Lords Sitting of 18 May 1886

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, The Duke of Buckingham and Chandos and the Lord Kintore added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Municipal Corporations (Scheme Confirmation) * (90); Hyde Park Corner (New Streets) (88); Companies Acts Amendment (82).
Committee—Labourers (Ireland) Acts Amendment (51–120).
Committee—Report—Incumbents of Benefices Loans Extension * (89).
Third Reading—National Debt * (100).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) (No. 2) * (84).
Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) (Fermoy) * (32), and passed.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that Her Majesty had (by Commission) appointed the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos Speaker of the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor: The said Commission was read.
TREES (IRELAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with one of the amendments agreed to, some agreed to with amendments, and some disagreed to, together with Reasons for such disagreement: The Commons amendments and Reasons to be printed. (No. 117.)
PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER NO. 128).
The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed, for the use of the Members of this House; but no copies thereof to be delivered, except to Members of the Committee, until further order. (No. 118.)
RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
Return by railway companies respecting railway accidents, together with reports upon certain accidents inquired into, for the three months ended March 1886: Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
HYDE PARK CORNER (NEW STREETS) BILL.—(No. 88.)
(The Earl of Elgin.)
HYDE PARK CORNER (NEW STREETS) BILL.—(No. 88.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (The Earl of ELGIN), in moving that the Bill be read the second time, said, that it would be in the recollection of their Lordships that the improvements at Hyde Park Corner had been carried out by the Office which he had the honour to represent. The estimate for the whole of the works was £30,000; but the sum actually spent was £27,538, of which sum £20,000 was contributed by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and £3,000 by the Duke of Westminster, and the balance, £4,538, was defrayed out of votes granted by Parliament. Of this last sum £3,000 was spent in removing the reservoir from St. James's Park, and the remainder, £1,538, was spent on improvements. Having briefly referred to a former
  1262
  attempt at legislating on the subject' the noble Earl said, that last year a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons, and was re-introduced this year. It was there referred to a Hybrid Committee, which had power to hear witnesses, and before which the Metropolitan Board of Works was, he believed, requested by the Committee to appear, and was represented by counsel. He mentioned that to show that the whole subject was before the Committee of the other House. The Bill, therefore, which he had to present was the Bill of the Government, and also of the Committee of the Commons. It proposed, in the first place, that that portion of the space now covered by the improvements which had been included in the Green Park, and which, therefore, was a portion of the parish of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, should be severed from that parish, and should be considered for the future as situated in the parish of St. George's, Hanover Square. That would relieve the parish of St. Martin's from the obligation of maintaining that portion of the road. The Bill, in the next place, proposed that the maintenance of the roads should in future be defrayed in equal moieties by the Metropolitan Board and the Vestry of St. George's, Hanover Square. On that part of the Bill he did not wish to say anything more, as the Metropolitan Board had petitioned against it, and would be heard in opposition. The Bill was in the same position as a Private Bill, and would go through the same process. Therefore, he did not wish to anticipate what the Metropolitan Board might have to say before the Committee. With regard to the three open spaces, which were not at present in a very satisfactory state, he had to point out that their future maintenance was not transferred by the Bill. These spaces would be laid out by the Committee under the Presidency of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales; and it might interest their Lordships to know that the last payment to the sculptor for the statue of the Duke of Wellington was due next March, so that it might be expected that the Committee would be able soon afterwards to proceed with the work. When their work was completed, the maintenance of these spaces would devolve upon the Board of Works.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Elgin.)
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, that as the noble Earl had referred to the opposition which, he had successfully made on the former Bill, he was happy on the present occasion to say that he thought the Committee of the House of Commons had come to a reasonable settlement of the question, and that he supported the Bill as it now stood.
  EARL FORTESCUEcomplained that Mr. Shaw Lefevre had barbarously cut down a handsome group of trees, about 50 years old, which were an ornament to that wide blank space, and masked its irregularity; besides affording shade, which would have been very welcome in hot weather to the numbers often detained there some minutes by the traffic before being able to cross. Whenever required for the further improvements talked of, indeed, but not yet begun, the trees could have been taken down in a single day, though they would have been much better left. But, "drest in a little brief authority," that Minister must needs show it by hurriedly removing what could not be replaced in 40 years. It was a great pity that his want of taste and of practical knowledge of what was required there had, to a certain extent, marred a really great improvement.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 51.)
(The Lord FitzGerald.)
LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 51.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Definition of "agricultural labourer").
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that since the second reading of the Bill he had considered the objections that had been raised to the clause; and he now proposed that the definition of "agricultural labourer" should be modified, and that the term should apply to agricultural labourers proper, and to include within it hand-loom weavers and fishermen
  1264
  who ordinarily, during any period or periods of the year, did agricultural work on the land of another for hire. He hoped that the Amendment would meet with the sanction of the House.
  Amendment moved,
  In line 18, to leave out ("repealed") and the remainder of the clause and insert ("amended to this extent that the expression 'Agricultural labourer' in said twenty-third section shall include hand-loom weavers and fishermen who ordinarily during any period or periods of the year do agricultural work on the land of another on hire for payment by wages.")—(The Lord FitzGerald.)
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that there was no doubt that the clause as introduced was open to very considerable criticism, since the definition of agricultural labourer was wide enough to include any man, woman, or child, who had worked for half-a-day on another person's land. That could not have been intended, and was certainly an unsatisfactory state of things, and the Amendment was unquestionably in the right direction. He did not say that any hard-and-fast line could be laid down; but he thought some words might be inserted to indicate that the period of work should be a substantial one.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 struck out.
  Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Power of Local Government Board to dispense with advertisements and notices).
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he objected to the proposal to give the Local Government Board a discretionary power to dispense with notices and advertisements. He held that a man whose property would be affected by the execution of a scheme sanctioned by the Bill ought certainly to receive adequate notice of the proposed transaction. There might be little objection to the exercise by the present Local Government Board of this discretionary power to dispense with notices; but, nevertheless, it would be well to pause before vesting such a power in the Board, because, having regard to the present condition of affairs, it was quite impossible to forecast what kind of Body it would be in a year or two.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he would suggest that the discretionary power of the Board should not extend to schemes authorizing the purchase or taking of any land otherwise than by agreement.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he would undertake to bring up on Report an Amendment to give effect to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Extension of powers of compulsory purchase).
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD THE EARL OF LONGFORD moved the omission of the clause, which gave the local Sanitary Authority power to compulsorily purchase land for the purpose of providing allotments for persons living in towns or villages. The existing power of purchase by agreement was sufficient. He had no desire to oppose or delay the Bill, which was for a good purpose; but he did object to that compulsory power of purchase.
  Amendment moved, to leave out the Clause.—(The Earl of Longford.)
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, this was the most valuable clause in the Bill, and he could not consent to its omission. The alarm that it created in the noble Earl's mind was quite unfounded, for there were ample safeguards. Before the power could be exercised a scheme would, in every case, have to be drawn up and submitted for the approval of the Local Government Board; and if there was a Petition against the scheme it could not be carried out until it had been confirmed by Act of Parliament. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would accept the clause. No body of men had greater claims on that House than the Irish labourers, for until three years ago they had been systematically neglected, and the evidence taken before the Royal Commission showed that their habitations were most shameful. This compulsory power was not aimed at the landlord, but against the farmers, who had always been the enemies of the labourers, and who, in very many cases, would not make due provision for the dwellings of their labourers.
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNsupported the Amendment.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he thought that the noble and learned Lord, in what he had said as to the dates and position
  1266
  of the legislation on that subject, had hardly made out a case, after the experience of only a few months, for Clause 11. Under the Acts of 1883 and 1885 Boards of Guardians, acting as Sanitary Authorities, were enabled to erect labourers' dwellings, with half-an-acre of ground, wherever they thought needful. That provision was a wise one, and it had not been proved to be inadequate. The 16th clause of the Act of 1885 also had given power to take land by agreement for the purpose of distribution in allotments; now it was sought to alter that, and enact that there should be compulsory power. The Act had hardly been at all appealed to, and any experience that had accrued since the 14th of August last certainly had not been such as to show that it had failed to secure any of the objects for which it was intended. This was entirely a different case from that of a railway or tramway referred to by the noble and learned Lord (Lord FitzGerald). There the line went between two termini, and it was necessary that there should be a power of getting over the opposition of any cantankerous person who might wish to stop the line. There was, however, no analogy between that case and the one now under consideration. In the present state of Ireland a power such as that now proposed might be used for the purpose of annoying a man who was disliked. He opposed the clause on the ground of common sense, because he considered it premature to invoke compulsion and alter the element of agreement which had been adopted as recently as last August, and which had hardly been tried at all, and which certainly had not been proved to have been a failure.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREalso opposed the clause.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, he hoped that before noble Lords opposite dealt with this clause in the unceremonious way which was suggested they would bear in mind the origin of the clause. In the autumn of last year there had been a good deal of discussion upon the subject of this compulsory taking of land for the purpose of allotments; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) had been very vigorously denounced for giving utterance to what were regarded as revolutionary sentiments as to the authority of

  1267
  Parliament to deal with the rights of property. Subsequently, however, the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), in a speech which he made at King's Lynn, admitted the right of Parliament to make these allotments, and that, under a certain condition, it could safely be agreed to. The condition was that the scheme should be confirmed by Provisional Order. Intentionally or not, that was the proposal of this 11th clause, in which the trainers of the Bill had adopted the suggestion of a distinguished Member of the Conservative Government; and, therefore, he did not see how the Friends of the noble Lord could object to it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he thought that if the noble and learned Lord had had in the practice of his former Profession to cite a case the Judges would have required him not to cite the case from memory, but to produce the actual words; and he believed that in such a case Judges would have acted wisely, because, in referring to the words of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington, the noble and learned Lord had misquoted what had been said. It was an odd way to discuss matters in the House of Lords, but he would pass it by, attributing it to the novelty of the noble and learned Lord's experience in that House. His recollection of what Lord Randolph Churchill suggested was that there might be particular cases in which the thing might be done, and safely done, if each case were separately considered by Parliament itself. But that would not be the case with the measure before the House. It was nominally to work through a Provisional Order; but it would not be subjected to all the safeguards of that procedure. That made a wide distinction in principle, for while a Provisional Order was a safeguard in England it was not so with regard to Ireland. He must, therefore, ask for wider reasons than the assertion that the noble Lord the Member for Paddington made a speech at King's Lynn in favour of the alteration of the law. He thought, with all respect, that was not a sufficient reason for altering a law recently made. They ought to proceed very carefully in this compulsory legislation. Hitherto, they had allowed the compulsory taking of land for public objects—objects which the
  1268
  public distinctly understood. They were now asked for compulsory powers to take land in order to enable the labourer to earn a livelihood. Before doing that let them ask how far they were to go—were they going to extend it to the small farmer, to the moderate farmer, and to the large farmer? He only wished to impress upon them that the principle was a wide one, and that it was of great importance. If they adopted it in Ireland it probably would not be confined to that country; and, therefore, he entreated them to move cautiously in the matter, and not to be misled by the words Provisional Order.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Earl GRANVILLE): I am curious to know in what respect it is irregular for the Lord Chancellor to refer to a speech made by the Member for Paddington at King's Lynn.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said it was very unusual to base a change in the law on a speech made at King's Lynn, and I asked for wider reasons than that.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that the question was fully discussed in the other House, and met general approval, and complained that their Lordships did not take a deeper interest in the condition of the agricultural labourer of Ireland. Who were the principal supporters of the Land League and the National League? The labourers. He wished to give them the first element of civilization, a home to live in. He would quote to their Lordships an extract from the evidence given before the Devon Commission. The Rev. John Locke stated that—
  "The present condition of the farm labourer, dependent on an unsympathizing class scarcely elevated above him in education and sentiment, is deteriorating to his own condition and perilous to the community. He is not a participant in profits nor property. Daily food is the limit of his expectations; economy is, therefore, never thought of, because unavailing; and if the farmer on whose land he is settled be prevented by fall in price, failure in crop, or any other cause from affording employment, the starving labourer, reckless and unreasoning, with a vague sense of injury rankling in his mind, having nothing to lose, and a chance of gaining by change, becomes the willing tool of agrarian or political disaffection. Poverty is the chronic fever, crimes the delirium of the untended patient."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that he could assure the noble and

  1269
  learned Lord that that House had not shown any carelessness for the interests of the agricultural labourers; but now the noble and learned Lord came down with a letter written at the time of the Devon Commission, and tried to induce that House to pass this Bill to amend an act of last year which the noble and learned Lord himself had agreed to, and did not at that time produce this letter. During the passage of the Irish Land Act great efforts were made on that side of the House, as well as on the other side, in order to defend those interests; and it had always been felt that in all the discussions for the benefit of the farmer there was a danger of ignoring the interests of the labourer. They had passed the Acts of 1883 and 1885, and in doing so they had not stickled at any difficulties that might have arisen from the want of precedents for such legislation for the benefit of the labourers; and all they now asked on that side of the House was that those Acts should be tried, and that there should be some facts to show that they had failed before it was sought to replace them by unnecessary legislation.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)said, that the noble Marquess had expressed sympathy for the labourers; but sympathy that was not transmuted into acts was not very valuable, and the Government wanted the House to show its sympathy by passing this Bill. The measure came up to their Lordships recommended by very strong opinion "elsewhere;" and he should have thought that it would have been very welcome to noble Lords opposite. When, however, it became a question of transmuting the sympathy of noble Lords opposite in acts the clause which would do this was to be thrown out.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he would point out that there was a great difference between the year 1845, when they were on the point of a famine in Ireland, and the present time. They had passed Acts to prevent the great sub-division of land in Ireland. The Encumbered Estates Act was passed for the very purpose of enabling landlords to sell their estates, and to induce others to bring in fresh capital for making improvements and extending the holdings. The state of things before the passing of those Acts was far more
  1270
  miserable than anything existing at present.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was an important fact in connection with this matter that when the clause came before the House of Commons there were Representatives from Ireland, Conservative as well as Liberal, present. An Amendment proposed by a Conservative Member was, on the suggestion of the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. John Morley), adopted and incorporated in the clause, which now came before their Lordships in its amended form. No objection was taken by any Conservative Member from Ireland to the insertion of the clause in the Bill; and, therefore, when their Lordships had the unanimous opinion of the House of Commons in favour of such a provision, it did afford some indication that a change in the law was necessary.
  On Question, That the said Clause stand part of the Bill? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 25; Not-Contents 65: Majority 40.
  Resolved in the negative.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Sanitary authority or contractor may enter on land and take materials).
  On Motion of Lord CLONCURRY, the following Amendments made:—Page 4, line 40, after ("demesne") insert ("home farm"); page 5, line 14, after ("occupier") insert ("according to their respective interests therein").
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD THE EARL OF LONGFORD moved the omission of the clause on the ground of the annoyance which might be caused to the occupier by giving a vexatious right of entry on his land.
  Amendment moved, to leave out the Clause.—(The Earl of Longford.)
  LORD FITZGERALDdefended the clause.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Temporary letting of allotments).
  Amendment moved,
  In line 19, to leave out ("within the meaning of that Act,") and insert ("only pending the erection of such cottage and determinable at the end of any month.")—(The Lord Fitz Gerald.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD FITZGERALD LORD FITZGERALD moved the following new Clause:—
  (Exchange of Sites.)
  "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883–85, it shall be lawful for the Local Government Board of Ireland, upon the petition of a sanitary authority, to make an order that any site and plot included in a scheme made pursuant to either of the said Acts may be exchanged by such sanitary authority for another site and plot of equal area; Provided always, that the Local Government Board of Ireland shall not make any order under this section unless they are satisfied that the site and plot proposed to be substituted are as suitable as the site and plot sought to be abandoned, and unless they are satisfied that the proposed substitution is not objected to by the owner, lessee, or occupier of the site or plot proposed to be substituted."
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clause agreed to.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he did not propose to take the Bill on Report until some day next week.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsuggested that as their Lordships' minds would be in a great state of excitement next week, it would be as well that the Bill should be postponed till the week after.
  LORD FITZGERALD: I would willingly have assented to that course but for the speech of the noble Marquess opposite on Saturday, which appeared to me to predicate an early Dissolution.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Allow me to assure the noble and learned Lord that I was only judging from the signs of the times. He can get much better information on the subject than any that I can give him.
  Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 120.)

COMPANIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
COMPANIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 82.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Earl of DALHOUSIE), in moving that the Bill be read the second time, said, it was intended to remedy certain manifest defects in the working of the Companies Acts in Scotland. Several cases of great injustice had occurred. Speaking generally, the Bill would assimilate the Law
  1272
  of Liquidation in the Companies Act with the Scottish Bankruptcy Law. In England a similar uniformity was brought about at the passing of the Judicature Act in 1875, and this Bill was intended to do for Scotland what that Act had done for England. The measure had been considered by the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh and by the highest legal authorities in Scotland, including the Solicitors of the Supreme Court. By all those eminent authorities it had been approved most heartily and unanimously.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
  LORD WATSONsaid, the Bill was urgently required; and he asked the noble Earl to set it down for Committee on an early day, as the few Amendments which he had to propose were already prepared.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT, 1875.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGHcalled attention to a case of alleged embezzlement of the funds of a registered Friendly Society by a prisoner named John Kew, tried before Mr. Baron Pollock at the Nottingham Assizes, held 15th July 1885, which resulted in the acquittal of the prisoner, on the ground that there was no proof of the registration of the Society under the Friendly Societies Act, 1875. He asked whether a copy of the rules of the Society had not been produced to the Central Office of Friendly Societies in London, been there compared with the registered copy, and having been found correct, been stamped with the office stamp; and whether it had not been accepted by the committing magistrates before whom the prisoner had been originally charged? Further, he asked whether the decision of the Court was made in view of the 39th section of the Act of 1875, with respect to the reception in evidence of documents bearing the seal or stamp of the Central Office without further proof; and, if so, whether any amendment of that section is required to give effect to the intention of the Legislature? One of the great

  1273
  objects of the promoters of the Friendly Societies Act was to get rid, as far as possible, of the danger of a failure of justice from equitable grounds.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, that he had communicated with the learned Judge who tried the case, and he found that the ground on which the prosecution failed was that his Lordship held that there was not sufficient proof of the registration of the Society. The learned Judge proceeded on these grounds. The 11th section of the Friendly Societies Act provided for the issue by the Registrar of an acknowledgment of registration as showing that the Society had complied with the provisions of registration. This acknowledgment was, by the 10th section, conclusive proof of the registration. The learned Judge informed him that it was usual in cases of this kind to produce this acknowledgment of registration. He had not any exact information as to what evidence was proposed to be given in this particular case; but that the counsel for the prosecution did not produce any such acknowledgment was certain. What was produced, he believed, was a certified or examined copy of the rules of the Society; and he should not like to say that a copy of the rules duly authenticated might not have such statements on the face of it as to make it, although falling short of the full legal proof, primâ facie evidence as to the registration. There could be no practical difficulty in the production of the acknowledgment of the Registrar; and, therefore, he could not see that there was any real need for an amendment of the Act. Indeed, he did not apprehend that when it was known that it had been established that the valid proof was in the production of the acknowledgment of registration, that such prosecutions would be attended with any practical inconvenience.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (DURHAM) BILL PETITIONS).

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSin rising to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the validity of all petitions presented to this House for or against the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Durham)
  1274
  Bill, and of the signatures attached thereto, with a view to ascertaining how far such signatures are or are not genuine."
  said, he had placed the Notice on the Paper believing that he was acting in accordance with what was the wish of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack (Lord Herschell). It would be in the recollection of noble Lords that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) presented a Petition against the Bill—or rather it was so bulky that it was carried to the Table by an attendant—and in the course of the debate the Lord Chancellor, who spoke in favour of the Bill, referring to the Petition, observed that from his own experience in "another place"—experience, no doubt, gained from Petitions which he had presented—that Petitions were not always what they professed to be as regarded the signatures. The noble and learned Lord also expressly regretted that this Petition was presented so late to the House that there was no time to acknowledge it. Having heard that, and believing, as he did, that this Petition was as fairly got up as these things generally were, he gave Notice of this Motion. He knew nothing whatever about the Petition until it was presented to the House, when he saw the Gentleman who had charge of it, and he assured him that it was as fairly got up as those on the other side. He should mention that the Petition was promoted by the Country Brewers' Association, and he had since received a letter on the subject in which it was stated that the canvassers employed by the brewers had strict orders only to allow banâ fide signatures to be attached, and each canvasser was made responsible for the signatures in his own district, and it was added that the Petition would bear comparison with the Petitions on the other side. Upon looking into the matter to his surprise he found that there was no provision whatever for the examination of Petitions, while the officers of the House, when he mentioned the matter, were perfectly horrified at the idea of having to go through 60,000 or more signatures. It was thought that there should be a standing Committee of their Lordships' House for the examination of Petitions, and in 1868 one was appointed; but only one Report was presented, and then their Lordships thought that it was unnecessary to

  1275
  follow up the system. At the present moment, unless some officer of the House kindly undertook to look over the Petition, there was no other authority to do so. He believed that one of the officers had glanced through this one, and he said it appeared to be very fairly got up. He should have been perfectly content to let the matter drop at that; but he thought that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would agree with him that the subject should not remain there, and that they ought to go into both sides. He should be quite willing that the Petitions should be referred to some expert who should be asked to report to the House upon them. He had several objections to the Bill, which he should state at the proper time, and he looked upon the measure itself as unwise and unnecessary. If one man desired to have a glass of beer on Sunday and another man was willing to sell it to him, why should they make this an offence? It was evident that there was a very strong feeling against the Bill in the City of Durham; because, as he learnt from the papers that morning, a mass meeting of the inhabitants was held in the market-place yesterday to protest against the Bill, and it was denounced as a gross interference with the liberty of individuals, and also as piecemeal and class legislation. The meeting appeared to have numbered some thousands of persons, and the few teetotallers who made their appearance were hustled, and but for the protection of the police would have been roughly handled. Eventually they had to take refuge in the Town Hall. It was evident, therefore, that this was a question upon which some very strong feeling was entertained on both sides; and that consideration ought to weigh with their Lordships to induce them to accept his Motion.
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the validity of all petitions presented to this House for or against the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Durham) Bill, and of the signatures attached thereto, with a view to ascertaining how far such signatures are or are not genuine."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, it might be in the recollection of the House that in the course of the few words which he spoke on the
  1276
  second reading of this Bill, after a Petition had been somewhat dramatically presented by the noble and learned Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill (Lord Bramwell), he (the Lord Chancellor) suggested that it was possible to overestimate the value of Petitions, because one was not certain as to the authenticity of the signatures. That Petition, having been presented so late, was somewhat calculated to increase one's suspicions. But his observations with regard to it were a chance shot, not based on any information. Since then he had received several other Petitions relating to that Petition, among them one from Edward E. Close, of 3, Paradise Place, Stockton-on-Tees, stating that he was a Good Templar and strongly in favour of the Durham Sunday Closing Bill; that he was asked to sign a Petition in favour of that Bill, and signed a Petition which he was told was in favour of that Bill; but that he learnt soon afterwards that the Petition was against the Bill, and praying that, since his signature had been obtained by fraud, it might be removed from the Petition. That was a sample of several Petitions that he had received. So as to see whether there was any foundation for these assertions, he asked one of his officials to look through the signatures and see whether he could discover the signature of Mr. Close, and in this the official had been successful, and there could be no doubt about the matter, as the signatures in both cases were similar. In the examination of the Petition it appeared that there were in one place some 40 or 50 signatures obviously signed in the same handwriting and with the same pen and ink; and as it was found that the residences of these persons were in some cases 10 miles apart it was most improbable that they were all present when their names were signed and authorized such signatures. It therefore seemed that there was some foundation for his doubts as to the 60,000 signatures being those of 60,000 persons opposed to the Bill. How many fell within that category it would be difficult to say. In many cases it appeared that the signatures not only of the parents, but of the youngest children who could hold a pen, had been taken. These facts, he thought, were sufficient to show that the Petition was not above suspicion;

  1277
  and, therefore, if the noble Earl moved for a Committee, it was obvious that with that other Petition before him it was impossible for him to suggest any argument against it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee appointed accordingly.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.