Lords Sitting of 23 June 1886

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Report—Third Reading—Intoxicating Liquors (Sale to Children * (176), and passed.
Select Committee—Report—Parish Churches [No. 201].
Report—Third Reading—Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act (1875) Amendment * (162); Land Tax Commissioners' Names * (165); Returning Officers' Charges (Scotland) * (173); Tithe Rent-Charge (Extraordinary) Redemption (174); Westminster Abbey Restoration * (183); Shop Hours Regulation (199–204).
Third Reading—Medical Acts Amendment * (187); Customs* (175); Revising Barristers'

187
Appointment * (179); Revising Barristers (Ireland) * (180); Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) * (181); Public Works Loans (Tramways Ireland) * (182); Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Public Works Loans * (188), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Local Government (No. 4) * (171).
Committee—Third Reading—Gas and Water * (136), and passed.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE (EXTRAORDINARY) REDEMPTION BILL.
(The Lord Sudeley.)
TITHE RENT-CHARGE (EXTRAORDINARY) REDEMPTION BILL.

  (NO. 193.) REPORT.
  Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendments read.
  Moved, "That the said Report be now received."—(The Lord Sudeley.)
  LORD HARRISsaid, that Clause 9, as originally framed, provided that certain fees should be paid in equal proportions by the titheowner and the landowner; but yesterday morning there was a meeting at the Home Office, at which the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough), and the noble Lord opposite (Lord Sudeley) were present, and the result was that the noble Lord (Lord Sudeley) came down to the House last evening and proposed many Amendments to the Bill, which had set aside the compromise which had been arrived at under which the expenses of carrying out the provisions of the Bill were to be equally divided between the titheowner and the landowner. The whole of those expenses were now thrown upon the landowner, while it was left open to the Land Commissioners to fix any scale of fees they might think proper. He was told that if he asked their Lordships to support him in restoring the clause to its original form he would imperil the passing of the Bill, and, therefore, he did not intend to divide the House upon the point, as he desired that the disgraceful scenes of riot and agitation which had arisen out of this question should not be renewed. He was anxious, however, to call their Lordships' attention to the way in which Bills were manipulated in a hurried manner in the last moments of a moribund Parliament. The measure provided that whether the crop which was the subject of extraordinary tithe was grown or not in the future the landowner should pay the extraordinary
  188
  tithe just the same. He did not think that it was a wise act on the part of the representatives of the Church to throw the whole of these charges upon the landowner.
  LORD SUDELEYdesired to explain the exact position of this Amendment. The House would remember that, owing to the difficulties which were raised on the second reading, arrangements were made to hold a meeting of all interested in the subject at the Home Office yesterday. Amongst the Amendments which were agreed to was this proposal—namely, that the landowners should pay the expenses incurred by the Commissioners in carrying out the provisions of the Bill. He would not attempt to argue with the noble Lord as to whether the landowners or the titheholders would benefit most by the Bill, as there was considerable difference of opinion on this head; but, at any rate, it should be remembered, so far as the clergy were concerned, that little doubt existed that for a certain time their incomes would be diminished, although eventually they might be the gainers by the charge being made permanent. The important point, however, was this—that when the matter came to be inquired into, it was found that in the Tithe Commutation Act, which was a proper precedent to follow, it was the landowners who had to pay the expenses of carrying out the apportionment. If their Lordships would refer to 6 & 7 Will IV. c. 71 s. 74, they would find it provided that such expenses—
  "Shall be borne and paid by the landowners and titheowners interested in the said award in such proportion, time, and manner as the Commissioners or Assistant Commissioners shall direct."
  The Land Commissioners were strongly of the opinion that this precedent ought to be followed in the present case; and it was mainly on their recommendation that this proposal had been adopted. It must be borne in mind that, as he had stated the previous night, this was not a Government Bill, and that they had only taken charge of it to forward what they believed to be a fair compromise on behalf of all parties concerned.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, he was glad that his noble Friend did not intend to divide the House; but he must join in the protest against the unrea-

  189
  sonable way in which that Bill had been brought before their Lordships. It came up to them in such a manner that no Amendments in it could be properly considered. For his own part, he passively submitted in this case to what had taken place; but he thought that the measure ought to have reached them at an earlier period of the Session. They had not even before them the evidence taken by the Select Committee of the other House on the subject, and their Lordships were putting themselves too much in the position of a mere Registry of the decrees of the House of Commons; and they ought to be careful how they gave further encouragement to that tendency. He was, however, aware that the evils connected with the collection of extraordinary tithe had been great under the present state of things; and, hoping that that measure might lead to peace and cause no great diminution of income to the clergy, as a landowner he was ready to submit to its passing.
  Motion agreed to.
  Amendment reported (according to order); further Amendments made: Then Standing Order No. XXXV. considered (according to order) and dispensed with: Bill road 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and sent to the Commons; and to he printed as amended. (No. 203.)

SHOP HOURS REGULATION BILL.
(The lord Sudeley.)
SHOP HOURS REGULATION BILL.

  (NO. 199.) REPORT.
  Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendments read.
  Moved, "That the said Report be now received."—(The Lord Sudeley.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS, in rising to move, as an Amendment—
  "That it is not desirable to proceed further with this Bill until the evidence upon the subject taken by the Select Committee of the House of Commons has been communicated to this House,"
  said, that that measure had been brought before their Lordships under such circumstances and in such a way that, considering the importance of the subject, as affecting the retail trade of the whole Kingdom, it was not desirable that the Bill should now proceed further. It had been hurried through the other House at the close of the Session;
  190
  it stood for a second reading by their Lordships before most of them had even seen it in print; it was presented to them without their having had an opportunity of seeing the evidence upon which it rested; and they were now asked to rush it through in the last hours of an expiring Parliament. The Bill, if passed, could only be carried out by a system of espionage; he believed that it was unworkable, and that those who were pushing it forward knew that it was unworkable, but they hoped when it was found to be so that they would be able to insist on dealing with adult labour by the same kind of legislation as they now sought to deal with the labour of young persons. A main reason for the existence of the House of Lords was that it should be a check on crude and hasty legislation. The country would be disappointed if the Lords did not act as a Court of Appeal on legislation of this character, and insist that full knowledge and time should be given for the consideration of a Bill of such a grave character. The agitation on this subject had been organized by Mr. Sutherst, standing counsel to the Salvation Army, and its object was, not to limit the hours of labour of persons below 18, but "effectually to reduce the hours of labour in shops and similar places." That meant the shutting up of shops and interfering with adult male labour, which was a new principle. If their Lordships passed this Bill in its present crude form, and without any prospect of its being brought into actual operation, they would before the end of next Session have a Bill to regulate all labour in shops. That would be an intolerable tyranny, an intolerable interference with the trade of this country. When he and those who agreed with him raised this question they were met by moral lessons from the Episcopal Bench and from a lay Bishop, the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), and were told that the principle of the Bill was in the Factory Acts. But their Lordships ought to have before them the evidence upon which the measure rested. The Chairman of the Shopkeepers' Defence Association wrote to him to say that though over 60 witnesses had been examined before the Committee of the House of Commons, only seven were examined on the side he represented. The probability, there-

  191
  fore, was that if the evidence was before their Lordships they would find it to be unsatisfactory. The Committee was not unanimous. A counter Report was drafted and laid before the Committee by Sir James Fergusson, in which it was stated that some of the witnesses expressed a willingness to accept the Bill as a step in the right direction. His experience was that steps in the right direction were strides in the wrong. The conclusion to which Sir James Fergusson came was that the evils complained of were not so great as to require a legislative remedy. The Factory Inspectors themselves said that the Factory Acts had no bearing on the labour employed in shops. He was not opposed to the principle of the Bill, but he looked to its practical effect. He did not believe that this Bill would be good for the young people themselves. Practically, kindly feeling, philanthropy, and the pressure of public opinion were effecting all that the Bill aimed at. The noble Earl concluded by moving the Amendment which stood in his name.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("it is not desirable to proceed farther with this Bill until the evidence upon the subject taken before the Select Committee of the House of Commons has been communicated to this House.")—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that he objected to the Bill because its effect would be to close shops in poor districts at times when they were now kept open to suit the needs of the inhabitants.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss) had referred to him as a member of a Society for promoting the objects of this Bill. He had not been a member of that Society, because he had made it a rule in his public life never to join any Society whatever of a political character, for he had ascertained that membership of such a Society almost always converted a man, otherwise sensible, into a fanatic. For that reason it would have been better if his noble Friend had not joined and become Chairman of another Society, for in his speech that night his noble Friend had shown himself to be a lay fanatic. Although he knew nothing of the Society to which the noble Earl had referred, he did know something of the Gentleman who was in charge of this Bill in "another place"
  192
  —Sir John Lubbock. He was one of the most eminent men in the country, and by no means a man who would take up a measure of this kind from any feeling of fanaticism, but one who would deal calmly and coolly with the evidence before him. The noble Earl denounced the principle of this Bill, denying that it had any analogy to the Factory Acts. To his mind the Bill contained exactly the same principle as the Factory Acts. Every large shop might become a factory, though, no doubt, it was an extension of the principle of factory legislation to apply it to shops. The question was whether the evidence before them justified that extension.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: There is no evidence.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Although they had not the evidence taken by the Select Committee of the House of Commons before them, they knew perfectly well, from the discussions which had taken place in the public Press, that the attendance of young persons, and especially of young women and girls in shops, was sometimes very great indeed and most injurious. Under these circumstances, he trusted that their Lordships would not be induced by the somewhat fanatical denunciations of the noble Earl to reject the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwished to say that he was guided in this matter by the principle which he enunciated last night. The principle of this Bill was sound. It was a principle which had again and again been sanctioned by the Legislature, and he did not feel justified in rejecting a Bill of which the principle was sound unless some specific evil or inconvenience could be shown to be likely to result from it. In the present case no evil or inconvenience had been shown as likely to be produced by the Bill, and, therefore, in his opinion, there was no ground for rejecting the measure.
  On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Affirmative: Amendments reported accordingly.
  Standing Order No. XXXV. considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and sent to the Commons; and to be printed as amended. (No. 204.)

INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SALE TO CHILDREN) BILL.—(No. 176.)
(The Earl of Milltown.)
INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SALE TO CHILDREN) BILL.—(No. 176.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1 (Sale of liquors to children to be illegal).
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 8, leave out ("supplies") and insert ("sells").—(The Earl of Milltown.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not think that the Bill would increase the admiration which was felt for such specimens of legislation as that under consideration; but he thought the Amendment now proposed would meet objections which were felt in many quarters to the Bill, and, therefore, he did not propose to offer any opposition to its passing.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH (Dr. MAGEE)said, that while he was as strongly in favour of temperance as anyone could possibly be, yet he deprecated polemical legislation of the kind, and the passing of laws to enforce morality by means of severe penalties. He was aware of the obloquy to which he had exposed himself on previous occasions by advocating that view; but he felt bound to express his extreme objection to legislation which connived at promoting morality by penal enactment. It was not the duty of the State to enforce religion or morality by statute. He thought it a perilous course, and feared they were coming to a time in which more and more legislation of that character would be attempted. Without saying that the State could never so interfere with advantage he thought the circumstances were rare, much rarer than was commonly supposed, when it could safely act in that way. The enforcement of morality by penalty was open to two great dangers. If they made the penalties severe they would be likely to lead to a violent reaction in the direction of immorality. If they remembered how the attempts to force religion on people in the time of the Puritans led to the laxity which prevailed under the Restoration, they could not feel much encouraged to proceed on similar lines to any great extent. There was another serious danger also. The attempt of the State to enforce moral
  194
  precepts by law would be likely to destroy the self-restraint of individuals, by teaching them to rely upon the State for that which every individual should do from his own sense of right. He confessed that he felt that the effect of carrying prohibitive legislation to the extent of the Bill before the House would be far different from what the promoters anticipated. History, he believed, showed that most of the great evils from which society had suffered had resulted from the State trying to do the work which the Church should have done, and also from the Church's attempting to do that which should have been done by the State; and he feared they were now doing many things by the State which ought to be left to the Church. That was not the first occasion in which he had upheld a reasonable and common-sense policy in opposition to purely fanatical views. He, nevertheless, believed that a man was more safe in kicking over a hornet's nest than in encountering a fanatic.
  LORD ABERDAREobserved, that the right rev. Prelate might have gone a little further and said whether he opposed all legislative efforts in the direction of the promotion of temperance. The question before the House was whether young children were to be supplied with drink for their own consumption.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that that was just what the Bill did not prevent. What it did prevent, however, was children fetching beer in their own jugs for the use of their parents, who, being poor people, did not keep servants and who were unable to fetch it themselves.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)supported the Amendment, pointing out that the clause as it stood in the Bill would render possible the prosecution of an hotel waiter who should pour out a glass of wine for a child at the bidding of the parent.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he believed the great evil existed both in England and Scotland in sending young children to public-houses to get spirits. He did not agree with the view expressed by his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Peterborough) as to the intention of Parliament in promoting legislation of this sort. The object of Parliament in passing some of these measures was for the protection of

  195
  society against one of its greatest dangers. With, respect to the Bill now before their Lordships, however, so far as he read it, it would be a very ineffective measure. There was no machinery whatever by which the public could test the intention of the child. The object aimed at by the Bill, however, was fairly open to the consideration of Parliament.
  In answer to Viscount CRANBROOK,
  THE LORD CHANCELLORexpressed the opinion that prosecutions would only be successful in cases in which liquor was supplied to children and consumed by them on the premises. What the promoters of the measure desired was to prevent children from "tippling" in public-houses.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought that words ought to be inserted declaring that to constitute an offence the consumption of the liquor must be permitted on the premises.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Standing Order No. XXXV, considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Amendments reported: Bill read 3a, with the amendments, and passed, and sent to the Commons; and to be printed as amended. (No. 205.)

LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 198.)
(The Lord FitzGerald.)
Commons reasons for disagreeing to some of the Lords amendments considered (according to order).
Commons reasons for disagreeing to amendments made by the Lords as far as the amendment in page 4, line 40, read.
Moved, "That this House doth not insist on the amendments to which the Commons have disagreed."—(The Lord FilzGerald.)
Motion agreed to.
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he wished also to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment cutting out Clause 11, which gave compulsory powers of purchase. This clause was the backbone of the Bill, and if its omission was insisted on it would lead to its promoters abandoning the Bill altogether.
Moved, "That this House doth not insist on the omission of Clause 11."—(The Lord Fits Gerald.)
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he was desirous of seeing this Bill pass, which improved the machinery of the previous Labourers Act, and with that view he had not asked the House to insist on other Amendments. But this Clause 11 was one that there had been difficulty in accepting, as it sought to amend legislation which had only been granted last August, and which had hardly been tried. His noble and learned Friend had not stated that in any single part of Ireland there had been any difficulty in getting all the land that was asked for or required by simple agreement. When the Bill was before the House on a former occasion his noble Friend behind him stated that when asked to give by agreement some land near the town of Longford he at once consented, but he never heard anything more of the matter. It ought to be shown that all the means of getting land by agreement had been exhausted before they were asked to resort to compulsion.
THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that those who took an interest in the matter were unwilling to stop the Bill. They were content to move some Amendments in order to make the clause more precise. He would propose an Amendment to the effect that all reasonable efforts should be made to obtain the amount of land in the same locality by agreement or exchange.
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that he would accept the Amendment of the noble Earl.
Amendment (The Earl of Belmore) agreed to.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDproposed that a Provisional Order on this subject should not take effect until it had been confirmed by Act of Parliament.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)hoped that the noble Earl would not insist on moving that Amendment, seeing the great trouble and expense which would be imposed on persons if they were obliged to come over to Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the clause was of a very exceptional character, and it was very important that Parliament should retain in its

197
own hands the power of deciding whether that great and unusual authority was exercised properly or not. They knew that there were social difficulties in Ireland which might make Local Authorities not so unwilling as they otherwise would be to sanction plans which might be oppressive to individuals.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that it would not be necessary that every case should be fought out in Parliament; in fact, Provisional Orders were very rarely disputed.
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that the provision of the Act which required persons to come to Parliament had been deliberately given up, and the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council had been deliberately substituted as a sufficient protection.
Amendment (The Earl of Longford) (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
On Question, "That this House doth not insist on the omission of Clause 11?"
Resolved in the affirmative.
Bill returned to the Commons, with the amendments.

PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACT, 1885.
Return of proceedings under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885, up to and including 31st May 1886: Ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Lord Ashbourne.)
House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.