires the insertion in the Bill of provisions forfeiting in certain contingencies to the Crown money deposited under the Standing Orders;"
  and also to move Amendments restoring Clause 32 of the Bill to the form in which it was sent up from the House of Commons, said, he had to ask their Lordships to take a course which he was afraid was a very unusual one. He had so strong a sympathy with the action usually taken by the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale) with reference to the Standing Order of the House that it was with great hesitation he had undertaken to make his proposition. He explained that the promoters of the Bill desired to ask their Lordships to put back in the measure provisions passed by the House of Commons. Those provisions had for their object to enable the promoters to recover from the Treasury without the formality of an Act of Parliament certain money deposited as a guarantee that the works authorized in the Bill would be carried

  1759
  out. He urged that this was a very special case, and reminded their Lordships of the desirability of their doing what they could to encourage undertakings of this kind in Ireland, money as a general rule being raised for them in that country with the greatest difficulty. The noble Lord then proceeded to describe the railway, pointing as a proof of the bona fides of its promoters to the fact that they had invested upwards of £30,000 in the undertaking. He explained that part of the work provided for in the Bill was the construction of waterworks for the generation of electricity, which was the motive power of the railway. Larger works than would be immediately required had been provided for, so as to admit of the extension of the railway, if in course of time its success warranted an extension. It was believed that, in addition to the tramway between Bush Valley and Portrush, a line of railway might be constructed over which they might be able, at less expense than at present, to convey minerals and goods down to the harbour at Portrush. He thought he might appeal to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to support his Motion, as knowing something about this railway. The noble and learned Lord had, he thought, given evidence on the subject before a Select Committee of the House of Commons. He thought he might also appeal to the noble Earl the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who had opened a portion of this railway, and which was at present at work. The noble Earl (Earl Cowper) had also interested himself in the undertaking whilst he was in Ireland. He urged their Lordships to do a great right by doing a little wrong, and to support the action of the House of Commons in this matter.
  Moved," That so much of Standing Order No. 116 be suspended as requires the insertion in the Bill of provisions forfeiting in certain contingencies to the Crown money deposited under the Standing Orders."—[The Lord Ventry.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of REDESDALE)was understood to say that the noble Lord who moved this Motion had not established any ground for its adoption. He maintained that great difficulty might arise if their Lordships were to sanction the present proposal, because next Session other Companies might come forward
  1760
  and plead what had now been done as a precedent to be followed in respect of their undertakings. The argument in favour of the proposal seemed to be this—that the scheme was an experiment in electric railways; but this was not a powerful argument. It would not be wise to interfere with the Standing Orders affecting deposits, the object of the deposits being to insure the objects for which the Acts were obtained being carried out. If those objects were not carried out the deposits were forfeited. If once that rule were allowed to be broken through they might just as well do away with it altogether.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that the House of Commons had treated this as an exceptional case, the railway being constructed to work by electricity, and being, therefore, a most important scientific experiment. The undertaking consisted of two short tramways, worked from a central point by the water power of a particular stream, utilized to generate electricity. This was not a case in which there had been an attempt to get a guarantee or anything of that kind, and it came before their Lordships as a private local scheme of great merit, for which the funds had been provided by private subscription. There was a Standing Order of the House—a very just one—which requird the promoters of these schemes to deposit a sum of money as a guarantee for the fulfilment of the objects of the Bill. The Bill had infringed this Standing Order, and that infringement had been allowed in the House of Commons; but in the House of Lords it had been struck out, and their Lordships were now asked to put it in the same condition in which it was sent up from the House of Commons. What was the objection to that? The amount of the deposit was £1,200, and it was to protect that that the present Motion was made. All that was asked was that, as this was a scientific experiment which might be of great public utility, the forfeiture of the balance should not be enforced against those who were finding the funds for the experiment. The case was a singular exception to the general rule, and he thought that if the noble Earl (the Earl of Redesdale) would go over to Ireland and see the railway and the beautiful country through which it ran, he would not take the course he was now taking.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)said, he had taken a great deal of interest in the Bill ever since the matter had come before the Irish, public and the University of Dublin, and he had had the honour and privilege of being one of the Members for that University when the matter came before a Committee of the House of Commons. He attended it as a Member of the House of Commons in furtherance of an application made to the Committee exactly similar to that made by his noble Friend (Lord Ventry). The Committee being made acquainted with the gravity of the interests involved, and the advantage of these scientific experiments, and considering that there was no risk, acquiesced in the claim then put forward, which was the same as the one now under decision. It would not involve the Treasury in a farthing of loss; but it was important in the present condition of Ireland that the scheme should not be handicapped and hampered by a Standing Order. The whole sum in question was under £1,200. What was asked was this— that if at any time the scheme of the promoters became abortive, that instead of the balance of the deposit being handed over to and vested in the Treasury, it should be dealt with by the Court of Chancery in Ireland. He had great respect for the authority of the noble Earl (the Earl of Redesdale), and agreed that the House was under great obligations to him; but he trusted that after further consideration he would give way. If he mistook not the noble Earl himself was born on the site of this important scientific experiment.
  LORD EMLY, in supporting the Motion, said, that it was the duty of their Lordships not only to refrain from discouraging these interesting scientific experiments, but to encourage them on every opportunity. Everyone desired cheap conveyance, and it was possible that by this railway the means of obtaining that would be demonstrated, and, moreover, everyone who took an interest in science desired to promote the line.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREA-SURY (The Earl of IDDESLEIGH)said, he was placed at considerable disadvantage in having to defend the case of the Treasury in this matter against the very powerful arguments which had
  1762
  been addressed to their Lordships from different quarters of the House. There were arrangements which were clearly well calculated to prevent such schemes being undertaken, and not carried through. Everyone felt that the Standing Order in question was one in itself proper, right, and useful; but they were asked to lay it aside on this occasion, partly on the ground that it was very difficult to get capital in Ireland to carry on important and valuable enterprizes, and partly on the ground that this was a case of science, and that their Lordships were to yield to scientific principles. On the first of these arguments, if they admitted the difficulty of getting capital to be a reason why they should lay aside important and valuable safeguards, they were opening the door to very dangerous consequences. The same arguments would be used over and over again, and every case might be nearly as strong though not quite so strong as the last, and in that way they might break down the principle altogether. As to the scientific part of the arrangement, that was an interesting feature. He had had the advantage of seeing and of travelling over the railway, and he admitted that his personal interest was awakened by the sight he had seen there and the great spirit with which the work had been carried through. But he would point out to noble Lords that if they introduced a principle by which the Court of Chancery in Ireland was to be allowed to deal with these deposits and to give back this surplus to the promoters, they would be introducing an entirely new principle, and permitting the breaking down of the Standing Order. What he thought could possibly be done would be to adopt the suggestion made just now by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and introduce some safeguard that the money might be taken out by order of the Court of Chancery of Ireland, provided it had the assent of the Treasury. There was no desire to impede the valuable work. The Treasury would be quite prepared to make a proper allowance; but ho thought that unless they had some safeguard of the sort, noble Lords would see that they would be allowing an opening to a practice which would go on continuing, and would get more and more objectionable.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESsaid, the method now proposed would remove his objections to the proposal. He was of opinion that the consent of the Treasury ought to be given before application was made to the Court.
  LORD VENTRYsaid, he accepted the proposal of the First Lord of the Treasury, which was that the money might he taken out by order of the Court of Chancery if an order by the Treasury was obtained.
  Further debate adjourned to Monday next.

WATERWORKS CLAUSES ACT (1847) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 127.)
(The Viscount Enfield.)
WATERWORKS CLAUSES ACT (1847) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 127.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1 (Explanation of s. 68 of Act 10 & 11 Vict. c. 17).
  LORD BRAMWELLmoved to amend the clause by appending to it the following Proviso:—
  "Provided also, that where the water rate is chargeable on the annual value of any tenement, the rateable value of which has not been settled by the local authority, or which may be exempt from rating, the annual value of such tenement shall, if any dispute arise as to such value, he determined in the manner provided by the said section. This clause shall come into operation concurrently with the new valuation list on the sixth day of April one thousand eight hundred and eight-six, and not previously."
  In this Amendment he observed that there were two substantial matters. The first part of the Amendment provided for cases where new houses were building, which could not be in the assessment, and also for places not in the assessment at all, such as churches and chapels. The other part of the Amendment was framed in view of the quinquennial valuation next April. The Water Companies desired, first of all, to avoid having a rate made on the present assessment and another in the month of April, which would be a perfectly needless thing.
  Moved, at end of Clause 1, to add—
  "Provided also, that where the water rate is chargeable on the annual value of any tenement, the rateable value of which has not been settled by the local authority, or which may be exempt from rating, the annual value of such tenement shall, if any dispute arise as to such
  1764
  value, be determined in the manner provided by the said section. This clause shall come into operation concurrently with the new valuation list on the sixth day of April one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six, and not previously."—[The Lord Bramwell.)
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he was unable to agree to the Amendment. With regard to churches and chapels, he was informed there was a private understanding between the trustees of these institutions and the Water Companies that a certain sum should be paid for the water supplied, and the charge was made in compliance with the provisions of the Water Companies' Acts. As to new houses, which he would suppose became tenanted at Christmas, they would become liable to parochial assessment at Easter; but he understood the Water Companies would be entitled to charge for a quarter's supply of water nevertheless. Upon the whole, the Amendment was unnecessary.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he must complain that the Committee had given no reason for their action in this matter. It was most inconvenient that a Bill of this importance should have been treated as it had been by the Select Committee.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNremarked, that the Bill had been carefully considered by the Committee, who, after hearing the agent for the Water Companies, had come to the conclusion that no Amendment was necessary.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Earl BROWN-LOW)said, that the Local Government Board had no objection to make the Amendments as a whole; but still they thought, as some points appeared to be open to objection, it was desirable that they should not be pressed.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that if this Amendment were carried it would be fatal to the Bill, as it would prevent all chance of its becoming law during the present year.
  LORD BRAMWELLremarked, that, of course, if their Lordships had not time to do justice they would not do it. He thought the Amendment had the approval of the Board of Trade.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Duke of RICHMOND)pointed out that the Board of Trade had nothing whatever to do with the matter,
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he had made a mistake. It was the Local Government Board.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARDsaid, the Amendment had not the approval of the Board, who preferred to deal with each case as it arose.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that this was a case in which an agreement had been entered into between the Water Companies and the water consumers, and now it was sought on the part of the water consumers to set that agreement aside by Act of Parliament, to the injury of the Water Companies and for the benefit of the water drinkers. The House ought to be very chary of lending themselves to such a course, because the same principle which it was now sought to apply to the property of the Water Companies might afterwards be sought to apply to the property in land in the direction of Mr. George's views, for the argument used was that the State had made a bad bargain for the consumer. That was exactly Mr. George's reasoning regarding the land. He was given to understand that if this Bill were passed in its present form those Companies who now paid a dividend of 7 per cent would be able to pay only a dividend of 5½ per cent. If the Companies were to be dealt with in this way they ought to receive compensation. He had no interest in the matter except as a water drinker, and he did not take more water than he could help; but he asked the House not to interfere with contracts entered into under Act of Parliament.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he thought there was a misunderstanding in the matter. The contract between the Companies and the public was that the Companies were to be paid on the valuation; but Parliament never intended that the Companies themselves should fix the valuation. Now, however, the agreement did not appear to be between the Water Companies and the public, but between the Water Companies and themselves.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, he supported the view taken by his noble Friend (the Earl of Wemyss). The principle involved in the Bill was not merely confined to the Water Question, but had reference also to the right of Parliament to interfere with regard to private pro-
  1766
  perty. If the public desired to get rid of the agreement which they had entered into with the Company, the latter ought to receive compensation. This Bill was just such a one as might be expected to come from the Radical Party, who seemed always to desire to carry out reforms as cheaply as they could to themselves, making, if they could, the party reformed pay all the costs. Until they dealt in some way with the principles on which local rates were charged, it was not fair to cut down the rights of the Water Companies which they had obtained from the Legislature.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, the noble Duke seemed to have forgotten that this Bill had been read a second time. What he suggested should be done had been done as long ago as 1869, and it was the object of this Bill to affirm the principle then laid down. The rateable value was the value according to which the Water Companies should charge.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he should not ask their Lordships to agree to the first part of the Amendment; but he proposed to press the second part. He hoped their Lordships, in mercy to the Water Companies, would listen to a few observations he had to make. Sir Henry Knight, the Chairman of the Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company, had stated in his Petition that the actual annual value of the property dealt with by them was £2,703,000, and the assessed value £2,524,000. The Company would, therefore, have to make their charge upon £179,000 less than the sum they now charged upon, and their loss would be £9,000. Then, again, they could not charge for baths and other things under a certain rental, and this represented a further loss of £2,600, so that there was an annual loss to this Company of £11,600. What followed? The gross income of the Company was £135,000, and their expenses £90,000. The net income amounted to £45,000, but the loss to which he had referred would reduce it to £33,400. That was to say, the Bill would take away one-fourth of the Company's income. The Company did not fix the charge, as they had no power to do so. There never was a more unreasonable Bill than this. The Companies had 700,000 customers, and out of that number only 50 within the year had appealed to magistrates as to the

  1767
  proper sum to be charged, because the Company had always been very careful to keep within the proper limits. Only two out of the 50 eases had been settled against the Company. Now it was proposed to fine them one-fourth of their income. He submitted that nothing could justify the adoption of such a course. Were their Lordships prepared to adopt it? He hoped that the second part of the Amendment would be agreed to.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that it was not contended that the Companies fixed the charge, but that they fixed their own valuation on which the charge was made. That valuation, he submitted, was fixed too high.
  LORD TRUROsaid, that one of the Water Companies had admitted that they had for 40 years overcharged him considerably, and a second Company had done the same thing for 20 years. This Bill was a public measure to secure them against the unreasonable and, he might say, the monstrous charges made by the Companies.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he was willing to admit that the Companies would lose a large part of their rate under the Bill; but the question was how had they arrived at the annual value up to the present time? They would merely lose what they ought never to have had.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, as a Member of the Select Committee, he might be allowed to say a few words. He did not wish to enter into the general question. Their Lordships had been informed that the Committee had gone into the question referred to them very carefully. They had heard both sides at great length. He had endeavoured more than once, by questions—he might say by cross-examination—put to the very able gentlemen who appeared for the Water Companies, to discover the system on which they made their valuations; whether it was a uniform and a fair system with an unsatisfactory result?—their Lordships were aware that it mattered very little the amount at which an assessment or valuation was made, so long as it was relatively fair and just—and he had questioned the gentleman who appeared on the other side as to the system adopted in assessing the various parishes in the Metropolis to the poor rate, and so on. He
  1768
  had come to the conclusion that the system the Water Companies employed was not uniform, or a good one; whereas the system in force for other purposes was fair and just. This question was a very important one, and greatly guided him in joining in the unanimous decision of the Committee not to amend the Bill. They had given the Bill most careful consideration, and he hoped their Lordships would support their Committee in the Report they had made to the House.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he begged to move another Amendment the object of which was to give power to the Local Government Board to permit Companies to increase their charges where they could prove that they had sustained loss. He believed that they would sustain considerable loss; but if they sustained none the clause was useless. If, on the other hand, they did sustain loss, the Local Government Board ought to have power to indemnify them. If the Bill was passed in its present condition, so surely would the Water Companies struggle against the wrong which they felt to be inflicted on them, and there would be a great amount of litigation. If this clause were passed they would be content to claim compensation under it.
  Moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following clause:—
  "It shall be lawful for the Board of Trade on the application of any of the companies affected by this Bill, on proof to the satisfaction of the Board that any such company has been injuriously affected by such Bill, to authorise and empower such company to raise the rate at which it may charge the consumer so as to prevent such loss."— (The Lord Bramwell.)
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARDsaid, he was unable to accept the proposal of the noble and learned Lord.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, the incomes of the Companies were not to be diminished without reference to the soundness or unsoundness of the basis of the valuation on which their charges had been made; and now it was proposed that the Local Government Board should have the power of increasing the charges that had been fixed by Act of Parliament. The right of appeal would have the salutary effect of keeping the assessments correct. If there were

  1769
  wholesale appeals, and they were justified, the Court would decide them in a wholesale way. He had never seen anything more objectionable than the proposal of the noble and learned Lord.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, the effect of the Amendment would be to give to a Government Department the power of taxing the citizens of London. He could not conceive anything more dangerous than this.
  Amendment negatived.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Monday next.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (ENGLAND) BILL.—(No. 196.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (ENGLAND) BILL.—(No. 196.)

  THIRD READING.
  Moved," That the Bill be now read 3a"—[The Marquess of Salisbury.]
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 3£.
  Amendments made.
  On Motion, "That the Bill do pass?"
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he still entertained the objection he had expressed to the principle of the Bill; but, seeing the general feeling in favour of the Bill, he would be putting the House to a needless trouble if he pressed the Motion for its rejection, of which he had given Notice. Since the last stage of the Bill he had looked into existing Sanitary Acts, and it appeared to him neither as regarded the sanitary or constructive provisions of this Bill was it necessary or desirable that any further powers should be given, if those now existing were enforced. The noble Marquess, indeed, admitted that they were sufficient; but he said they were surrounded by checks on the Local Authorities, and these the noble Marquess swept away. For instance, he substituted a simple majority instead of a majority of two-thirds, which majority Parliament had thought to be a necessary safeguard. He would also point out that considerable taxation must follow from putting such a Bill as this into operation in any locality, and that the working class would suffer most. In Scotland the working class themselves had repudiated any necessity for legislation of this kind, and a very satisfac-
  1770
  tory state of things now existed there. The powers of the Bill were very large to be exercised by a bare majority in a district, and this he considered was a dangerous principle to carry too far. He believed that the effect of this Bill would be greatly to disappoint its promoters and to diminish private enterprize.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not think that his noble Friend was justified in saying that the Bill swept away all checks. That was a very exaggerated statement. Generally, in giving new powers by Act of Parliament, they applied a certain number of checks with the hope that the machine which they were constructing would move with deliberation, and not too fast for public opinion. The checks supplied in Lord Shaftesbury's Act, in 1851, were so effective that the Act never moved at all, and, as he believed, had never been applied. The Bill by no means swept away all checks. It left what appeared to him to be very efficient checks. In the first place, the application of the Act must be desired by the parish; in the second place, the Local Government Board must send down an Inspector to make local inquiry and satisfy himself that houses could not be procured, that they would not be built unless the Act was applied, and that it could be applied without financial imprudence. Even then the Local Government Board had a discretion as to whether they would or would not give the requisite leave; and then, again, the parish had to come to a resolution to adopt the Act. He did not believe that these checks would prove insufficient; he should rather say that, on the whole, perhaps, they were multiplied too much, and that there might be a difficulty in applying the Bill in those cases where it was desirable it should be applied. He did not at all contemplate that that part of the Bill which embodied the Shaftesbury Act was one for general application; it was for exceptional cases. He hoped the cheeks would insure that it would be only in exceptional cases it should be used; and in the cases in which it was wanted he hoped it would be used. His noble Friend had but one argument against this proposal—namely, that it was not wanted in Scotland. Now, the difficulty of overcrowding was peculiar in London, because the natural remedy could not be applied. On the

  1771
  outskirts of towns of smaller dimensions there was plenty of land on which dwellings could be erected for working men, who might easily walk into the towns to their work. This remedy could not be applied to the same extent in this enormous and unprecedented town; and in other large cities, such as Edinburgh and Glasgow, the pressure was not likely to be so great as in London.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that he had addressed their Lordships at some length about water, and now he wished to say a word about land. He did not see why the State should provide houses any more than it provided food and clothing for the working classes. The title of the Bill should be not only to improve the housing of the working classes, but also to empower people to give away property which did not belong to them. As the Bill stood it gave the Crown power to give away the sites of Clerken well and Millbank Prisons, which nominally belonged to the Crown, but in reality to the taxpayers, and gave the Justices of the Peace of Middlesex power to give away the site at Coldbath Field Prison, which belonged to the county ratepayers. It also authorized all the Corporations throughout the country to give away what belonged to those for whose benefit they were the legal owners, and it enabled the tenants for life to sell to the detriment of remainder-men, instead of obtaining the best price that could be got. He considered that the demolition of houses in crowded places had done more good to the working classes than to any other persons.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (the Duke of RICHMOND)said, that he did not think that the tenant for life would be likely to sell the land for a fraction less than its value.
  LORD BRAMWELLremarked, that the tenant for life might be a very old man.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADEsaid, that very old men had frequently as much common sense as younger ones. The noble and learned Lord seemed to have overlooked the fact that under the existing law a tenant for life could sell land for the purpose of churches, chapels, or burying grounds; and he did not see that in extending the power to selling land for the purpose of the erection of dwellings for the
  1772
  working classes they wore introducing any new and extraordinary principle into the law.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CHOLERA HOSPITALS (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Marquess of Waterford.)
CHOLERA HOSPITALS (IRELAND) BILL.

  (NO. 182.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD, in moving that the House do resolve itself into Committee on the Bill, said, that this was an annual measure, and only came into operation in the event of a virulent attack of Asiatic cholera. Under its provisions, no hospital was to be erected within 300 yards of a dwelling-house, and when the hospital was removed the land was to be restored to its original state.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Marquess of Waterford.)
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he would suggest that the Act should be made a perpetual instead of an annual one.
  Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

THE LUNACY LAWS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that it might be in the recollection of their Lordships that early last Session he had submitted a Resolution to the House to the effect that the present state of the Lunacy Laws was most unsatisfactory, and constituted a standing danger to the liberty of the subject. In using that expression he did not think that he had one whit overstated the case as far as the general opinion of the public upon this question was concerned. He had on that occasion read several extracts from the evidence which had been given before the two Select Committees of the House of Commons which had sat to consider the subject. A most interesting debate had ensued, in the course of which the noble Lord the Lord Chief Justice of England had expressed a very strong opinion adverse to the existing

  1773
  state of the Lunacy Laws, and that opinion was concurred in by the noble Marquess the Prime Minister. The noble and learned Earl opposite, who was then upon the Woolsack, in a speech of considerable importance, promised to bring in a Bill in the ensuing Session to amend the existing law, the evils of which he fully admitted. The noble and learned Earl had most loyally and amply fulfilled his promise, and brought in in the early part of the present Session a most valuable and exhaustive measure which was received with admiration by all, which if it had become law would have done much towards settling this important question, and which would have removed in a great degree the fears with regard to this question which, no doubt, existed in the public mind. The noble and learned Earl had been extremely anxious to carry that Bill; but it had, unfortunately, become a dropped Order. He, therefore, now wished to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they proposed in the next Session of Parliament to introduce a Bill for the amendment of the Lunacy Laws? Should the reply of the Government be in the affirmative, he had no doubt, knowing, as he did, the views which the noble Marquess the Prime Minister entertained upon the question, that they might see their way to going a little further than the noble and learned Earl opposite had done, and to turn all these private lunatic asylums into public institutions, so as to get rid of the odious system of private lunatic asylums altogether. As long as any body of men made large incomes by keeping their fellow-creatures incarcerated, the public could not, and ought not, to be content. He earnestly trusted that such a measure would be introduced as would sweep this evil system away altogether.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he wished to express his concurrence in many of the views which the noble Earl had expressed, because in a long experience in the Courts of Law he had seen many evil results from the present state of the Lunacy Laws. All he could say in reply to the Question of the noble Earl was that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill on the subject in the next Session of Parliament.

SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH CABLES BILL.—(No. 203.)
(The Lord Sudeley.)
SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH CABLES BILL.—(No. 203.)

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Order of the Day for the Consideration of the Report of Amendments read.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Duke of RICHMOND)proposed to add a clause after Subsection 3 to Clause 4 to the effect that where a person should, in a bonâ fide attempt to repair a cable, break or cause an injury to another cable, he should not be punished with imprisonment as for unlawfully or wilfully breaking it, but should be liable to make good the damage done.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNwished to ask a Question with regard to a matter of some importance. This Bill was brought in for the purpose of making regulations to enable the English Government to carry out the terms of the Convention; but it appeared only to carry out the terms of that Convention to a limited extent, and to make, in fact, a new Convention. Was it within the power of the Government to bring in a Bill of that character?
  THE PRESIDENT, in reply, said, that all the Government had undertaken to do was to submit a Bill on the subject to Parliament. That Bill would be dealt with according to the wisdom of Parliament. The Government could not undertake to require Parliament to carry out the Convention in its entirety.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, the amendment of the clause was the suggestion of the noble Duke.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEwas understood to say that the Government undertook to carry out the Convention.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that it was open for the Convention to be modified by future negotiations, or a Bill might be brought in covering those parts of the Convention not now covered.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNobserved, that in consequence of our not carrying out our obligations under the Convention other Governments might refuse to carry out theirs.
  Amendments reported; Bill to be read 3£ on Monday next.

LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor of Ireland.)
LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) BILL.

  (NOS. 204–205.) THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(The Lord Chancellor of Ireland.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that some Conservative Members of the House of Commons were very anxious to know who were to be the Commissioners under this Bill. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill was in a position to state who the Members of the Commission were to be? With regard to the Bill itself, he believed that it followed naturally from the evil precedent already set by the Irish Land Act, and would affect not only Ireland, but all parts of the United Kingdom, and both lands in the country and property in towns.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)said, that the names of the new Commissioners would be given when the House of Commons had settled the term of office and the salaries which it was proposed they should have; and the Government would have greater knowledge when the Bill was in a more forward state. At present he was quite unable to answer the Question of the noble Earl. He had no doubt that there were hundreds—he might say thousands—of persons wandering about Ireland each and all of the opinion that they were the men best suited for the post.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, that the powers given to a public body to purchase properties with a view to their sub-division would prejudice the position of the holders of head rents, who would have to recover those head rents in small driblets, instead, as at present, from one person. The mortgagee could call up his money when threatened by sub-division; not so the owner of a head rent.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid, that the Bill did not change the existing law as to security, and it left the question of rent-charge where it now was. No man was bound to do anything under the Bill unless he pleased, and it was to his interest so to do. He could not insert a clause giving compulsory power for the redemption of rent-charges, because it would introduce
  1776
  a new principle, and other classes besides their Lordships would have thought that their interests had been sacrificed.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he thought that the Bill made a very considerable change in the law, and that great difficulty would be experienced in the future in collecting head rents. The Judges and the general public in Ireland had set their faces against the exercise of the power of Distress, which for all practical purposes had ceased to exist; and the only remedy an unfortunate head-rent landlord now had was to proceed against each of his under tenants by the slow process of the law, instead of being paid, as at present, by the lessee of the property, the one responsible person, and by whom the rent was regularly paid.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he wished, before the Bill left the House, to warn his noble and learned Friend that, in his opinion, the proposed appropriation of the Irish Church Surplus Fund to the purposes of the Bill was objectionable in principle and dangerous in its probable consequences—in fact, it might endanger the whole Bill in "another place." The Bill departed from the principle which had hitherto been adopted of applying the Surplus, which now amounted to £750,000, to the purposes of distress and education in Ireland. He questioned whether the departure was a wise one. He made these observations in no spirit of hostility to the Bill, and simply with a desire to direct his noble and learned Friend's attention to the points he had raised.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid, he had to thank his noble and learned Friend who had taken such an interest in the Bill for his friendly attitude towards it in all its stages. The observations which his noble and learned Friend had now made in reference to the Church Surplus would, of course, receive his close and anxious attention. He was glad he was relieved from dealing with the financial aspect of the subject, and that he was able to hand over to his noble Friend who represented the Treasury the pleasure of considering that question in detail. The Irish Church Surplus was utilized, of course, in the Bill, but not extravagantly. He thought there were sufficient safeguards. In his judgment, there would be no substantial loss to the fund under the operations of

  1777
  the Bill; but further consideration would be given to this question by the eminent authorities who were concerned with the finances of the country.
  The Queen's Consent signified; Bill read 3ª; Amendments made; Bill pasted, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.