Lords Sitting of 18 June 1886

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Returning Officers' Charges (Scotland)* (173); Tithe Rent-Charge (Extraordinary) Redemption* (174); Customs* (175); Intoxicating Liquors (Sale to Children)* (176).
Second Reading—Losses by Riot (Compensation) (156); Terms of Removal (Scotland)* (157); Poor Law Loans and Relief (Scotland)* (158); Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries* (159); Medical Acts Amendment (155); Coal Mines* (160); Turnpike Roads (South Wales)* (161).
Committee—Tramways Order in Council (Ireland)* (132).
Committee—Report—International and Colonial Copyright (144).
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Post Office Sites* (130), and passed.
Report—Electric Lighting Act (1882) Amendment (No. 3) (148).
Withdrawn—Arbitration* (138); Butter Substitutes Regulation* (128).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Police and Improvement (Scotland) (Leith)* (150); Gas (No. 1)* (154).

ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACT (1882) AMENDMENT (No. 3) BILL.
(The Lord Houghton.)

(NO. 148.) REPORT.
Amendments reported (according to order).
Moved, Before Clause 1, to insert the following Clause:—
"Notwithstanding anything in the Electric Lighting Act 1882 no Provisional Order authorizing the supply of electricity by any undertakers within the district of any Local Authority shall be granted by the Board of Trade except with the consent of such Local Authority, unless the Board of Trade in any case in which the consent of such Local Authority is refused are of opinion that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, such consent ought to be dispensed with, and in such case they shall make a special report stating the grounds upon which they have dispensed with such consent."—(The Lord Houghton.)
VISCOUNT BURYsaid, that several Bills dealing with electric lighting had been referred to a Select Committee some time ago. The Committee heard a great deal of evidence not only from Local Authorities in various towns throughout the country, but from many other persons interested in electric lighting. The opinion at which the majority
1834
of the Committee arrived was that although it was fair that at the end of a certain number of years Local Authorities should be allowed to purchase electric lighting plant, yet that it would not be fair to give them an undue preference. In consequence of that decision this clause, which formed part of an Electric Lighting Bill before the Committee, was, after discussion, deliberately rejected by a majority of the Committee. The noble Lord now said that he had since received communications from the Members of that Committee to the effect that they viewed with indifference the restoration of this clause in the Bill. This clause conferred on Local Authorities in various districts a power which had not even been granted to them by the obsolete Act of 1882. By that Act Local Authorities were given a power of prohibition of licences; but they had no power of prohibition in the Electric Lighting Act of 1882 for Provisional Orders. This clause, however, conferred on Local Authorities the power of voting Provisional Orders. After hearing all the evidence the Committee deliberately rejected the clause on the ground that it was giving Local Authorities undue power created now for the first time, and which did not exist in the Act of 1882. But now the noble Lord came down, in the last hours of a dying Parliament, and tried to insert this clause rejected by the Committee. He submitted that such a proceeding was not fair. If anything was to be gained by such tactics he could imagine the noble Lord making a fight for the clause; but there was really nothing to be gained by this attempt to reinstate the clause. The fact was that the noble Lord wished to have something on record in favour of the Local Authorities, which had not yet been recorded by their Lordships. He protested against the attempt, and opposed the insertion of the clause.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he wished to correct the noble Viscount in two particulars. The first was that it was not quite correct to say that the Committee rejected the clause. The Committee divided evenly upon it; five voted in favour of the clause, and five against it, and by the Rules of their Lordships' House the decision was that the "Noes" had it.
VISCOUNT BURY: It was struck out on a division.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he wished to inform the House that in the Committee the numbers were even on the division, and that one Member of the Committee was absent. He advised their Lordships to accept the clause, because he could assure them that the Committee conducted its labours with the greatest possible care, and considered both sides of the question in the most impartial manner. The clause did not actually alter the existing law in any sense which gave the Local Authorities any power; it simply recognized the existence of the Local Authorities, and said that their consent was to be given in the case of Provisional Orders, and that if they refused that consent in an unreasonable manner the Board of Trade should have the opportunity of overruling it. He supported the clause because it did not give any new power to the Local Authorities, and because it was a very reasonable one to insert in the Bill.
On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 24; Not-Contents 37: Majority 13.
LORD HOUGHTONsaid, he would not now proceed to the third reading.

INTERNATIONAL AND COLONIAL COPYRIGHT BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)

(NO. 144.) COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to order).
Moved, In Clause 6, page 4, at end of clause add ("Provided however that within six months of the date of the publication of such order, the author or publisher of such work shall have the same duly registered at Stationers' Hall, in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Acts.")—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, he was afraid that such an Amendment would render it impossible to carry out the international arrangement with regard to copyright. If the Amendment were withdrawn, he would, before the third reading, communicate with those at the Foreign Office who had had the matter under their consideration and ascertain whether the Amendment could be accepted.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Monday next.

LOSSES BY RIOT COMPENSATION BILL.—(No. 156.)
(The Lord Sudeley.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SUDELEY(for the Home Department), in moving that the Bill be read a second time, said, the object of the Bill was to make general a similar Act which had been passed for the Metropolis. It compensated those insured as well as those uninsured. The area of compensation was made the police district, whether for county or borough; but there were two exceptions. Where a county was divided into districts the area would be the district; and where the county and borough were consolidated for police work payment would be made according to certain proportions. There was a right of appeal reserved when people did not consider the compensation offered sufficient. The Bill applied not only to property on shore, but also to cases of plundering ships or boats, stranded or near the shore, by persons riotously assembled ashore or afloat.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Sudeley.)
EARL STANHOPEsaid, it was unfair that persons who had carriages wrecked should not be included in the Bill. The matter had been brought home to him personally, because he had had his carriage attacked. He had applied for compensation, which was refused, as carriages were not to be paid for out of the police rate, though all had to contribute to these rates. All persons, whether rich or poor, ought to be treated equally and equitably by a Bill of this kind.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

MEDICAL ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 155.)
(The Lord President, Earl Spencer.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Earl SPENCER), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time,

1837
said, it referred to a matter which was not new to their Lordships. Since 1870 there had been over 20 unsuccessful attempts at legislation on this subject. When he had the honour, in 1881, of filling the Office which he now held he recommended the appointment of a Royal Commission on the subject. That Commission was composed of very able men, and made a very exhaustive Report. The opinion of the vast majority was in favour of direct representation, and that enabled the Government to propose a Bill which for the first time provided for the representation of medical practitioners on the Council. That Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, and in 1884 it went through the same process. Last year no Bill was presented; but this year his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council (Sir Lyon Playfair), who had very great advantages in dealing with the subject, introduced a measure, and succeeded in carrying it through its various stages. That was the first time a Bill on the subject passed through the House of Commons, and great credit was due to his right hon. Friend for the skill and ability with which he had conducted the measure. That was the Bill which he had now the honour to present to their Lordships. The subject was one upon which legislation was very much needed, as there had been for a long time very great uncertainty with regard to the whole question of medical education and examination. At present there were somewhat over 16,000 medical practitioners in the United Kingdom, who had received their licences from a great variety of bodies. He believed 19 in all gave certificates which enabled the holders to be registered on the roll of medical practitioners. In order to get on the register it was not necessary to pass through the schools of medicine and surgery; to pass through one or other would do. Consequently, no one knew whether those whose names were on the register had got a certificate of medicine or a certificate of surgery. The bodies which gave the certificates were the Universities of the United Kingdom—they had the power of giving certificates both in medicine and surgery—and such Corporations as the College of Physicians in England and Ireland and the College of Surgeons. The College of Physicians in London claimed,
1838
he believed, the privilege of giving certificates both in medicine and surgery; but the other Corporations had not that power. This Bill steered clear of some difficulties which had wrecked the other Bill. It dealt with points of great importance, but upon which there was practically agreement in the Three Kingdoms. The main principle of the Bill was that before anybody could be registered as a medical practitioner he should get qualification in the three subjects of medicine, surgery, and midwifery. The certificates might be issued by the Universities, and also by the Corporations capable of giving complete qualifications. There was also a provision that Corporations might unite, and when united might give a complete qualification, and the Medical Council might assist them by sending examiners to carrying out the necessary qualifying examinations. Means were provided under the Bill for securing the full sufficiency of the examinations, and, when required, for raising the standard. Another important matter dealt with in the Bill was the constitution of the General Council. It was proposed that there should be five members of that Council directly elected from the general body of medical practitioners in the United Kingdom—three to be elected for England, one for Scotland, and one for Ireland. That was a very important matter, and it was one for which the medical practitioners throughout the country had long contended. It seemed very just that so powerful a Body, who performed such important duties, should have some representation on the Central Council which was to regulate and superintend the Profession throughout the United Kingdom. The Bill also proposed that Edinburgh and Glasgow should each have a separate representative on the General Council, and that Aberdeen and St. Andrew's should elect one jointly. Power was given to the Privy Council to advise Her Majesty, when it thought fit, to allow foreigners to practise in this country on certain conditions. The Bill was not a long one, nor did it involve any very new principle, and he hoped it might receive as much approval in their Lordships' House as it had received "elsewhere." If it passed, he could not but hope that they would have done a great deal to settle a vexed question which had disturbed the medical world for a long time, and to put our medical prac-

1839
tice on a better footing, to the benefit of the Profession and of the people of this country, who owed the Profession so much. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl Spencer.)
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he did not rise to offer any opposition to the Motion. On the contrary, he begged to congratulate his noble Friend on what he had done. He believed the provisions of the Bill had been carefully considered in the other House, and he quite agreed that it had been very skilfully managed by the Vice President. He would not now argue any of the points or clauses of the Bill, though he wished to give his noble Friend opposite Notice that he would move Amendments in Committee which would have the effect of permitting the University of Aberdeen and the University of St. Andrew's each to elect a member to the General Medical Council, instead of collectively as was proposed in the Bill.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he should support the proposition of his noble Friend. It was the only case in the Bill in which two Universities were tied together to make one appointment. As the Bill now stood the Irish Universities would each appoint one Member, making five in all, whereas in Scotland they would only have three Members.
EARL SPENCERsaid, he was afraid there would be considerable difficulty in re-arranging the measure so as to give effect to the Amendment. That, however, was a question for Committee. At the same time, the principle of combination of Universities for such a purpose was not a new one.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

ISLANDS OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC— THE NEW HEBRIDES—ACTION OF FRANCE.—QUESTION.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: In the absence of my noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) I wish to ask the noble Earl opposite, Whether he is able to give the House any information in respect of the unexpected
1840
proceedings of the French Government in the New Hebrides; and whether any communication has been made to the French Government on the subject?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: In the absence of my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, I beg to inform the noble Duke that a communication was made, on the receipt of the last intelligence in regard to what is alleged to have taken place, to the French Government, and I think I cannot do better than read to the House a telegram which hap been received by Lord Rosebery from Lord Lyons to-day. It is to this effect—
"I have seen M. de Freycinet this morning. He informed me that no intelligence had been received by the French Government of the hoisting of the French flag in the New Hebrides, but that nevertheless instructions were sent yesterday by telegraph to the Governor of New Caledonia that if the hoisting of the flag had taken place it should at once be discontinued. He had not received any intelligence of the other circumstances mentioned in the newspaper reports, and he promised to send me details about the murders which had occasioned the expedition."
THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, he was glad to hear the statement of the noble Earl. He was present the other night at a meeting, at which the Agent General for Victoria said that this question was exciting the keenest interest in the Australian Colonies, and he went so far as to say that this was a more important question of foreign policy than, the affairs of Bulgaria.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Twelve o'clock.