Lords Sitting of 12 July 1887

MINUTES
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Margarine (Fraudulent Sale)* (169); Merchandise Marks Law Consolidation and Amendment* (170).
Committee—Allotments for Cottagers (109), discharged; Metropolitan Open Spaces Act Extension (69–168).
Third Reading—Land Transfer (161), and passed.
Royal Assent—Metropolis Management (Battersea and Westminster) [50 & 51 Vict. c. 17]; National Debt and Local Loans [50 & 51 Vict. c. 16]; Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1867, Amendment [50 & 51 Vict. c. 18].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Third Reading—Local Government (No. 6)* (147); Local Government (No. 8) * (148); Local Government (Ireland) (Killiney and Bally brack) * (149), and passed.
Royal Assent—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) [50 & 51 Vict. c. xcix]; Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Provisional Order [50 & 51 Vict. c. c]; Metropolis (Cable Street, Shadwell) Provisional Order [50 & 51 Vict. c. ci]; Metropolis (Shelton Street. St. Giles) Provisional Order [50 & 51 Vict. c. cii].

NEW PEERS.
Cornwallis, Viscount Hawarden in that part of the United Kingdom called Ireland, having been created Earl de Montalt, of Dundrum in the county of Tipperary—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
William Henry Forester, Baron Londesborough, having been created Viscount Raincliffe, of Raincliffe in the North Riding of the county of York, and Earl of Londesborough in the said county—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
George Edmund Milnes, Viscount Galway in that part of the United Kingdom called Ireland, having been created Baron Monckton, of Serlby in the county of Nottingham—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Sir John St. Aubyn, Baronet, having been created Baron Saint Levan, of St. Michael's Mount in the county of Cornwall—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Right Honourable George Sclater-Booth, having been created Baron Basing, of Basing Byflete and of Hoddington, both in the county of Southampton—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—HOUSE OF LORDS—ACOUSTIC PROPERTIES OF THIS HOUSE.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he wished to correct a passage in the report of the remarks he made in putting the Question yesterday with reference to the arrest of women by the police. He was reported to have said that—
  "Capital had been attempted to be made in a Party sense out of the recent transactions; but he would remind their Lordships that provisions which would have prevented this outrage from taking place were introduced into the Criminal Law Amendment Bill by the present Prime Minister and struck out by Mr. Gladstone's Government."
  What he really did say, was that the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, which was introduced three times by Mr. Gladstone's Government, contained a clause giving power to the police to make an arrest without any complaint of annoyance having been made; and he stated

  487
  that he consistently opposed that clause, and that he was honoured by the support in his opposition of the late Lord Shaftesbury and the present Prime Minister (the Marquess of Salisbury). He also gave extracts from the speeches of both those noble Lords, giving their reasons for concurring with him in thinking that such a clause would expose respectable women to great danger. He further stated that when the Bill came into the hands of the Government presided over by his noble Friend, the clause was struck out. He, therefore, could not refrain from expressing his great surprise that the police should continue to act as if that clause formed part of the Act.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECEETARY OF STATE FOR FOERIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I have a similar complaint to that of my noble Friend. In the newspapers of yesterday I am made to say that Sir H. Drummond Wolff was waiting in Constantinople in a state of "animated expectancy." That would have been a very disrespectful way of speaking of Her Majesty's Ambassador, and I am sure I never was guilty of it. But I would call your Lordships' attention to the very bad acoustic conditions of this House, and if I might propose, as Conservatives sometimes do, something exceedingly revolutionary, I should like to put a fourth gentleman at this Table and make him the reporter.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would remind the noble Marquess that a Committee of the House had sat on the question of reporting, and had made a similar proposal to that put forward by his noble Friend.
  LORD DENMANsaid, there was no doubt the reporters could report most accurately when they chose. He had had an instance of that in proposing the Women's Suffrage Bill on September 2 last. He did not give any instructions to Hansard to report him, but that gentleman's representative occupied a place generally reserved for one of the Press. The Press had a great deal too much power in this matter, especially the editor of The Times. On the occasion to which he referred, Hansard reported every word he said, and, notwithstanding that he (Lord Denman) entreated him not to publish the speech, he insisted on doing so, and did it in a rather imperfect way, imputing to the Mayor of Shef-
  488
  field the words of Mr. Jacob Bright. He had since published that speech. Last night, again, he quoted four lines from Lord Houghton's rare poem, and he was certain the reporters heard them. He was not ashamed of having quoted those lines. If their Lordships chose to truckle to The Times and the Press they would endanger the liberties of their country. They were not to be called over by foreign nations for what passed in that House, as their proceedings were private. They were so formerly. From the great Conservative meeting at which Lord Beaconsfield presided at Bridge-water House the Press were excluded. A gentleman from The Telegraph came and asked him what had passed, but he told him it was private. Although the Rule of the House of Commons as regards the admission of strangers had been relaxed, he would remind their Lordships that it still subsisted in their House, that strangers must withdraw when asked. He thought the liberties of the country were in danger when Peers and Members of Parliament truckled to the Press.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, that a Committee was appointed by their Lordships some years ago, of which he was a Member, to consider the question of reporting, and he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would take the Report of that Committee into consideration. To carry out their recommendations would have involved some alteration in the acoustic properties of the House, and would also have necessitated Parliament voting some money towards Hansard's Debates in their Lordships' House. Perhaps, their Lordships were not aware that the only means of reporting for Hansard in their House was The Times newspaper; whereas in the House of Commons some £4,000 a-year was voted for quasi-official reports. No doubt the acoustic properties of the House were very bad, and that eminent statesman (Lord Russell) could, in his latter years, only be accurately reported by means of a reporter placing himself under the floor of the House.

ALLOTMENTS FOR COTTAGERS BILL
(The Earl of Dunraven.)
ALLOTMENTS FOR COTTAGERS BILL

  (NO. 109.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, that as he understood it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill dealing with this subject in the House of Commons on Monday next, he would ask their Lordships' permission not to proceed with this Bill until the House had an opportunity of seeing the Government measure.
  Order discharged.

METROPOLITAN OPEN SPACES ACT (EXTENSION) BILL.—(No. 69.)
(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
METROPOLITAN OPEN SPACES ACT (EXTENSION) BILL.—(No. 69.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 and 2 severally agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Extension of Provisions of Metropolitan Open Spaces Act to the urban sanitary districts).
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, line 32, after ("district") insert ("provided that no vestry nor other public body shall be permitted to remove any tombstone from a graveyard without first giving one month's notice to the representatives of the person whose tombstone it is proposed to remove").—(The Lord De Ros.)
  On the Motion of The Lord MOUNT-TEMPLE, Amendment amended by inserting, after the word ("notice") in line 4, the words ("wherever practicable").
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 4 to 8, inclusive, severally agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 9 agreed to, with Amendments.
  On the Motion of the Lord MOUNT-TEMPLE, the following Amendments made:—After Clause 9 insert as a new Clause—
  "After the passing of this Act it shall be lawful for the Metropolitan Board to allow the playing of games and sports in all open spaces other than churchyards, cemeteries, and burial grounds."
  After proposed new Clause after Clause 9, insert as a new Clause—
  "After the passing of this Act, it shall not be lawful to use any disused burial ground for any purposes of profit."
  Remaining Clauses, and Schedule, agreed to, with Amendments: the Report thereof to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 168.)

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

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the Amendment moved yesterday on the Third Reading read.
  Debate resumed accordingly: The said Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he wished to alter slightly the form of the Amendment he proposed yesterday. That Amendment had reference to Clause 39, Sub-section 4, which applied to the real estate of an infant or lunatic. It had been pointed out that there might be considerable difficulty in defining the lunatic; and he proposed now that this section should not apply to any real estate of a person being an infant, and not being capable of disposing of it by will. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had said that every person ought to make a will; and the Amendment which he now proposed dealt with the case of those who by law were not capable of making a will, and, therefore, ought not to be subject to pains and penalties. It had been suggested that power should be given to the Court of Chancery to make a disposition of the property; but he thought the Court of Chancery would be very much embarrassed in doing so. In the case of persons not capable of making a will, the property ought to go to the next in remainder.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 20, line 27, leave out from ("or") to the end of the clause, and insert ("being at the time of his succession to such estate and thence forward incapable of disposing of the same by will").—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  LORD HOBHOUSEsaid, he opposed the Amendment on the ground that it was contrary to the principle of the clause in which it was proposed to insert it. When the law made arrangements for the distribution of property, it should endeavour to make such arrangements as reasonable people would make for themselves. The justification of this alteration of the law was, that, as a rule, reasonable people did not give all their property to one, but divided it among their successors. "Why should not their Lordships do for the successors of an infant or lunatic that which they

  491
  did for the successors of other persons? The House had decided, after discussion, that equal division was a better rule of succession than primogeniture. If primogeniture was the most reasonable rule, why were we now altering it? If equal division was the most reasonable rule, why not apply it to the property of those who cannot judge for themselves? It could not possibly make any difference whether the deceased owner could not make any disposition of his property, or whether he had not. In each case alike we were bound to make the best arrangements we could for succession to the undisposed of property.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that, as in the present case the infant or lunatic could not make a will, he thought the Amendment of the noble Earl was a most reasonable one.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he was very much in their Lordships' hands in this matter. The only objection he saw to the Amendment was, that if it passed, there would be a class of persons to whom the new law would not apply. It seemed to him that to accept the noble Earl's Amendment would be to retain the Law of Inheritance in the cases of lunatics and infants, and that, he thought, scarcely consistent with the object of the Bill. He recognized the difficulty with which the noble Earl sought to deal; but he must say that it differed from what the Bill proposed to do in the case of intestates, and might be found to be inconvenient in practice. He should not, however, oppose it.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he did not think that this was a matter of very great importance. It dealt with exceptional cases, and the only recommendation which such a provision had was that the ingenuity of conveyancers was inexhaustible; and if a provision was made such as people very strongly desired to walk round for the sake of meeting these exceptional cases, he was not at all sure that they would not find means to do so, and walk round it not only in these cases, but also in others which did not fall within these particular exceptions. In that case there was something to be said for dealing with exceptional cases.
  Amendment agreed to.
  An Amendment moved, and negatived: Amendments made: Then the Queen's
  492
  consent and the consent of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales in right of his Duchy of Cornwall signified: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—THE CENTRAL HALL—THE STATUE OF THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEasked the Lord Great Chamberlain, Whether permission will be given to the subscribers for a statue of the Earl of Iddesleigh to place their statue on the floor of the Central Hall of the Palace of Westminster, in a position not intended or contemplated by the architect as the site of any statue, or to place their statue on one of the eight vacant pedestals in the Lobby at the entrance of the House of Commons, which were designed by the architect for eight statues? He wished the statue to be worthy of the statesman, and in harmony with his character for wisdom, good sense, and appropriateness, and not the right thing in the wrong place. The Committee had been guided by the sculptor, without consulting architects of eminence. The effect of a statue always depended on surroundings, which, in this case, would be inharmonious and injured by a modern statue of a different character from the 48 statues and the 20 angels richly decorated. The statue would be a great eyesore to the building if placed where it was intended.
  LORD AVELANDsaid, that in May last he was asked by his noble Friend the Lord President of the Council (Viscount Cranbrook), on behalf of the subscribers to the Lord Iddesleigh Memorial, to allow a statue to be placed in the Central Hall. He assented to the request; and he understood that in doing so he was acting in accordance with the wishes of a large number of the friends of the late Earl, Members of both Houses of Parliament, and also of other subscribers to the Memorial.
  After some observations from Lord BRAYE,
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was the only Member of the Committee who, on different grounds, took exception to the site chosen unanimously by the rest of the Committee. At the same time, he acquiesced in the unanimous wish of the rest of the Committee, and he was bound

  493
  to say that lie thought that the arguments in favour of the present site were not so strong as the objections to all the other sites proposed, including the Lobby site.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSasked, whether the statue of Lord Iddesleigh would harmonize with that of Earl Russell?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he could not go into details; but both statues would be by the same sculptor, and it was therefore improbable that there would be any great difference of character between them.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACTS (IRELAND) AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL.
Commons' Amendments to Lords' Amendments, and Commons' Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords' Amendments considered (on Motion).
LORD MACNAGHTENsaid, he believed the parties interested in the Bill had arrived at an agreement in regard to the Bill; therefore, he hoped their Lordships would consider and assent to the Commons' Amendments at once.
On Motion of The Lord MACNAGHTEN, The Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, not insisted on; and the Amendments made by the Commons to the Amendments made by the Lords agreed to.
House adjourned at Six o'clock to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.