Lords Sitting of 11 July 1887

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) (164).
Third Reading—Land Transfer (161), debate adjourned; Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1867, Amendment* (117); Quarries (160), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—First Reading—Local Government (No. 7) * (166); Public Health (Scotland) (Duntocher and Dalmuir Water) * (167).
Committee—Report—Local Government (No. 6) * (147); Local Government (No. 8)* (148); Local Government (Ireland) (Killiney and Ballybrack)* (149).
Third Reading—Gas* (123), and passed.

NEW PEERS.
Claude, Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorn, in that part of the United Kingdom called Scotland, having been created Baron Bowes, of Streatlam Castle in the county of Durham, and of Lunedale in the county of York—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Henry William Eaton, Esquire, having been created Baron Cheylesmore, of Cheylesmore in the city of Coventry and county of Warwick—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

EGYPT—THE ANGLO-EGYPTIAN CONVENTION—RATIFICATION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I wish to ask the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) a Question of which I have given him private Notice. It is, Whether he can give us any information with regard to the ratification or non-ratification by the Sultan of the Egyptian Convention?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I am afraid that at present I have little to add to that which I have already stated upon this matter; but I felt that I had no right to keep back the Correspondence any longer, and, therefore, a few days ago I gave instructions that it should be laid on the Table of the House.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: May I ask another Question with regard to the movements of Sir H. Drummond Wolff, in which the public take very considerable interest? We understood, rightly or wrongly, that he was under orders to leave Constantinople last Monday unless the Convention was ratified. The noble Marquess has told us that he was under orders to leave Constantinople in the course of last week. The Convention does not appear to have been ratified, nor does Sir H. Drummond Wolff appear to have left Constantinople. Can the noble Marquess give us any information on the subject?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Most undoubtedly, Sir H. Drummond Wolff's instructions were to leave Constantinople last week; but I never communicated them to the noble Earl in the nature of a pledge or promise of any

  325
  kind, that the Convention should be ratified by that time. On Friday I received advices which induced mo to think it would be to the public advantage that Sir H. Drummond Wolff should remain there a few days longer, and in consequence I gave him permission to do so.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Are we to understand that the question of ratification is still in abeyance?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that is rather a contingent question, and I would prefer to reserve it, like all other contingent questions, till the contingency actually arises.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: We foresaw last week that the Convention might not be ratified, as Sir H. Drummond Wolff's movements are closely connected with the ratification or non-ratification of the Convention. We are anxious to press the matter; and, therefore, as there is considerable anxiety felt in the present state of things, I have addressed the Question to the noble Marquess.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Queen has given full powers to Sir H. Drummond Wolff to ratify the Convention, and the Sultan had promised to ratify on a certain day; but he has not done so. I presume the noble Earl's Question to me is—"What will happen supposing the Sultan were to propose to ratify now?" Well, I think that is a contingent question, and it would be necessary for me to know the precise circumstances under which that contingency might take place before I could answer the Question of the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Then are we to understand that the British Plenipotentiary at Constantinople is in a state of suspended animation?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will inquire of Sir H. Drummond Wolff.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 164.)
(The Lord Ashbourne.)
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 164.)

  FIRST READING.
  Bill read la, and to be printed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): I beg to give Notice that I propose to ask your Lordships to read it a second time tomorrow (Tuesday).
  LORD HERSCHELL: When shall we have the Bill in our hands?
  LORD ASHBOUENE: I believe at 4 o'clock to-morrow.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I think this is a very unusual course to pursue. We have not got the Bill in our hands, and yet the noble and learned Lord proposes to take the second reading to-morrow. I do not see why there should be such haste in proceeding with so important a measure, and I protest against it.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I am sorry to have to contradict the noble Earl. I never recommend any speed in dealing with Coercion Bills. As a matter of fact, I believe, without attaching the name "Coercion Bill" to this useful measure, that all Bills dealing with crime in Ireland—and I am told that there have been as many as 87 of them—have always been discussed and proceeded with in this House with as much rapidity as the Forms of the House would permit.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Then, why does not the noble Marquess suspend the Standing Orders and pass the Bill through all its stages at one Sitting?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I would point out the novel position in which we are placed at this time. This Bill has occupied the House of Commons for a very considerable time—in fact, an unusually long time; but this is not an ordinary Coercion Bill. This is a permanent addition to the law of the land, and I do think that it is a strong measure to have this Bill, when it has only just been introduced, read a first time tonight, to distribute it, possibly, tomorrow morning, and then to ask us to read it a second time to-morrow evening. I have, as you know, peculiar views as to the position in which your Lordships' House stand to the country, and I ask what will be thought of this House if you show this extraordinary precipitation? We are not giving the measure the time we expend on Private Bills. I do not wish to urge this in any Party sense; but I do appeal to the fair feeling of the noble Marquess and of noble Lords opposite to give, at any rate, a decent interval between the circulation of this Bill and the second reading for its consideration.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not know whether he rightly understood the noble Earl to say that the

  327
  Bill should have the same intervals as were assigned to Private Bills.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, the noble Marquess had misunderstood him. They thought there should be the usual period of intervention between the printing of the Bill and its discussion in the House.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not wish unduly to press noble Lords in the consideration of this measure; but I must say that it is pressing a technicality rather far for noble Lords opposite to try and persuade us that they do not know what is in this Bill. I presume that they have not quite lived hermit's lives, and also that they have not refused entrance to, but that they have had a newspaper in their houses for the last six months. However, as the Front Opposition Bench takes so earnest a tone, I do not think it would be becoming in us to press the matter. I propose, therefore, to take the second reading on Thursday.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Marquess must be aware that although only five clauses were discussed the changes have been immense. You have omitted the Whiteboy Clauses; you have also abandoned the change of venue to this country; and with regard to the 2nd clause, you have extended about three lines to three pages. To say that, without the Bill in our hands, we should know exactly the state in which it has come up to us, is presuming that we are endowed with an amount of wisdom, which I think is hardly fair for the noble Marquess to attribute to us.
  Bill to be read 2a on Thursday next.

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE AND THE PUBLIC—ARREST OF WOMEN.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in rising to ask, Whether the police are, as has been stated "elsewhere," in the habit of arresting women in the streets of the Metropolis on the charge of unlawfully soliciting without formal complaint made by the persons alleged to have been so solicited; whether such arrest is not illegal; and, if so, whether the Home Secretary will take steps to put a stop to the practice? said, he would point out to their Lordships that when the Criminal Law Amendment Bill was before
  328
  their Lordships' House, it contained a provision empowering the police to arrest any woman soliciting in the streets on their own initiation without complaint made. At the time he (the Earl of Milltown) protested against that power being given to the police, but was not successful in preventing it, although, he twice divided the House in two successive years, and had the support of the late Lord Shaftesbury and the present Prime Minister. The clause, however, was, on a change of Government taking place in 1885, struck out of the Bill in the House of Commons by the Government of his noble Friend. Late occurrences had shown that he was justified in his action. It was, therefore, with some surprise that he read the statement made by the Home Secretary in "another place" that the police were in the habit of making these charges of their own motion, uncorroborated by other evidence, and that the magistrates were accustomed to convict on such testimony. It also appeared from the public prints that great complaints were still made as to the condition of Regent Street and other thoroughfares. If those complaints were well-founded, it showed that the action of the police had not been successful in freeing the streets from the nuisance; but, even if their action had had that effect, he did not think it possible that the people of this country would be satisfied that an innocent tradesman's daughter or workwoman should be liable to be arrested and dragged through the streets and her character ruined at the will of every policeman. Political capital had, he regretted to say, been attempted to be made in a Party sense out of the recent transaction; but he would remind their Lordships that provisions which would have rendered this outrage both probable and legal were introduced into the Criminal Law Amendment Bill by Mr. Gladstone's Government in the other House of Parliament. However, they were struck out by the Conservative Government which succeeded him and took up the charge of that measure.
  EARL BROWNLOW: The police are in the habit of arresting common prostitutes in the Metropolis on the charge of unlawfully soliciting, without formal complaint made by the persons alleged to have been solicited, and without a warrant. I am advised that under the

  329
  2 & 3 Viet, c. 47, s. 54, such arrest is not illegal if, within view of the constable, the person solicited, by his conduct or language, manifests that he is annoyed by the prostitute. It is a question of evidence, the sufficiency of which has to be determined by the magistrate who hears the case.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): I think it is very desirable that it should not go forth on the authority of the noble Earl (the Earl of Milltown) that what has been done in these matters is illegal; because the form of the Question rather suggests illegality. Neither the Home Secretary nor anybody else has a right to interfere with an Act of Parliament, and I think it a very undesirable thing that an impression should be set abroad that any person can treat an Act of Parliament as he likes. If the state of the law is unsatisfactory—on which point I am not in disaccord with the noble Earl—then that law ought to be repealed. Now, the Act of Parliament expressly provides that if a policeman sees what the noble Earl (Earl Brownlow) has said, he has a right to arrest without warrant. I am not stating whether it is right or prudent in all cases to put that power in force; but the noble Earl asks whether it is illegal, and it clearly is not. I am not aware whether there is any peculiar force in the person against whom the annoyance is practised being the person to complain; but where any criminal offence is committed, any one of Her Majesty's subjects, whether a policeman or anybody else, may, unless the power is limited by Statute, put the law in force. In this particular case, the Act specially provides that a policeman may arrest without a warrant whenever he sees the offence committed. In saying what I have said, I trust it will not be supposed I am referring in any degree to the case to which the noble Earl has referred. I am speaking wholly in the abstract with reference to the state of the law, and without reference to the facts which have brought this condition of the law into prominence.

LAND TRANSFER BILL.-(No. 161.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
LAND TRANSFER BILL.-(No. 161.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD DENMAN, who had on the Paper a Motion to move that the Bill be read a third time that day six months, said, that, after what had passed on Friday, he might expect, at least, a Teller for his Motion; but having for 33 years addressed the House without a single cheer, and having probably brought on himself ill-will by opposing both the Front Benches of Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition, he did not look for encouragement. He wished he might, without conceit, apply to himself the words of the first Lord Hough-ton—
  "Yet there are some to whom a strength is given,
  A will, a self-constraining energy,
  A faith that feeds upon no earthly hope,
  That never thinks of victory—but content,
  Rejoicing fights, and, still rejoicing, falls."
  He must ask leave to withdraw his Motion, and only say "Not-Content."
  On Question? Resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 3a accordingly.
  On Question, "That the Bill do pass?"
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he wished to call the attention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack (Lord Halsbury) to an Amendment which stood in his name. Section 39 provided, subject to certain exceptions in favour of husband and wife, that on the death of any person intestate real estate should be divisible among the same persons as if it were personal estate. The 4th subsection was to the effect that the section should not apply to the real estate of persons who were infant or lunatic at the passing of the Act, and thenceforward until their death, nor to the estates to which persons who died under age, or who became lunatic before attaining 21, were entitled under will or settlement executed before the commencement of the Act. He desired to amend the clause by excepting the real estate of infants and lunatics altogether from its operation; but he would be glad to hear from the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack what he proposed to do before he (Earl Beauchamp) formally moved it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord SALISBURY)said, that he had had suggestions made to him from various

  331
  quarters as to the amendment of this Bill. He had every desire to meet the views which had been expressed on this subject in various quarters of the House, but it was not an easy matter. Having done his best to consider it, he had come to the conclusion that the best way to meet the difficulty was to empower the High Court (Chancery Division) to deal with the matter of the devolution of the real property of intestate lunatics and minors in such way as, in its opinion, would meet the justice of the case. He would, therefore, move an Amendment to effect that object.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 20, line 32, add ("Provided that in any case where but for this provision the real estate of any infant or lunatic would be dealt with in accordance with this section, it shall be lawful for the court, on the application of any member of such infant or lunatic's family, to make such order respecting the devolution of the real estate as the court may think just, having regard to the settlement or will under which the infant or lunatic became entitled and the circumstances of the family and estate."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he did not like expressing a decided opinion at a moment's notice; but he must confess that he viewed with some apprehension the suggestion that the Court of Chancery should make a will for a man. He preferred some modification of the proposal of the noble Earl opposite.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that the whole difficulty might be overcome if, instead of abolishing estates in tail and turning them into estates in fee simple, the tenant in tail were to be empowered to make such a grant or devise as he might make if he had an estate in fee simple.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that, as the matter was of some importance, it would probably be more satisfactory to the House if further time were given for the consideration of the point. He, therefore, moved the adjournment of the debate.
  Moved, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsuggested that it would be better that the Motion for the passing of the Bill should be withdrawn.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he would withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Further debate on the said Amendment adjourned till To-morrow.

QUARRIES BILL.—(No. 160.)
(The Lord Sudeley.)
QUARRIES BILL.—(No. 160.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(The Lord Sudeley.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSasked for some information with regard to the sentence in the Bill—"Close on a highway or place of public resort dedicated to the public." In "another place" there was a Bill called "Access to Mountains (Scotland) Bill." Assuming that that Bill were to come to their Lordships' House, and were to pass, which he hoped would not be the case, would a place of public resort include a Scotch mountain, such as Ben Nevis, and would it be dedicated to the public?
  LORD THRING, in reply, said, he thought it would not apply to mountains in any case. A mountain itself would not be dedicated to the public, though they might have resort to it. Those words were put in the Bill in order to mark the difference between highways and other places of public resort, such as markets, and a mountain could not be such a place.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, it only showed the difficulties their Lordships were in from this sort of legislation.
  Motion agreed to.
  Amendments made.
  Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.