Lords Sitting of 12 August 1887

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS— First Reading—Lieutenancy Clerks Allowances * [231].
Second Reading— Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) * (226); Deeds of Arrangement (No. 2) * (230).
Committee—Agricultural Labourers' Holidays (Scotland) * (212), negatived.
Report—Truck * (222–232); Licensed Premises (Earlier Closing) (Scotland) * (223).
Report—Committee— Report—Third Reading—Public Parks and Works (Metropolis) * (214), and passed.
Third Reading — Settled Land Act (1882) Amendment * (220); Turnpike Roads (South Wales) * (207), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—Committee—Report—Third Reading—Tramways (No.1) * (181), and passed.

ISLANDS OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC— THE NEW HEBRIDES.

  NOTICE OF MOTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS(The Marquess of SALISBURY): I observe that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Rosebery) has put down on the Paper for next week, a Notice which will involve discussion as to the New Hebrides. I do not wish to contest the Parliamentary right of the noble Earl to bring that question forward—in fact, under some circumstances it might be his duty to do so—but, perhaps, without going further into details, I should say that I think that serious public inconvenience would result from a discussion on this question at this time. I would, therefore, endeavour to persuade the noble Earl to withdraw his Notice for the present.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I have not the slightest hesitation whatever in replying at once to the appeal of the

  219
  noble Marquess. Anyone who sees the Notice I have put upon the Paper will easily perceive that it is by no means my intention to embarrass Her Majesty's Government, and I will withdraw the Notice. If I took the view of the noble Viscount the President of the Council (Viscount Cranbrook) as to our numerical powers, it would be impossible under any circumstances to embarrass Her Majesty's Government; but without entering into that, I may at once say that my one and only object in putting that Notice on the Paper was to strengthen the hands of Her Majesty's Government in dealing with what is a grave difficulty indeed. If I had brought it on. I should simply have recapitulated circumstances already well known to your Lordships—that an arrangement with regard to the New Hebrides had been entered into some time ago, and pledges constantly convoyed to the late Government by the French Government. But there is no use in doing that, if in any way it would injure the progress of negotiations. I am delighted to hear it stated that those negotiations have arrived at such a stage as to render discussion undesirable. I do not know whether before we disperse for the holidays the noble Marquess may be able to make any official statement on the matter; but I do hope that when we assemble next year, we shall know that an occupation has come to an end which has ceased, in my opinion, to have any justification at all.

THE LANDED ESTATES COURT (IRELAND).

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  LORD ARDILAUN, in rising to call attention to the present business of the Land Judges Court (Ireland), and to move for a Return with regard to it, giving the number of petitions filed during the last four years, divided into the number each year; the number of estates offered for sale; the number of estates in which the rentals were settled; the number of estates in which receivers were appointed divided into each year; the number of receivers; the number of accounts not lodged within the limit of time appointed; the number of six months' settlements of accounts; the number of yearly settlements; the gross annual rental under receivers for each year; the gross amount collected each
  220
  year; the number of officials attached to court, and their salaries; and the number and salaries of those in the receiver's department, said, that his object in asking for the Return was to ascertain the causes of the great delays in the business of the Court; for he knew of cases in which those interested did all in their power to press their cases for the preparation of title through the Court, still incomplete after three or four years' interval after the filing of the petition.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)asked for the names of some of these cases, and he would make immediate inquiry in reference to them.
  LORD ARDILAUNsaid, he would furnish the noble Lord with cases the delay had arisen in, in consequence of the present position of the Court. The Irish Law Times of the 28th May last reported that at the ordinary weekly meeting of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland a letter from the Secretary to the Southern Law Association was read, which enclosed a copy of a Resolution of that Association. That Resolution was—
  "That the attention of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society be called to the serious delay to the conduct of business in the Court of the Land Judges, occasioned by there being but one examiner (instead of two as heretofore), whose varied and onerous duties preclude the possibility of his investigating titles so as to admit of reasonable progress being made in the conduct of business, as a consequence of which abstracts of title remain in some cases over six months without being ruled on or disposed of, and that the Council of the Incorporated Law Society be requested to adopt such measures as may be considered advisable for the purpose of finding a remedy for the inconvenience referred to."
  So far as he could understand or learn, the matter was still under consideration, and precious time was being lost. What was the answer to these complaints of the extraordinary delay? It was this—the Court was undermanned, having been robbed of its best officials, they being removed to another Court; and, secondly, no sales could be effected, and consequently there was no necessity to prepare for sale. The first cause was unquestionably true, because the best officials of the Court had been removed to another Land Court, of which there there were now three in Ireland. But he begged to differ from the second

  221
  reason altogether—that there was no necessity to prepare titles for sales because, owing to the legislation which had been unfortunately passed in this country for the destruction of the interests of the landlords in Ireland, no one would purchase property, except the occupying tenants. But why should the preparation of estates for sale be so delayed? Why should not every estate in which those interested desired to prepare for sale, he prepared against that happy time when tenants would be willing to purchase the whole of them? It would take years to clear all the titles, and during all that time the arrears would inevitably be running up. Should a scheme of purchase be carried by the Government, were they then to commence to make titles clear and settle rentals? If titles were clear now, he know of many cases in which mortgagees would purchase to avoid further loss, receivers would be got rid of and an accumulation of arrears prevented. What was the reason for this delay? The reason, he understood, was that it was to save the Treasury some £500 a-year which the appointment of another examiner to do the necessary work would cost. He thought that it was hardly fair of the Government to allow such a comparatively small sum to stand in the way. It would be a very small concession to the landowners who had been so severely hit by the legislation of recent years, and who with the charge holders by the delay were losing tens of thousands a-year. He hoped that when a measure of relief to the tenants had just passed their Lordships' House, they would now consider whether something should not be done which would be just and perfectly equitable to those who desired to sell their property. He thought it was right to add that the Judge of the Court had asked for this assistance, and that it was the Treasury that was particularly in the way. Coming to the subject of receivers appointed under the Court, he said he understood there were over 1,000 estates—about 1,400—under receivers. There was no check upon these officers, except a nominal annual settlement. These receivers were perfectly free during the whole year to collect the rents, and at the end of the year their accounts were brought up and formally audited. Many of them were influenced by
  222
  fear, and were very anxious to throw the responsibility of pressing for the payment of rents upon others. Some were extremely indolent, and many, he was sorry to say, were very much open to the cultivation of popularity in the collection of rents. He would suggest to the Government that they should carefully lock into this question, and see how far these receivers could be supervised and checked by some superior officer of the Court visiting the estates in cases where accounts were unsatisfactory. Formerly the receivers were much more energetic, and collected the rents much better, for these officers looked forward to becoming agents to the estates when sold, and that was a great inducement to them to keep the estates in good order. But at present nobody would purchase an estate but the tenants, and when tenants purchased no agent was required. He thought the receiver's accounts were not audited frequently enough, and as to the system generally there was no second opinion as to its badness. He would give some cases. On one estate the receiver was appointed in August, 1882. The accounts were lodged with the receiver on the 1st September, 1884, 29th January, 1885, 26th February, 1886, and the 12th January, 1887, but none of these accounts had been over vouched or passed. The rental over which the receiver was appointed amounted to £382. The arrears due on the first account were £1,302; the amount due on the 1886 account was £1,410, or nearly four years' rent. In the next ease he would refer to the receiver was appointed on the 6th December, 1881. The yearly rental of the estate was stated in 1884 to be £1,115; the arrears due on the receiver's account for 1884 to be £1,329, and for last year to £2,980. The receiver took the direction of the Judge, and issued about 100 ejectments, at the expense of the estate; but none of the ejectments had ever been put into execution. In the third case the following were the facts:—The receiver was appointed in February, 1882; the rental was £592. The first account was lodged on the 29th February, 1883. The arrears to November, 1882 were £798; to November, 1883, £793, and to November, 1884, £835, while the final account showed the arrears due in May, 1886, to be £1,408. The arrears now were con-

  223
  siderably over £2,000. The receiver, however, had got a large amount of the arrears, 'but had left the country with the money in his pocket. This showed the necessity for some local supervision. He asked from the Government an assurance that they would give some assistance to the Court by the appointment of even a temporary examiner, and that the question of receiverships, which was profoundly unsatisfactory, and worked great injustice, would be considered.
  Moved, That there be laid before the House—
  "(1.) Number of Petitions filed during last four years, divided into number each year. (2.) Number of Estates offered for Sale. (3.) Number of Estates in which the Rentals were settled. (4.) Number of Estates in which Receivers were appointed, divided into in each year, (5.) Number of Receivers. (6.) Number of Accounts not lodged within the limit of time appointed. (7.) Number of Six Months Settlements of Account. (8.) Number of Yearly Settlements. (9.) Gross Annual Rental under Receivers for each Year. (10.) Gross Amount collected each Year. (11.) Number of Officials attached to Court and their Salaries. (12.) Number and Salaries of those in Receiver's Department."—(The Lord Ardilaun.)
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that his noble Friend's first charge was that the Landed Estates Court was undermanned. He would admit that the subject which the noble Lord had called attention to was deserving of consideration, although he did not admit the statements to the extent given by his noble Friend. When the Purchase Act of 1885 was passed, it was true that under the provisions of that Bill, and in order to assist its working, and at the same time assist legitimate economy, certain officials were transferred to the Land Court. There had been two Judges to the Land Court now under discussion, but one of them having resigned, it was decided in the legitimate interests of economy, without interfering with efficiency, not to fill up his place. That left some of the staff for other employment, and two officers were transferred to the Land Commission. He had never heard that the transferrence of those two officials interfered in the slightest degree in the working out of the legitimate operations of the Landed Estates Court in the prepation of title. It was not desirable, and it was obviously inexpedient, when there were practically no sales at present, to appoint any more highly paid perma-
  224
  nent officers, but if after some time, it was still found that the present examiner was unable to cope with the business, he could then consider whether he would not seek Treasury sanction for the appointment of some temporary assistant, and thus keep down any arrears of reading titles and making them ready for that sale which they all hoped would soon take place in Ireland. The noble Lord had called attention to the receivers under the Court, but their position was only an index to the state of the country in too many parts. These receivers had to deal with property having a rental of more than £500,000. The delays about which complaint was made in particular cases were not always to be ascribed to the Court. The parties were themselves to blame sometimes. When his noble Friend blamed the receivers for not collecting rents better and more expeditiously, he should bear in mind how many landlords there were not labouring under the administration of the Court; who found a difficulty in getting their rents, and who, at the end of the year, had to put on the paper as assets, a very long list of arrears. He did not, therefore, think in these circumstances it was enough to show that there were arrears due to the receivers in order to convict them of maladministration. The noble Lord charged the receivers with being afraid. Well, in these times, one could not expect a man who collected rents in disturbed districts to be entirely free from timidity. He had no objection to give the noble Lord the fullest possible information that could be given. His noble Friend asked him to allow the Motion to appear again on the Paper in the same form on a future day—say, Thursday next. In the meantime he would communicate with the Judge of the Court, and if the Judge saw no objection he would be the last person in the world to desire to withhold the information for which the noble Lord asked.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he thought the existing state of things ought not to continue. This Landed Estates Court succeeded the old Encumbered Estates Court. Formerly there used to be periodical sales of land, and the Court had been of great service in disposing of encumbered estates; but now, when purchasers could not be found for many

  225
  estates, the functions of the Court were in abeyance. There was now only one Judge of the Court, Mr. Munroe, but the staff was enormous. In his opinion, this Court had become an excrescence; and in the interests of economy and efficiency it ought to become part of the Land Commission. He believed his noble Friend had not overstated the case when he said there were 1,400 receivers now acting under the Land Court. Nothing could be worse for the country than such a system as that. It was costly in every way, and he thought this matter ought to be taken into consideration by the Government with a view to its being referred to a small Commission.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

TRUCK BILL.—(No. 222.)
(The Lord Macnaghten.)
Amendments reported (according to order).
Moved to insert the following New Clause:—
"Whenever, by agreement, custom, or otherwise, a workman is entitled to receive in anticipation of the regular period of the payment of his wages an advance as part or on account thereof, it shall not be lawful for the employer to make any deduction in respect of such advance, on account of poundage, discount, or interest, or any similar charge."—(The Lord Macnaghten.)
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that he interpreted the Amendment to mean that no such deduction would be lawful unless it had been specially agreed to. It would be open to the master to say that if he advanced wages the servant must agree to a reasonable abatement, and this would make an agreement between the parties in the absence of an agreement to the contrary. On that understanding he saw no objection to it. He might be wrong in the construction he put upon the Amendment; but he was pretty sure he was not.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, the clause was intended to do the very thing that the noble and learned Lord deprecated—namely, to render unlawful anything which would be contrary to the general policy of the Act. He had no objection to the clause as it stood; but he could not sit there and hear it recommended on grounds that he could not agree to.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, it seemed to him that the ascertainment of the
226
true meaning of the Amendment was a pleasure that would have to be reserved until such time as his noble and learned Friend and he were sitting judiciously to interpret it.
Amendment agreed to.
On the Motion of The Lord MACNAGHTEN, the following paragraph was added at the end of Clause 6, which deals with deductions for education:—
"In this section State-inspected school means any elementary school inspected under the direction of the Education Department in England or Scotland, or the Board of National Education in Ireland."
Bill to be printed, as amended; and to be read 3ª on Monday next. (No. 232.)

LICENSED PREMISES (EARLIER CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 223.)
(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LICENSED PREMISES (EARLIER CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 223.)

  REPORT.
  Moved, "That the Report of the Amendments be now received."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD DENMAN, in moving that the Report be received that day three months, said, that he hoped that in the present uncertainty of the elements of the Bill, their Lordships would not assent to the measure. In Haddington the Justices declined to interfere, thinking it too late, but the Sheriff considered that early closing would increase the number of shebeens, whilst in the same county, Dunbar sent a petition against the Bill quieta non novere was a safe motto, and if change were to begin, the Forbes McKenzie Act might be attacked. He believed that the only effect of the Bill would be to unsettle everything, and to settle nothing.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")— (The Lord Denman.)
  [The Amendment, not being seconded, was not put.]
  Motion agreed to.
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS, in moving an Amendment to Clause 9, to add to the end of clause, "and shall not apply to any burgh, town, or populous town containing fifty thousand inhabitants and upwards," said, he considered his proposal so reasonable and rational, that he did not think it necessary to trouble

  227
  their Lordships with many reasons in favour of it. Before, however, be entered into consideration of the Amendment, he desired to refer to a remark which fell from the noble Duke, whom he did not then see in his place (the Duke of Argyll) the other evening when he expressed himself rather in favour of this Bill. On that occasion the noble Duke had not accurately stated the views he (the Earl of Wemyss) took of the question. The noble Duke said he could understand his (Earl Wemyss') objections to the measure, because he took his stand on broad and intelligent principles, and the way in which he defined those principles was this—that he (Earl Wemyss) on licensing questions always went on the broad lines that they were matters of police, and should only be dealt with by the police in relation to crime. That, however, was not his view of the question. He went a great deal further than merely thinking that when a drunkard was in the street with a crowd about him he was a nuisance to everybody, and therefore it was the duty of the police to take cognizance of the matter; because he thought also that it was their duty to look after the publicans, if, as they were told, they were in the habit of sending drunken men into the streets. Having said that much, he would express his regret that the Government had not seen their way to dealing with this question in a more broad and complete manner. It might be desirable that public-houses in Scotland should be closed at a more regular hour; but, that was a question which could be more properly dealt with in the large and comprehensive measure of local government which they were promised. The Government had not done that, and therefore they had to be thankful for small mercies, and he thanked the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) for what he had done in the way of mitigating the effects of this Bill. When the measure came up to their Lordships' House, it made this alteration in the closing of public-houses, that whereas at present 11 o'clock was the time for closing, with a discretionary power of a certain character in the hands of magistrates, this Bill proposed that the closing should take place an hour earlier—namely, at 10 o'clock, there being no discretionary power left to the licensing authority. A very serious question of
  228
  the liberty of the subject was involved in this, it was to his mind exceedingly hard that the sober many should be put to very great inconvenience for the sake of a drunken few. He believed that they had been told that the measure did not curtail the liberty of the subject; but, as introduced by his noble Friend, the measure was to apply without any exception to all parts of Scotland—alike to town and country. He contended that the Bill, if it were to be applied oven with a discretionary power to the licensing authorities to all parts of Scotland—town and country alike—would not work well. Its provisions would be found almost intolerable in many country districts, and they would be found intolerable in their operation in the large towns, where the means of amusement, the habits, customs, and character of the people were totally different. What he proposed had already been admitted in their legislation—it was admitted in a Bill, in every Bill which had been introduced, whether optional or prohibitory, as regarded England, because that great Metropolis had always been exempted from the legislation. One would suppose that if the principle which was advocated was sound, it would be equally sound in its application to London—in one place just as well as in another. Why was it, then, that the Metropolis was always exempted from legislation of this kind? He saw his noble and learned Friend (Lord Fitzgerald) present, and his own impression was that this kind of exceptional legislation has been admitted also in the case of Ireland, and that there were certain large towns to which the Sunday Closing Act did not extend. It certainly did not apply to Dublin and other large towns, and he considered that the same principle which he desired by his Amendment to carry out should be applied to Scotland. His proposal was to exempt all large towns with 50,000 inhabitants from the discretionary powers that were given to the Justices, and to leave the law as it at present stood. That discretionary power had been tried in England already, under the Bill of 1872, brought in by Mr. Bruce, and it had been found that it would not work, and the Act fell through after two or three years. It was found not to work well in Liverpool and the other large towns, where the measure caused so much

  229
  irritation and ill-will that the Act was allowed to drop. There was also this further evil which he would point out, and it was upon matters of this kind that he would invite their Lordships' special attention, as they could not be lost sight of in considering the question. It was a fact that these restrictions encouraged illicit drinking, and it was impossible to exaggerate the many evils which were caused by over-restrictive legislation of this kind. The Bill was brought in by Dr. Cameron, Member for the College Division of Glasgow, and he (the Earl of Wemyss) found that the hon. Member had reprinted from one of the Glasgow papers his reason for legislation of this kind; but if his pamphlet set forth all the advantages of the measure, he thought that practically he had reproduced the worst arguments he could have found, for according to the hon. Gentleman, there was in Glasgow a large system of illicit drinking, commonly called shebeening. Now, if there was one place in the world which should be the paradise of water drinkers, it should be the State of Maine in America. There all drinking of alcoholic drinks was prohibited absolutely, and with what result? Why, if they took the test of crime, of madness, of drunkenness, and he was told also of Divorce Court cases, the State of Maine, in proportion to its population, as far as he understood, was far ahead of any other State in America. Not only that, but in regard to illicit drinking there were so many shebeens and drinking clubs in Maine, that if there was the same proportion in respect to population as existed there in Glasgow they would have something like 4,000 shebeens in Glasgow and 2,000 drinking clubs. He thought that with those facts before them, he had said sufficient in support of his Amendment.
  Moved, in Clause 9, page 3, line 38, after ("1882") to insert, ("and shall not apply to any burgh, town, or populous place containing fifty thousand inhabitants and upwards").—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, he thought it would be unfortunate if the House should agree to the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss). The noble Earl had given them an argument in his speech which would go
  230
  to show that the closing of public-houses altogether might be very undesirable, and which might have been called intolerable. The noble Earl had quoted the case of the State of Maine; but, after all, this Bill with the Amendment already adopted was perfectly free from any of the objections pointed, out by the noble Earl with regard to the inconvenience which might arise in large towns. No doubt in large towns there was a provision with respect to bonâ fide travellers. Inconvenience might, however, still arise in the case of travellers; but he apprehended their case would be met by the rail way station refreshment-rooms, which were under special regulations licensed by the authorities for such purposes. The noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss) had said that it was very hard that the sober majority should suffer for the minority who exceeded. But the sober majority themselves called for some such measure as this. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) had ascertained that in some of the large towns of Scotland, and in a certain one with which he was acquainted, there was a very large preponderance of public opinion in favour of granting this power of restriction as in the Bill. Of course, it was also to be considered that there was a class of persons who would be affected by this Bill who were not directly referred to, though perhaps it was not their Lordships' place to allude to them. He meant the employés of the licensed victuallers. Parliament had already sanctioned legislation in regard to the hours of labour of certain persons; and, therefore, this would be no new precedent, for it was obvious that they were a particular class. He should say, in conclusion, that he did most decidedly come to the opinion that there was a very large preponderance of public opinion in the principal large towns of Scotland in favour of the Bill, so far as could be gathered from the comments made thus far.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that when he was speaking on a Scotch Bill the other evening the noble Earl in charge of the Bill (the Earl of Camperdown) had been unkind enough to remind him that he (Lord Bramwell) was not a Scotchman. He was conscious of that defect, but he now desired to say a word on this subject; and really if English-

  231
  men might not talk about Scotch affairs, it suggested a consequence he was sure their Lordships would object to. What struck him on reading this Bill was this—Why, if 10 o'clock was right, as the noble Earl would seem to make it appear by the Bill, is 11 wrong? Well, it might be asked, why, if 11 o'clock is right, should 12 o'clock be wrong? He would make the same answer in both cases—namely, that they had got 11 o'clock, and if they wanted to alter it to either 12 or 10, they ought to give a reason for the alteration. But no reason had been given. The noble Earl had been good enough to take up the Bill. He would not suspect him (Lord Bramwell) of saying anything disrespectful of him, but he did think the Bill was a peddling piece of legislation. Why meddle with the hour now fixed? At present, 11 o'clock was the hour, and people had suited their habits to it. He did not suppose that all sober people in Scotland went to bed at 10 o'clock. He supposed there were large towns in Scotland in which people coming from theatres and other places would like to have a glass of beer, and they had suited themselves to the law as it stood. But, all at once, was this change proposed to be put upon them without any reason. It was said that the sober majority desired this legislation; but he should like to know what the sober majority actually was. What did it mean? If the sober majority are people who thought all drinking was wrong, then he should protest against their interfering with him in his opinion, who did not think it was wrong. Let those people who thought there was no harm in a glass of beer have their glass of beer. He really submitted that this was a peddling piece of legislation interfering with the existing state of the law without any reason being given in support of it.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he would be the last to prevent the noble and learned Lord taking part in any discussion regarding Scotland; but when another Scotch measure was being discussed the other day, the noble and learned Lord said he could not understand it, and he had replied that, being an Englishman, he was not acquainted with the agricultural customs of Scotland, one of which was to engage agricultural labourers by the year. In
  232
  spite, however, of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, he must ask their Lordships not to accept the Amendment, and if it was pressed, he must resist it as far as he could. He would ask their Lordships to remember exactly the position in which this Bill stood. When the measure entered their Lordship's House, the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) objected to the Bill on the ground that it fixed the hour of closing public-houses for 10 o'clock in the evening. He (the Earl of Camperdown) would admit that, at once, and without pressure of any kind, he saw the objection to the Bill in that form, and said he would endeavour to design a compromise or an arrangement which he thought would be more satisfactory to the opponents of the Bill. He introduced that arrangement; it was now in the Bill, and it left to the Licensing Authorities power to direct that public-houses in their districts should be closed at any hour between 10 and 11 o'clock. If he had known at that time that this Amendment was to be brought forward, he was bound to say that he would not have made any alteration in the Bill. He took the line he did in consequence of what was said by the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India (Viscount Cross), who intimated that in large towns he would prefer a later hour of closing. No other Amendment was placed upon the Paper when the Bill went into Committee. He (the Earl of Camperdown) therefore placed his Amendment on the Paper as to the discretionary power, and, as he said, no other Amendment was placed there. He was bound to say that if the present Amendment (that of the Earl of Wemyss) had been then placed on the Paper, he would at once have withdrawn his own. If, therefore, the House accepted the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss) he would have to ask their Lordships to strike his own Amendment out of the Bill, because the change he sought to have made in the Bill was one he was prepared to support; but further than which he was not prepared to go. He asked their Lordships to consider what was the effect of the Amendment now proposed. The Bill as it stood gave to all Licensing Authorities a discretionary power as to the hours of closing public-houses within

  233
  their district between 10 and 11 o'clock; but now the noble Earl proposed to say that in certain big towns they were to have no discretion. That was to say, that a discretion was to be given to Licensing Authorities in the country districts, or in other districts which were not populous; but when they entered the big towns, Parliament said that they should fix the hour of closing, and it would not be earlier than 11 o'clock. That was the effect of the Amendment of his noble Friend; he said Parliament should interfere with the Licensing Authority in big towns, but should not interfere everywhere else. He (the Earl of Camperdown) submitted that that was the worst possible proposal that could be made. Curely the Licensing Authorities would not shut up the houses over which they had jurisdiction, unless they were of opinion that it was the wish of the people that they should be shut. They were not likely, for instance, to shut up licensed houses in Glasgow, unless they had public opinion in their favour. Why should they not trust the Licensing Authorities in Glasgow, if they were going to trust them elsewhere? He told their Lordships that the moment they entered into this question of populous places they were in a position of very great difficulty. His noble Friend also instanced to their Lordships the case of the Sunday Closing Bill in Ireland; but the case which he put could have no bearing at all upon Scotland, because in Ireland there was no discretion at all given to the Licensing Authority with regard to the hour of closing in Ireland out of Dublin. Did not his noble Friend see that his comparison fell to the ground entirely? In Scotland the Bill did not fix an hour, but left it to the discretion of the justices to do so. He asked the House to bear in mind that that arrangement was almost, to a certainty, the arrangement which they would make at no distant day; and if they created this special exemption in favour of a few big towns, they would do that which at no distant time they would have to withdraw. An Amendment of this sort was proposed in the House of Commons, and it was rejected by a very large majority, and the reason why it was rejected was the difficulty of dealing with Glasgow—a difficulty which would arise out of the Amendment now proposed. There were close to Glas-
  234
  gow a number of smaller towns, one of which was Partick. If the Licensing Authority for Partick chose to select an earlier hour than 11 o'clock they would be closed earlier than the Glasgow houses, which would remain open to 11 o'clock. That was only one instance of the many difficulties which would have to be met. If they were going to give a discretionary power to Licensing Authorities, they must give it to all, or to none of them; if they trusted none of them, they would throw out the Bill; but if they did not take that coarse he asked their Lordships not to weaken and cut down the Bill in the way they were asked to do. Under these circumstances he asked their Lordships not to accept the Amendment.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)said, that with reference to the last point which had fallen from the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown), he thought that a defect in the Amendment of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) was, that it did not state more distinctly what towns he intended excluding; but, nevertheless, he (the Marquess of Lothian) thought that the Amendment should distinctly be supported. He was going to propose to his noble Friend, in order to meet the difficulty, that in the event of his Amendment being carried, he should introduce a Schedule which would name all the burghs round Glasgow—he thought they were nine in number—as places which should be the same in regard to the hours of closing as the city of Glasgow itself. He was surprised to hear the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) say that this difficulty arose out of the Amendment of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss). The noble Earl had pointed out the anomalous state of matters which would arise under the Amendment of his noble Friend—that public-houses would be open till 11 in Glasgow, and would be shut at an earlier hour in Partick and the other burghs which surrounded Glasgow; but if the Bill were carried as it now stood, there was nothing to prevent the Licensing Authorities in Glasgow keeping the public-houses open till 11 o'clock, and some of the neighbouring burghs shutting at 10, others at 11, and others at some time between 10 and 11 o'clock. That very difficulty

  235
  would be sure to arise under the Bill as it now stood; and he hoped that if the Amendment of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches were carried, he would consent to a Schedule being introduced. With reference to the general question, he stated to the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) when he introduced his Amendment, that he accepted that Amendment, but on the understanding that he should like to vote for the Amendment of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss), and he would take the opportunity of saying that he was sorry the noble Earl did not introduce his Amendment in the Committee stage; because it placed them in rather an awkward position, as the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill had stated that if the Amendment of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches were carried, he (the Earl of Camperdown) would withdraw the Amendment he carried in Committee, and then the Bill would pass as it originally came to that House, with the addition of the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss), so that all public-houses in Scotland would be closed at 10 o'clock, except those in places which had a population of over 50,000. He must confess that he was in favour of the Amendment of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches; but he further thought that there were various parts of Scotland where the discretion of the Licensing Authorities as to places which had not a population of over 50,000 would be valuable. In the watering places in the West of Scotland in the summer, it would be a great convenience that the public-houses should be kept open for the convenience of visitors after 10 o'clock. If the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) withdrew the Amendment which he carried in Committee, that would be impossible, and he hoped he would reconsider his determination to withdraw it. He (the Marquess of Lothian) thought that Scotland should be placed on the same footing as England in regard to the matter—that is to say, that in England all populous places were exempted from the time limit, and public-houses were open till 11, and he thought Scotland should be placed, so far as possible, in the same position. As to what the noble Earl had said about trusting the Licensing Authorities, the position was different in large towns
  236
  from what it was in the country, and he did not think it implied any want of confidence in the Licensing Authorities to make this exception in favour of the large towns. He thought there might be a difficulty as to what was called a populous place—namely, as to whether the limit should be 30,000–20,000 or 30,000; but as the noble Earl had placed the limit at 50,000, he was not disposed to quarrel with that, and was prepared to support the Amendment.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 19; Not-Contents 10: Majority 9,
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNgave Notice that at the third reading he would move to omit the Amendment which was inserted in Committee giving discretion to the Licensing Authorities.
  Bill to be read 3ª on Monday next.

AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS' HOLIDAYS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 212)
(The Earl of Comperdown.)
AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS' HOLIDAYS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 212)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY, in rising to move as an Amendment—
  "That it is inexpedient for the House to proceed further with a Bill of so crude and delusive a character in such a hasty manner at this period of the Session, without the opportunity of first ascertaining the genuine opinion of all classes of agriculturists in Scotland with regard to its provisions,"
  said, he knew something of the feeling, not only of agriculturists, but of labourers; and he could say that everyone was of opinion that this was an unnecessary Bill. If he might use a vulgar expression, he would say that, as this Bill now appeared before them, the viscera had been taken out of it. It simply proposed to insist on a holiday being given to agricultural labourers in four specified months of the year and the farmers were not allowed to choose those months. The Bill, therefore, would only have this effect, which he believed was at the bottom of its production—namely, of stirring up unnecessary animosities between farmer and labourer, of which,

  237
  unhappily, there had been enough of recent years, and to stir up animosity between the owners of land and the occupiers; and he did not think at the end of the Session, on the 12th of August above all, they should bring forward a measure of this character, affecting the whole of Scotland. It was really what he might call rather monstrous. But he would simply say that he knew, for a fact, that in a great many agricultural parts of Scotland, it was the last thing the labourers themselves wanted. The effect of it would be to curtail the number of their holidays after all. It was notorious that in Scotland New Year's Day had been a holiday from—well—the days of Adam. Then there were still in some parts of Scotland two Fast days, though in others, only one; and there were always two fair days. Moreover, in addition, there were all over Scotland local Agricultural Associations; and the farmers always gave their labourers a holiday on the annual show day of these associations. But under the Bill a stop might be put to these voluntary arrangements because it insisted on every farmer giving certain holidays, and this, he held, would be an act of folly, which would be anything but desirable. The noble Earl concluded by moving his Amendment.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out from ("that") to the end of the Motion, and insert the following words ("it is inexpedient for the House to proceed further with a Bill of so crude and delusive a character in such a hasty manner at this period of the Session, without the opportunity of first ascertaining the genuine opinion, of all classes of agriculturists in Scotland with regard to its provisions.")—(The Earl of Galloway.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he was perfectly well aware that to-day was the 12th of August, and a very inconvenient day to deal with important legislation. But as long as it was not in their Lordships' power to control the progress of Business in "another place," they had to take the Business as it came up to them. He hoped the noble Earl would not press his Amendment to a Division for this reason. There were two Fast days in Scotland at present; but they were in process of being abolished, and the agricultural servants in certain parts of Scotland feared that that if these were abolished, the holidays which they represented would be abolished also. It was to ob-
  238
  viate that fear that the Bill was introduced. He thought if their Lordships would accept the Amendments he intended to propose in Committee, they would find that no objection could be taken to the Bill.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)said, he did not think that the Bill would either do good or ill. The only point he had intimated on the second reading that he would strongly object to was the clause which provided that no reductions should be made from the wages of servants in respect of these holidays. That seemed to him to introduce a new principle, and in a Bill of this kind a very objectionable principle. Now that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill proposed to omit the clause which provided that no deductions should be made for the holidays, he hoped their Lordships would agree with the Bill, because the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Galloway) was taking too much notice of a Bill of this description, it having passed through the other House. The noble Earl who moved the Amendment said in one breath that the Bill was worth nothing at all, and in the next that it was so important that there was no time to adequately consider it at this period of the Session.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion?" Their Lordships divided:— Contents 9; Not-Contents 9.
  The numbers being equal, it was (according to ancient rule) resolved in the negative.
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.