Lords Sitting of 30 July 1885

MINUTES.
— Took the Oath for the First Time — The Lord Bishop of Truro.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Fifth Report—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading — Customs and Inland Revenue (No. 2) * (220); Lunacy Acts Amendment * (221); Metropolitan Police Staff Superannuation * (222); Patent Law Amendment* (223).
Second Reading—Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (No. 2)* (188); Smoke Nuisance Abatement (50); Copyhold Enfranchisement (185). negatived; Pluralities (213); Poor Law Unions Officers (Ireland) (214); Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) * (209).
Committee—Earldom of Mar Restitution (217).
Committee—Report—Medical Relief Disqualification Removal (207); Bankruptcy (Office Accommodation)* (191).
Report — Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt Practices) * (219).
Third Reading — Post Office Sites* (181); Public Health (Members and Officers) * (194), and passed.

SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL.—(No. 50.)
(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL.—(No. 50.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I rise to move the second reading of the Bill on Smoke Abatement. Let me first explain the interval which has elapsed since it was read a first time this Session. Down to the middle of June I was absorbed by questions far more urgent in their character. The course of Parliament was then long interrupted. When it was resumed on the 6th of July, there was little chance of getting such a measure through the House of Commons for the

  477
  present. If it is only read a second time and goes no further, yet the object of its friends will be promoted. Last Session the Bill was advocated fully on two stages. It was carried on the last by a majority of more than two to one against the strenuous efforts of the late Government, excepting always the noble Duke their Master of the Horse (the Duke of Westminster), who is as much concerned in it as I am. It is chiefly because a number of Peers on either side have lately joined us that I feel bound to give a hurried explanation of it. The Bill starts from the measures of Lord Palmerston, at the time when he was Home Secretary. It contemplates a gradual action on the smoke of private houses, as he directed his enactments against the smoke of large commercial factories in London. It is useless to efface the smoke of large commercial factories if the void is constantly filled up by the new houses which arise with wonderful rapidity. The Statutes of Lord Palmerston are baffled by a steady influx of the evil which they were framed to obviate. It is something like the Sinking Fund. The Sinking Fund is excellent when you have ceased to borrow. But it has been found that there is no good in reducing debt when you are steadily augmenting it. The aggregate of smoke in London must be greater than it was when Lord Palmerston began to operate against it. Beyond that, the Statutes of Lord Palmerston are not enforced with rigour, because it is seen that, even if they were, the evil which they have in view would not be seriously mitigated. Some action, therefore, is required in order to do justice to the legislation of Lord Palmerston. It can only be brought about by the mechanism of local bodies. The householders will not submit to interference except from local bodies which they have helped to form, which they know how to reach, which they are qualified to influence. The leading feature of the Bill is to enable Vestries, through their bye-laws under the direction of the Home Office, to make the evil which prevails illegal for the future. It may be said that, however just the power, it will not be exerted. Possibly it may not. It will turn much upon the pressure of opinion, discussion out-of-doors, the feeling of society. But even if all the local bodies are inactive,
  478
  by other clauses some good will arise of a subordinate description. The excessive and opaque smoke which at times proceeds from clubs when some unwonted dinner is preparing may be immediately prohibited. The Statutes of Lord Palmerston will operate over a wider area than hitherto they have done. The Metropolitan Board of Works will gain a further jurisdiction over the heating apparatus of new houses, which, as 25,000 are added every year, become a vast ingredient in a formidable problem. I contended last year, and I hold still, that the discretionary power of the local bodies will be exerted in the City, even if elsewhere it is latent. The Lord Mayor of the day may easily obtain its application, and there are many influences well known to the House by which a Lord Mayor may be urged into activity for any object which is just and irreproachable. Some few objections ought, perhaps, to be encountered. It has been urged that mechanical invention is not advanced sufficiently for restraining smoke in private houses. But this impression wholly overlooks the history of the subject. Last year I pointed to seven methods by which the object may be compassed. For 100 years the scientific world has been employed upon the subject. In 1785 the well-known author of the steam engine, James Watt, took out a patent with regard to it in furnaces. There is no more reason that London should be enveloped as it is than any other capital of Europe. The use of coke and wood, or coke and gas, or coke alone, with a little alteration of existing fire-places to increase the draught, would be sufficient for the object. The late Sir William Siemens is the master we should look to. The noble Duke the Chairman of the Institute on Smoke has also tried experiments by which the public may be guided. In some quarters it is feared that the liberty of the householder would be improperly encroached upon. On the contrary, he would enjoy a greater latitude and more authority than he does at present. He is now confined, not by law, but custom, which is infinitely stronger to the use of raw coal in ordinary fire-places. Whenever he departs from it—as there is no necessity to do so—his family and servants are nearly certain to oppose him. I knew a householder, some years ago,

  479
  conversant with the question, who introduced the Arnott stove throughout his mansion, except the kitchen, where, of course, it was most needed, but where the opposition was too serious to deal with. When this Bill is carried, and when his local body acts upon it, the householder will be armed by law; he will pull himself together; he will compare the different modes of heating which exist; he will form a sound and prudent choice between them, and insist on the necessity of quitting the old routine from which for years he has vainly struggled to release himself. But there was one objection mentioned by my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, that as some local bodies would apply the law, while others did not, smoke might be legal on one side of a street and illegal on the other. But even if it was the case the atmosphere would gain a little. Where it was not corrected no new hardship would arise. Can it be doubted that the action of the defaulting body would be hastened, that both sides of the street would soon be under the enactment on the old principle, Cum proximus ardet. But the objection of the late Government, which forced a division on the House last year, has vanished altogether. It was that the whole subject ought to be referred to a huge central body which the late Government proposed to organize. In vain it was demonstrated that such a jurisdiction could not act on smoke at all, because it would have no proper title to fix an area for the experiment, and would not venture to impose restraint upon the whole of the Metropolis together. Nothing would satisfy the Government of that day except leaving smoke to the repression of a colossal power which was not certain to arise, and could not venture to repress it. To encroach upon the privileges of that gigantic form was inconsistent with the tenderness which it inspired even before its parturition was effected. The late Government were haunted by it. We have heard of a celebrated novel called Frankenstein, by Mrs. Shelley. Frankenstein was overpowered and entangled by the monster he had too ambitiously created. He did not turn pale before the imagined dignity and hypothetical austerity of the monster he was never doomed to call into existence. It may be urged by some that Vestries are not final, and
  480
  that new municipal divisions will replace them. Whenever that occurs their powers as to smoke may be easily transferred to the new municipal divisions by which the capital is governed. Let me run over very briefly the positive advantages which the measure aims at. One is, of course, the greater purity of domiciles. Smoke is now destructive of furniture, of linen, of dresses, and many other thing which womanhood appreciates. Another is the sanitary benefit. You cannot leave with prudence, in constantly deteriorating air, the masses you are striving to transfer to better habitations. As to architecture, I will not now repeat what I have dwelt upon before; but wish to make this observation. Unless smoke is overcome you cannot have the colour you desire for edifices which are rising. The influence of smoke on architecture is too extensive and minute a topic to be handled at this moment. There is but one opinion among experts of its consequences. Of course, it may be argued that the Bill can never reach the Statute Book this Session. The object is, by the unanimous concurrence of the House, to facilitate the task of Governments in afterwards adopting it. It is not in all respects desirable that Bills should become Acts—even if they can—unless a Government proposes them. Governments are forced by a political necessity which grew up after the first Reform Act—whether they like or not—to offer legislation to the country. If the material of proper legislation is consumed—it cannot be unlimited —they are driven to schemes revolting to themselves and prejudicial to the country. It is sufficient for the framers of the present Bill to lay before them a path which is not either dangerous or unprofitable. I therefore ask your Lordships to repeat the step which a year ago you had the goodness to decide on. I will now move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a" —(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (Earl BEAUCHAMP)said, that since the 19th of March this Bill has been slumbering peacefully on the Orders as a Bill that awaited the second reading, and it was not until Tuesday last that the second reading was put clown for this day. In these circumstances it could scarcely

  481
  have received adequate consideration from their Lordships. He supposed the noble Lord did not intend to proceed any further with it this Session; at any rate, if he did intend to do so, it would be his (Earl Beauchamp's) duty to point out the many grave defects which existed in the Bill. Everyone would sympathize with the object of the Bill, which was to limit waste and extravagance in the consumption of coal, because they were injurious to health, and property; but it was another question whether the machinery of the Bill was the best adapted for the purpose. That, however, was a point into which they need not now stop to inquire. He would recommend that it be read a second time, and that the Order for Committee should be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEsaid, that their Lordships would be unanimous on the point that smoke was a nuisance in London, and it was a reflection on our civilization that so little had been done to diminish it. It was a mistake to suppose that the unconsumed coal which floated in the air we breathed and the dismal pall of smoke which hung over London was inevitable. Mechanical science had made such advance that there was now no difficulty in preventing the pollution of the atmosphere by smoke, and it was a wrong upon the public that individuals should have unlimited power to injure themselves and others by negligently contributing to the nuisance. Moreover, there was a great waste of carbon, which might be economized and utilized by mechanical science. This Bill provided amendments of the law worthy of the deliberate consideration of their Lordships in the next Session.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLsaid, that in reference to what had fallen from the noble Earl on the Treasury Bench he would have willingly exposed the Bill to the ordeal of a Select Committee, to give it greater accuracy and precision, although it was not carelelssly drawn up, had there been time for such a process. As things stood he did not wish it to go beyond the second reading for the present, and he trusted that their Lordships would see no reason to depart from the conclusion they had previously arrived at.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a.

COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
(The Lord Hobhouse.)
COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.

  (NO. 185.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HOBHOUSE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, I said, that the measure was one of a series of steps which had been taken by the advice of eminent lawyers and statesmen, men who in other departments of public life entertained the most divergent opinions, but who agreed in this— that it was desirable as fast as possible to diminish, and finally extinguish, the old inconvenient tenure of copyhold. Great and serious evils arose from this tenure. In the first place, there was a multiplicity of laws, not written and not generally known, and only ascertainable by tradition, which this system created. These laws could only be I ascertained on the oral evidence of persons cognizant of the customs of each particular manor. The question was inquired into for the first time in 1832 by a body of eminent lawyers, who dealt with the whole subject of real property. The Report of these gentlemen recapitulated the evils arising from the immense variety of customs in different manors, customs to be sought in oral traditions, and the Court Rolls which had often been kept by ignorant or negligent stewards. They remarked that it was not surprising that frequent litigation arose between lord and tenant, vendor and purchaser, and the vendor and others claiming an adverse interest to the vendor. It had been suggested that the true remedy for these evils lay in the adoption of a general registry of titles in England. But these, though, perhaps the most obvious, were not the greatest evils. The greatest was the system of arbitrary fines on each devolution of the copyhold interest and occasionally also of the freehold title. The lord might require the copyholder to pay two years' improved value of the land. That system was obviously, and, in fact, had been found to be, a serious obstacle to the improvement of land. In the same Report from which he had quoted, he found remarks on the check to improvements occasioned by the conflicting rights of landlord and tenant,

  483
  and the consequent diminution of the public wealth, and the direct discouragement to agriculture and the erection of buildings. Remarkable evidence was taken also by the Committee which reported on the subject in 1852. In that evidence were some striking statements of one of the Drainage Commissioners on the unwillingness of copyholders to borrow money for drainage. This gentleman expressed an opinion that copyhold lands were worse cultivated than freehold. He was talking the other day to a veteran solicitor and steward of a manor, who said that he could tell by simple inspection which were copyhold and which freehold lands. Then the tenure discouraged the growth of timber, for if the lord cut the timber it was trespass against the tenant, and if the tenant cut it was waste against the lord. Thus no young timber was allowed to grow on copyhold land. Thus in Sussex copyhold land could be recognized by the entire absence of trees on one side, while there was on the other a well-wooded area. Then there were heriots. The lord might on alienation take his tenant's best chattel —in some cases it wa3 his best live chattel. Very startling and, in some cases, amusing stories were told of the devices resorted to by tenants to induce their lord to take the worst instead of the best chattel. These evils were aggravated in many instances by the confusion of boundaries between freehold and copyhold land. It frequently happened that when land had been held continuously for many years part of the same field was copyhold and part freehold without any distinction which was which. But the occupier was afraid of tilling the field to the best advantage because he might by his method of cultivation incur a a forfeiture of the copyhold portion. Then, too, it often became necessary to make both a freehold and copyhold conveyance of the same land, and the tenant dare not grow timber for fear of forfeiture. These insuperable objections existed in the case of purchase because the vendor could not point out the boundaries between the copyhold and the freehold. All these inconveniences were especially felt in the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex. The Real Property Commissioners did not advise any compulsory action. In 1838 the
  484
  matter was referred to a very strong Committee of the House of Commons, which recommended that a compulsory measure should be passed. The result of the recommendation of that Committee was the passing of the Copyhold Act of 1841, and the Legislature appeared to have followed the recommendation of the Committee by trying in the first instance what he might call the voluntary system. A Copyhold Commission, which was still at work, was established, and was empowered to receive applications for enfranchisement and to give effect to them in cases when the lord of the manor and the tenant were agreed on the subject. In 1851 the matter was again referred to a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and they reported to the effect that it was highly desirable that the entire enfranchisement of copyhold estates should be effected as soon as possible, due regard being had to the rights and claims of all parties, and that such enfranchisement should be compulsory on all. In 1852 a measure was passed enabling one of the parties to demand enfranchisement instead of requiring the consent of both. That Act, however, applied only to cases where the admission had taken place after the 3rd of July, 1853. The principle of that Act was found to be very beneficial, and the number of enfranchisements considerably increased. In 1858 another Act was passed which took away the restriction as to time and made the Act of 1852 apply to every copyhold in the Kingdom. Their Lordships might ask what had been the practical effect of this legislation. He held in his hand a Return made by the Land Commissioners down to 1882 which showed the operation of the various Acts. As long as the Act of 1841 or the voluntary system was prevalent the average number of enfranchisements was 42 a-year. When the Act of 1852 came into operation the average rose to 243 a-year, and when the Act of 1858 came into operation, taking it down to the present time, the average was 554 a-year. Perhaps he might be asked what proportion that was of the whole of the copyholds in the Kingdom, and whether the process of enfranchisement was going on fast or slowly. He was sorry to say that he could not answer that question. He found that no man could answer it. In

  485
  the absence of registries we had no means whatever of ascertaining what quantity of copyhold land there was in England. Therefore, he could not say whether the proportion of which the enfranchisement had been effected was small or large compared with the proportion which remained. But it was agreed upon by everybody who understood the subject that there still remained a vast number of copyholds throughout England. The Bill now under their Lordships' consideration had been the subject of discussion for four years in the House of Commons, by many public bodies outside it, and by individuals who were interested in the matter; and the measure was, in fact, the work of many hands. It bore, indeed, the marks of that, as it was not quite so clear either in point of arrangement or in point of expression as could be desired. In these respects it was open to some amendment; but he believed their Lordships would consider it to be upon the whole a very valuable measure. It contained a large quantity of legislative details, and if he were asked what was the principle of the Bill he should say that it was a measure to carry into more complete effect the policy of the last 50 years and to promote and accelerate the enfranchisement of copyholds. He had heard this measure described by persons competent to judge of it as one which proposed to deal with the property of two persons in a way which neither of them desired should be followed; but what it did was to place the initiative in the hands of the lord who was required on admitting or enrolling any person as tenant to any land after the 31st of December, 1885, save where the admittance or enrolment took place in consequence of the death of a lord, to give a notice in writing to the tenant of enfranchisement, and the Bill provided that in default of such notice being given no fine, relief, or heriot should be payable to the lord on any subsequent admittance or enrolment. Every such notice of enfranchisement was to be accompanied by an offer to take a certain sum which, if accepted, was to be the compensation; the lord and the tenant were empowered to agree on compensation and to appoint valuers to fix it. Thus if the tenant desired to remain a copyholder all he had to do was to allow the lord's notice
  486
  to drop. In the event of the lord not serving such notice the tenant might avail himself of the compulsory provisions of the Copyhold Acts. He anticipated that this measure would have a very important effect in enfranchising copyholds, and would benefit the lord, the tenant, and the public. The Bill came before the Incorporated Law Society, and met with their approval. In conclusion, he moved the second reading of the Bill, thanking their Lordships for the great patience with which they had listened to him.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Hobhouse.)
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that the Bill was not prepared with such consummate skill as his noble and learned Friend would have them believe. He thought no one denied that it was desirable to get rid of the copyhold tenure, and if anyone did doubt it before he could not doubt it after having heard the very convincing speech to which the House had just listened. His noble Friend had shown the great mischief caused by the existing law. There was one evil he had not mentioned. The lord was the owner of the minerals under the surface, whilst the copyholder was the owner of the soil; therefore the lord could not take them, and the copyholder could not take them. This was another reason why this tenure should in some way be got rid of, and most certainly if some benevolent magician could do that with a wave of his wand without expense he did not suppose anyone would be found to object. He did not suppose the lord was desirous of being lord for the mere pleasure of the title. But did it not strike their Lordships that the more the noble and learned Lord showed that it was good to get rid of this tenure the more it followed that there were some difficulties in the way of getting rid of it which made it better for them to put up with it than to go to the expense involved? That, indeed, was the only reason for its existence—it was more troublesome and expensive to get rid of than to keep—the cost would be greater than the benefits derived from enfranchisement. There was a third person interested, and that was the steward, and certainly the Bill would be a boon to the present generation of

  487
  stewards; and when his noble and learned Friend said that the Incorporated Law Society approved of the Bill he could well understand that, seeing that there was a great number of stewards in the Society. The stewards were most respectable gentlemen, but, like himself, were inclined to think that right which was pleasant. The lord could compel enfranchisement if he pleased; the copyholder could compel it if he pleased; and, therefore, the Bill could only be applicable to the case where both lord and copyholder, each being able to enfranchise, did not choose to do so. In that case the Bill said they should. He should neither affirm nor deny anything about land at the present time. It might very well be that the public was entitled to say that land should be held and dealt with in a way most advantageous to the public; but that could only be done through the individual. Why was it that both lord and tenant were so indifferent that they would not take the benefit which the law at present offered? It must be a peculiarity of the copyholder if he would not follow his own interests. He would tell them why the copyholder left things as they were. The game was not worth the candle, and the noble Lord on the Woolsack would agree with him that the worst of all expensive and wearisome proceedings in which a man could be involved was in the adjustment of parcel or boundary. This was the real reason why advantage had not been taken to a much larger extent of the existing law than had been the case. He wished to know why the provision for the lord having the right of access to his mines, with some arrangement in respect of it, was omitted from this Bill? Such a provision had been in all previous Bills. The Commissioners, whose Report had been quoted by his noble and learned Friend, rejected all plans for the compulsory enfranchisement of copyholds, and since that Report Acts of Parliament had been passed which introduced compulsory enfranchisement upon the application either of the lord or the tenant. The difference between those Acts and the present Bill was that in the case of copyholds which it would not be worth anybody's while to enfranchise the Bill would compel enfranchisement. He had often said if anyone were to make him a present of
  488
  a piece of land occasionally to be seen by the wayside he would not take it if he had to defend the title, and there were several of those copyholds which he would not take as a gift if there was to be enfranchisement of them. He hoped their Lordships would not read the Bill a second time. The only reason by which the Bill could be justified was on account of some benefit, or supposed benefit, to the public. So far from that, it seemed to be a Bill simply to compel people to do that which they were told was for their good, but which they nevertheless thought was not for their benefit.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, it was obvious, from the speech of the noble and learned Lord who moved the second reading, that this was a complicated and technical Bill, and being so vast and extensive, containing 54 clauses, it ought to have fuller consideration than could possibly be given it at this time of the Session. If the noble and learned Lord was correct in saying that the object of the Bill was to benefit the lord, the tenant, and the public, he would be the last person to propose to refer it to a Select Committee. But though he had put a Notice of such a Motion on the Paper he really believed that the Bill ought not to be gone on with at the present time. The principle of the Bill was to compel those who did not wish to enfranchise to enfranchise against their will. Speaking on behalf of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, of whom he was one, he thought the Bill contained several objectionable provisions. Besides having presented a Petition carefully prepared from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he had also presented Petitions from the Dean and Chapter of Carlisle, from Trinity College, Cambridge, King's College, St. John's College, at Pembroke College, Cambridge, against the second reading. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners were among the largest lords of manors in England. They held 450 manors, and notwithstanding the slow progress which was alleged had been made, they had enfranchised over 2,500 copyholds. The noble Lord admitted that the enfranchisements were at the rate of 500 a-year. First of all, the mineral rights of the lords were prejudiced by the Bill, because, though it was true that the minerals could not be worked without the leave of the copy-

  489
  holder, it was undisputed that they belonged to the lords, and the onus of proving the boundaries which hitherto fell on the tenant was thrown on the lord. That would be a very difficult and costly process. Another provision which injuriously affected the lords of manors was contained in a clause which said that the land should be sold at the actual value of the rent or the actual value of the land as it stood. That meant that all the advantage arising from land situated near towns was sacrificed. There was land in the neighbourhood of towns worth £200 an acre, for which the copyholder paid only a small line, which did not, at all represent its value. In fact, that clause would sacrifice the prospective value of building land all over the Kingdom. What was the evidence in favour of the Bill? All the evidence that he could gather was that it had been four years before the House of Commons. But it had never been discussed by the House of Commons. It was true that the Bill was referred to a Select Committee of the House of Commons last year; but that Committee refused to hear evidence whether of the lord or the copyholder, though a measure of such importance ought in all justice to be carefully sifted and weighed by a Committee receiving evidence. The facilities for enfranchisement given by the Acts of 1852 and 1858 had been admitted. The proposal of the Bill was that the parties, whether they liked it or not, should be obliged to enfranchise, and the law charges, the expense of the definition of boundaries, and the cost of notice all fell on the lord. The Bill would also inflict injustice on the tenant. A tenant who paid 6d. a-year for his copyhold was to enfranchise whether he liked it or not. He would, under the Bill, be obliged to borrow the money at 4 per cent, or be subject to a rent charge equal to 4 per cent. There were no Petitions from copyholders in favour, of the Bill. It was said that the copyholders of Accrington were very desirous that it should pass. Well, let them have a Bill of their own. He did not think anyone could allege that this Bill was likely to receive adequate consideration at the present time, and, therefore, he would take upon himself at once to move that it be read a second time that day three mouths.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")— (The Earl Stanhope.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he should like to ask the noble and learned Lord who moved the second reading of this Bill whether he would be content that the Bill should be read a second time without sending it to a Select Committee? If he gathered from the noble and learned Lord's observations that he did not desire that it should pass into law before its details were considered, it was obvious that it was absolutely impossible to thoroughly discuss those details this Session. The only object, therefore, in assenting to the second reading was that the House should affirm some principle on which the Bill was supposed to be framed. On that subject it appeared that the noble and learned Lord had not made up his mind as to what was the principle of the Bill. There was considerable doubt as to whether the 1st section made the Bill compulsory or not. What, in effect, it enacted was this, not that it should be compulsory, but that it should, whether the parties liked it or not, commence litigation which would be fruitless. Anything more injurious than such a state of things as that both to lord and tenant he could hardly conceive. He gathered from the noble and learned Lord that the Bill was the product of many minds, that the mode in which it was drawn was open to exception, and that he would not like it to pass into law without going through the ordeal of a Select Committee. By those admissions he judged that the noble and learned Lord would not desire to see this field of litigation thrown open to lords and tenants without a very careful scrutiny being made of the provisions of the Bill. He did not think that the noble and learned Lord dealt satisfactorily with the point that the Bill did not deal with minerals. The answer he gave was that it did not refuse to accept what former Acts had done; and he stated that Bills introduced on the subject had attempted to settle the vexed question of minerals, the state of the law with regard to which was very unsatisfactory. The Bill now before their Lordships, however, did not settle the question, and it would tend to pro-

  491
  duce heartburning and make people believe that the question as between lord and tenant was settled when it was not. He presumed that their Lordships must make up their minds as to whether this was a compulsory measure or not before the second reading was taken. The noble and learned Lord stated that the lord must, to put the provisions of the Bill in operation, serve the tenant with a notice, but that the tenant might, if he liked, throw the notice behind the fire. If that was the true view of it how did the Bill differ from the law as it stood at the present time? It was not denied that the law might enforce enfranchisements; and if this was only another useless step to create expense it would be very undesirable to read the Bill a second time, and settle nothing by it.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he could not agree with his noble and learned Friend who had just spoken. The measure stated that it was very desirable to get rid of this inconvenient copyhold tenure, which had many disadvantages. He had never heard anyone point out an advantage in connection with copyhold tenure, and the principle of the Bill was that it took another step in the direction of getting rid of it. Were their Lordships going to reject a Bill founded on that principle—a Bill which had received the sanction of the House of Commons, of a Select Committee of the Land Commissioners, and of that branch of the Legal Profession which was conversant with the question? Were their Lordships going to reject the principle of the Bill because there was no time this Session to discuss details. Some of the clauses, no doubt, ought to receive very careful consideration; but he did not think that the House would put itself in a much better position with respect to the question than it now occupied if it affirmed the principle that it was desirable to make progress in the direction of getting rid of this tenure, and also that the details of the measure required consideration. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack asked why a Bill of this sort should be proposed when the law already enabled the lord or the tenant to compel enfranchisement. The answer to that was that the present provisions were such that nobody had an interest in putting them in motion except upon
  492
  particular occasions. If the law could be set in motion in the manner proposed by the Bill they would practically get an important step towards the end which all agreed it was desirable to attain. He would not discuss the details of the measure because if the principle was right the details would have to be considered at the proper time. Everyone admitted that the present state of the law was unsatisfactory. There were minerals which could not be got at, and that was a state of things injurious to the public. Surely the proper course to adopt was to read the Bill a second time in order that the details might be discussed if there were time, and if there were not, that there Lordships might indicate that they were not hostile to the principle of the measure.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT CRANBROOK),said, he was disappointed that the noble and learned Earl who had just spoken had not laid down a principle on which they could vote. All he had said was that the Bill was a step in the direction of enfranchisement. He (Viscount Cranbrook) did not yield to anyone in his objection to copyhold tenures; but this seemed to be one of those Bills which originated in the feeling that something must be done, and then it often was supposed that anything would do. It was a sort of Joseph Surface Bill, full of high sentiments not carried into practice—an illustration of faith without works. The House ought not to be called upon to approve a principle which was not accurately defined by the noble and learned Lord who had introduced the Bill, or by those who had supported it, and to commit themselves to something of which an inconvenient application might be made next year.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that if there was any imitation of Joseph Surface in the matter, it was in fully recognizing that there were evils that called for remedy, and yet in declining to support a measure calculated to diminish those evils. The principle of the Bill had been clearly stated by the noble and learned Lord who moved the second reading. It was admitted that the evils were considerable evils, that the tenure was a bad one, and that there were grave details for discussion in Committee; and no one had impugned the general principle of the Bill, which

  493
  ought not to be rejected, simply because there might not be time to consider it in Committee.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, he objected to the Bill as a piece of legislation intended to worry people who wanted to be let alone, and to compel them to enfranchise whether they liked or not. He believed that the Bill would, if passed in its present shape, affect very many rights over considerable tracts of moorland, and to that he objected.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion?
  Their Lordships divided:— Contents 14; Not-Contents 46: Majority 32.
  Resolved in the negative.
  Bill to be road 2a on this day three months.

PLURALITIES BILL.—(No. 213.)
(The Lord Bishop of London.)
PLURALITIES BILL.—(No. 213.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it had already twice passed their Lordships' House. The Bill was intended to remedy the defects of the Pluralities Act of about 50 years ago. In case of the holder of two benefices being unable to provide for the duties of one of them, and being unable to obtain a clergyman to undertake those duties for the stipend offered, the Bishop had now no power to interfere. The Bill would enable the Bishop to appoint a curate in such cases and to assign an adequate salary out of the revenues of the living. When benefices were vacant the Bishop could appoint a temporary curate, but at a salary which no curate would now accept. He had, when Bishop of Exeter, on several occasions himself paid a curate in these circumstances. As the law now stood in Wales, no clergyman could be appointed to the cure of souls who could not preach in Welsh. But the Bishop had no power to order Welsh services to be celebrated. This Bill would enable the Bishop to order that at least one Welsh service should be held on Sundays. In these circumstances he hoped their Lordships would read the Bill a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Bishop of London.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

POOR LAW UNIONS' OFFICERS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 214.)
(The Marquess of Waterford.)
POOR LAW UNIONS' OFFICERS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 214.)

  SECOND HEADING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to enable Boards of Guardians in Ireland to give pensions to officers on the abolition of their offices. As the law now stood these Boards could give pensions to their officers on the ground of ill-health or resignation through old age; but they were not able to give pensions in cases where the offices had been abolished. These cases would mainly occur where Unions had to be amalgamated. Where two Unions had to be amalgamated—and there was a prospect of such amalgamation—it would be very hard upon the officers of a Union amalgamated to another Union if they were turned out into the world without pensions. The Bill provided that the Union which was abolished should provide the funds. He thought it only fair that such a Bill I should be passed, and he, therefore, I moved the second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Marquess of Waterford.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

EARLDOM OF MAR RESTITUTION BILL.
(The Earl of Rosebery.)
EARLDOM OF MAR RESTITUTION BILL.

  (NO. 107.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of REDESDALE)said, he was surprised that the noble and learned Earl (the Earl of Selborne) should ask their Lordships to go into Committee on this Bill, which was a wholly unprece-

  495
  dented measure, and was not really a restitution Bill at all. What was at stake with regard to this Peerage? The Bill said—
  "And whereas doubts may exist whether the said ancient honour, dignity, and title of peerage of Earl of Mar, which so descended to the said Isabella, Countess of Mar, was or was not previously to 1565 by any lawful means surrendered or merged in the Crown."
  This Peerage had never been represented in Parliament since it became extinguished. The way in which this matter stood was rather peculiar. The gentleman who was to be benefited by this Bill had never applied to the Crown claiming to be entitled to the dignity; but in opposing another person who got the Peerage he refused to have the Peerage described as in this Bill. The Standing Orders of the House were againt this mode of procedure, for they laid clown that neither the House nor a Committee should proceed upon any claim to the Peerage until the necessary Petition should have been lodged, along with a statement containing a history of the pedigree and an abstract of the proof and authority upon which the claim was to be founded. In this instance no printed case had been lodged, and the only evidence upon which it stood was what was taken in their Lordships' House, some of it many years ago, so that no one could have gone through it without very great labour. It was upon the evidence on which this gentleman refused to make a claim that the title was now to be given to him by Act of Parliament. This was a proceeding of so strange a character that if their Lordships were not particularly careful a precedent might be established which would have a dangerous effect with regard to the future. If this precedent were to be followed, a man might be raised to the Peerage by Act of Parliament without any satisfactory proof entitling him to such Peerage. He confessed it was with reluctance that he had come forward in this way; but he felt it his duty not to allow this matter to be treated in so summary a manner without raising an objection and bringing it clearly and distinctly before the House. He entertained the highest opinion of the late Lord Chancellor, who had been the chief promoter of this Bill; but he could not help remembering that the noble and learned Earl
  496
  acted as counsel for the gentleman who claimed the Earldom. This was unfortunate, although he did not mean to say I that it influenced him to the slightest extent. No one had yet stated the grounds on which the Bill was based, and in these circumstances he thought it would be most injudicious for their Lord-ships to proceed further with the measure. The matter required more inquiry and more time for consideration than the few days given to it. If the present case was to be pursued, and a man was to have a Peerage conferred by Act of Parliament, they would give up every-thing in the practice of the House in regard to the establishment of Peerage claims.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he had heard the speech of the noble Earl with much surprise. There was a bound to all things, and he thought the noble Earl would have been satisfied with what had already taken place. When the late Lord Privy Seal (the Earl of Rosebery) introduced this Bill at the command of the Crown he stated very clearly the reasons for its introduction. In the course of that debate he had I himself an opportunity of stating his reasons for thinking that the introduction of the Bill was right. The measure was received with general assent on both sides of the House, as it promised to put an end to a long and a by no means convenient controversy. The noble Earl stated at that time his objections to the Bill, but neither he nor any other noble Lord moved to reject it on the second reading. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lothian) took, as he thought, a very generous and right course, saying that he would be very glad if the Preamble could be proved, and that in that case the Bill might pass and the controversy be brought to a close. But the noble Marquess added; that he thought it right that the Preamble should be proved. The noble Earl had treated this measure as if it were a Bill to relieve a person who claimed a Peerage from the necessity of making his claim in the usual manner. It was not so. It was really a Bill to remove the impediments which the noble Earl and the two noble Lords who were associated with him in the former case found to exist in the way of the re-establishment of this ancient Peerage. The Committee of Privileges found that

  497
  the Charter of Restitution of Mary, Queen of Scots, did not restore to John, then Lord Erskine, the ancient title Earl of Mar, but only to restore and reinvest in him the lauds belonging to the ancient territorial Earldom. One of the reasons urged against the gentleman to whom this Bill applied was that the action of the Crown had raised an impediment to the dignity being taken out by the person who would have been otherwise entitled to it. It was to remove that impediment, on proof of the Preamble, that the Bill by Her Majesty's command was introduced. Prom year to year, in Scotland and in England, there had been an increasing number of Peers who felt that justice in some way or another had not been done in this matter, but did not know whether that failure of justice was due to the tribunal of that House or not. They promoted what he would not venture to call an agitation, but a movement in that House and in Scotland which many other persons in Scotland participated in, and it was a fact that twice over 106 Peers, with the Duke of Sutherland at their head, had petitioned Her Majesty to use every means in her power to get the injustice which they conceived had been done redressed. So far was it from being the fact that he —because of any impression he might have formed as the former counsel for this gentleman—had taken any active steps towards having this matter brought forward, he had been one of the very last persons to be moved in it, because he had felt from first to last that it was his duty to maintain the authority of the Committee of Privileges of that House, and he had done so again and again; and he thought that he was maintaining that authority in the best way now, when—instead of leaving their decision to be still canvassed and a sense of rank-ling discontent by allowing things to go on as they were—ho sought to have the difficulty removed in the only way by which, consistently with what had been, done by their Lordships' House, it could be done—namely, by removing the impediments which had arisen. He was amazed to hear the noble Earl say that when the Bill was before the Select Committee the matter had been examined in an unsatisfactory way. The Earl of Kellie was present himself, and it was open to him to oppose the Preamble; but he preferred — and with
  498
  great good taste—simply to assist the Committee by pointing out the objections which he thought were to be taken to the Preamble. No other evidence could have been laid before the Select Committee than than which had been taken previously by the Committee of Privileges, which filled some 800 printed pages. The Select Committee were engaged for four days in investigating the subject, and all their Lordships who had sat upon it had the fullest opportunity of examining into the evidence which had bees n taken on the previous occasions. In his opinion no case had ever been more clearly proved than this had been. Their Lordships upon that Committee had had the assistance of almost all the noble and learned Lords who ever assisted the House in judicial matters. There was the Lord Chancellor, Lord Blackburn, Lord Watson, Lord Fitzgerald, and himself, and they were all perfectly unanimous with regard to it, while the noble Earl alone dissented from their opinion. He begged to move that the House resolve itself into Committee upon the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The Earl of REDESDALE)said, he thought that their Lordships were about to set a new and most dangerous precedent.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Amendments (proposed by the Select Committee) made: The Report thereof to be received To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.

MEDICAL RELIEF DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.—(No. 207.)
(The Earl of Milltown.)
MEDICAL RELIEF DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.—(No. 207.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD BALFOUR,in moving the insertion of a new clause for the purpose of amending the Bill by limiting its operation to two years, said, he ventured to think that a matter of this great importance had not received that calm and deliberate attention which it ought to have done. There had been a great deal of recrimination and a desire, if he might say so without offence to either side, to make Party capital out of the proposal. He should like, therefore, that the final decision of the question

  499
  should be referred to the new Parliament. He admitted that if this Bill were not passed a certain amount of in justice might be felt for the first year; or two. But he thought that in a matter of this kind they ought to be very careful not to go beyond: the strict necessities of the case. By adopting his Amendment their Lord-ships, while giving no ground for complaint on the part of those who from ignorance of the law might have incurred the risk of disqualification through having accepted medical relief, would minimize the evil effect which would flow from the adoption of a principle which might render the working classes less thrifty than they had hitherto been, and might cause the administration of the Poor Law to become more lax than it was at present. He thought it was extremely doubtful whether the mass of the working classes wished this change made; certainly that was his information as to Scotland. The opinion was that the class which would most profit would be the loafers—the men who stood about the street corners, and who, when work was found for them, were not ready to do it. The judgment of the House of Commons had, he believed, never been taken on the point as to the limitation of time of operation of the Bill. All he pleaded for was that time should be given to the working classes to show what their real wishes were in the matter, and if they did so he should be perfectly satisfied. He begged to move the new clause.
  Moved, after Clause 4, insert as a new clause—
  "This Act shall continue in force till the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven, and no longer unless Parliament shall otherwise determine." —(The Lord Balfour.)
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he hoped their Lordships would not agree to this Amendment. His noble Friend had taken it for granted that the principle of the Bill was wrong, and that it therefore ought to be law as short a time as possible. If the working class were opposed to the Bill, nothing would be easier than to repeal the measure; but in what was virtually a Franchise Bill, to insert a clause limiting it to any period was, he thought, absolutely unprecedented. The noble Lord had mentioned a case in which a sewing machine
  500
  had been given under the name of relief; but relief with which this Bill dealt was medical relief, and no one, he thought, had ever heard of a surgeon prescribing a sewing machine for a patient. His noble Friend seemed to think that the receipt of medical relief was a crime.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he was not conscious of having made use of such an expression. He thought the remark of the noble Lord might subject him to some animadversion. His Friends near him had not heard such an expression.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he had distinctly heard the word crime. It struck him as remarkable in such a connection.
  THE EARL OR CAMPERDOWNsaid, he could assure the noble Lord that he did use the word "crime."
  LORD BALFOURsaid, in that case he would withdraw it, as he had no intention of using it in such a connection.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he was glad to give his noble Friend the opportunity of correcting the expression. He must oppose the Amendment, and he hoped it would not be entertained.
  LORD FITZGERALDalso opposed the Amendment, and pointed out that the Government had in taking up the question dropped the clause in Mr. Jesse Collings's Bill which was to remain in operation for only a year and a-half.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, that the principal argument in favour of this Amendment was that the Bill would demoralize the poor; but he did not believe it would have that effect, because it would not interfere with the administration of the Poor Law. He hoped his noble Friend would not press his Amendment. It was quite clear what the opinion of their Lordships was upon the subject.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was very grateful to the noble Earl who had taken charge of the Bill for the argument which he brought forward to day in favour of the measure. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment argued against the whole Bill. He said his proposal was a very modest one, and so it was from him considering that he was opposed to the entire Bill. He did not think that occasional disqualification would deter a man from making application for medical relief. The noble Mar-

  501
  quess (the Marquess of Salisbury) the other evening used one argument with which he agreed—namely, that on a subject of this kind it was not desirable that this House should differ from the House of Commons. When a proposal such as that which had been by the noble Lord was made in the House of Commons by a county Member it received absolutely no support.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it appeared to him that the effect of the Amendment would be to enact that the Houses of Parliament should consider this question again two or three years hence. He did not think they had so distinguished themselves on the present occasion that that would be a desirable prospect.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.

SCIENCE AND ART—SITE OF THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LAMINGTON,in rising to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the site of the National Portrait Gallery, said, that only a few months ago this most valuable collection was almost destroyed by fire, and they had a report from Captain Shaw to that effect. His advice would be that the collection at South Kensington should be kept together, and that a building should be erected on the present site. If there should not be a distinct pledge from the Government that a new gallery should be built for this most admirable collection next year, in his opinion the pictures might as well go to Kensal Green as to Bethnal Green, because when they were a few years at Bethnal Green it would be said that they had been safe there, they had done a great deal of good to the people of the East End, and that they might as well be left there. He would ask the noble Lord whether, if the pictures went to Bethnal Green, it would be on the distinct understanding that the present Government, if they were in Office next year—and that was not quite certain—would erect a suitable building for the reception of the pictures? A most valuable picture had been received the other day from the Emperor of Austria
  502
  —a picture of Pitt addressing the House of Commons on the declaration of war against France in 1793. That picture had been discovered by the industry at assiduity of the Secretary, Mr. Scharf, who went to Vienna. The Emperor of Austria gave it to Lady Paget, and she presented it to the National Portrait Gallery.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, he thought every one of their Lordships would sympathize with the noble Lord in his desire for the safe-keeping of the very valuable collection at the National Portrait Gallery. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had given the question very careful consideration in consultation with the best authorities, and he had come to the conclusion that the place where these pictures were at present housed was in a most unsatisfactory state. Another gallery near to it had been spoken of; but it was found that this was equally unsatisfactory. In fact, there was no place available at the present time under the control of the First Commissioner where the collection could be properly housed even temporarily; but he had come to the conclusion that this invaluable collection ought at once to be removed. Under these circumstances, the Trustees decided to make a proposal to the Science and Art Department to take the collection on loan at the Bethnal Green Museum. Among the Trustees were the noble Viscount (Viscount Hardinge), the Chair-man, Mr. Gladstone, the Lord President of the Council, Mr. Stanhope, the noble Lord who had brought the Motion forward, Mr. Beresford Hope, Sir Richard Wallace, Sir Frederic Leighton, and Sir J. E. Millais. No doubt, their Lordships would have every confidence in the judgment of such a body. They were unanimous, he was told, in making the proposal, and he believed the noble Lord (Lord Lamington) was the only Trustee who dissented. He had told their Lordships why. It had now been arranged that the noble Viscount the Lord President should be requested to ascertain whether the offer of the loan in question would be accepted. The noble Viscount was the Head of the Science and Art Department, which had control over the Bethnal Green Museum, as well as a I Trustee of the National Portrait Gallery; and he wished he was there to speak for himself; but he might say if there was

  503
  any doubt as to the safety of placing the collection at Bethnal Green that Sir Richard Wallace did not hesitate to leave his magnificent collection there for two or three years. The loan for obvious reasons would be a temporary one only; but he felt sure that, as was the case with the collection of Sir Richard Wallace, which was visited by over 900,000 persons in six months, and that of the Prince of Wales, which was visited by a somewhat larger number in the year, this collection would be most fully appreciated by those living in the East End of London, who might not have such another opportunity of seeing these pictures. To show the general interest taken in the Museum, he might say that th8 number of visitors, taking the average of 13 years, was 576,000 annually. He thought their Lordships would fully endorse the decision of the Trustees in consultation with his right hon. Friend. He must remind their Lordships that the Office of Works had no control over the collection. The duty of the Office was to provide a proper place when directed by Parliament and the necessary Vote was granted. It was impossible for the First Commissioner to make any definite proposals or give any definite pledge for the future; but it was his intention to give most careful consideration to the question of a site for a new gallery; and if, as he (Lord Henniker) hoped in common with many of their Lordships, an Estimate was prepared to provide a proper place for the collection, which no doubt the new Parliament would have the public spirit to grant, he would endeavour to have plans ready. He might be allowed to express his personal interest in the collection, which could not be replaced, as his noble Relative the late Lord Stanhope had done so much in making the collection. He believed their Lordships would agree with him that his right hon. Friend had done all he could under the circumstances in conjunction with the Trustees to preserve the collection to the country, and to endeavour to come to a satisfactory conclusion as to its permanent home.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before One o'clock.