Lords Sitting of 20 May 1887

MINUTES.
SAT FIRST IN PARLIAMENT—The Lord Meredyth, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Accumulations (81), discharged; Lunacy Districts (Scotland) (82); Pluralities Act Amendment Act (1885) Amendment (96); Colonial Service (Pensions) (98).
Committee—Report—Crofters Holdings (Scotland) (90); County Courts Consolidation* (78).
Report—Irish Land Law * (106).
Third Reading—Police Force Enfranchisement* (77).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Committee—Report—Local Government (Highways)* (87); Local Government (Poor Law) * (88); Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 2) * (89).

EGYPT—DURATION OF THE ENGLISH OCCUPATION—MISSION OF SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF.

  POSTPONEMENT OF QUESTION.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I wish to ask my noble Friend behind
  634
  me (the Earl of Carnarvon), who has the following Notice on the Paper:—
  "To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is in a position to give any explanation relative to Sir H. D. Wolff's negotiations in regard to the English occupation of Egypt,"
  to postpone it, as I am not able to give him any information at the present moment.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: As my noble Friend desires the postponement of the Question, I shall be very glad to do as he wishes. I find that the Notice Paper on Monday is so crowded, that it would be hardly possible to find room for the Question; and therefore it will be most convenient to postpone it till Friday, the 10th of June, when I shall move for the Papers on the subject.

CENTRAL ASIA (AFGHANISTAN)—THE ANGLO-RUSSIAN DELIMITATION COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYasked, Whether it is a fact that, in the negotiations with Russia as to the delimitation of Afghanistan, as has been recently stated in the newspapers, England and Russia have been unable to come to an agreement, or that negotiations have been broken off and the British Commissioners ordered to return to England?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): It is true that the Commission has not yet come to an agreement; but it is not true that negotiations have been broken off; and it is not true that any orders have been sent to the British Commissioners to return to England. As far as it is possible to forecast such matters, I think negotiations are more likely to last a longer than a shorter time. The matter is one that involves considerable difficulty, in consequence of its previous history, and will involve, I dare say, a great deal of discussion between the Commissioners.

  LUNACY DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  (The Marquess of Lothian.)
  (NO. 82.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN), in moving

  635
  that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it had not been circulated, and that if their Lordships objected, he would postpone the Motion till Monday. The object of the Bill was simply to rectify a state of matters called into existence when the Prisons Act of 1887 was passed. By the Lunacy Act of 1857, powers were given to the General Board of Lunacy sitting in Edinburgh to alter lunacy districts; but the initiative rested in the General Prisons Board, which General Prisons Board was done away with by Section 69 of the Prisons Act of 1877. Consequently, there was now no authority to take the initiative in altering or varying, however desirable it might be, a lunacy district in any part of Scotland. This Act was simply to give to another Body, or, rather, to other Bodies—to the Commissioners of Supply of counties, to magistrates of burghs, and to Parochial Boards—power to apply to the General Board of Lunacy to alter or vary existing lunacy districts. Under the Act of 1857, the General Board had only power to make the districts areas consisting of not less than of counties, or of burghs; and it was now proposed, where the population was greatly increasing, to enable the Lunacy Board to make less districts than those allowed by the Act of 1857. The Bill did not propose any alteration of the existing law, and although it had not yet been printed and circulated, he hoped that their Lordships would now assent to the second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he thought it would be establishing a bad precedent to allow a Bill which their Lordships had not seen to be read a second time.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he would remind the noble Earl that when he (the Marquess of Lothian) got up to move the second reading, he put himself in their Lordships' hands, and offered, if the course he proposed was inconvenient, to postpone the second reading until Monday. Receiving no answer, he concluded he had the consent of the House to proceed.
  In reply to The Earl of WEMYSS,
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, the Bill had been presented 10 days ago.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a.

  PLURALITIES ACT AMENDMENT ACT (1885) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 90.)
  (The Lord Bishop of Bangor.)

  SECOND BEADING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE BISHOP OF BANGOR, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to repeal a portion of Section 2 of the Pluralities Acts Amendment Act, 1885, in order to restore to the Bishops of St. Asaph, Bangor, Landaff, and St. David's the power which was formerly possessed by them to require such ministrations in the Welsh language as they might think necessary in benefices within their respective dioceses, and which he contended the Act of 1885 had unduly limited. The desire was to enable the Bishop to arrange for two Welsh services each Sunday in parishes where such supply was necessary, and not to be obliged to limit the services to one conducted in Welsh and one in English. The right rev. Prelate moved the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Bishop of Bangor.)
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion to add (" upon this day six months.")—(The Earl of Powis.)
  THE BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH, in supporting the Motion for the Second Reading, said, that he regretted very much to be obliged to differ from the noble Earl, who was so staunch a friend to the Church in Wales; but he did so because the existing Act was the cause of much discontent among the Welsh-speaking population of Wales. It was impossible for the Church to maintain a hold on the population in Welsh parishes with only one service in the Welsh language per day. They were anxious to correct the abuse, and the Bishops should be allowed freedom to arrange for two services in Welsh, and they should be trusted to make the necessary provision also for the English-speaking people. If the Bishops were not permitted to give two Welsh services each Sunday, the result would be that the people would be driven more and more into the Dissenting chapels. If the present Act were to

  637
  remain in force without being amended as was now proposed, it would do more than anything else to promote the present movement for Disestablishment.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONwas understood to draw the right rev. Prelate's attention to the wording of the section of the Act which the Bill sought to amend, and pointed out that under the section as it stood there was no compulsion on the Bishops as the right rev. Prelate seemed to contend; but that it was optional to him to enforce one service, leaving the other service to be a matter of agreement between him and the incumbent.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he should like to have some expression of opinion from the Government with regard to the Bill.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, his impression with respect to the Bill was certainly in its favour; but he should propose that after the second reading some time should be given for consideration, in order to see whether any and, if so, what Amendments ought to be introduced in Committee.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the negative.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

SCOTLAND—HILLHEAD AND KELVINSIDE (ANNEXATION TO GLASGOW) BILL—THE BOTANIC GARDENS AND THE UNIVERSITY.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF STATE, in rising to call attention to the consequences of a recent decision of a Committee of that House on the Hillhead and Kelvinside (Annexation to Glasgow) Bill as regards the Botanic Institution of Glasgow and the interests of the University of Glasgow and the public generally therein; and to inquire, Whether Her Majesty's Government will adopt such action as may be necessary to preserve the Gardens from being closed and the site appropriated to buildings and other purposes? said, the object of the Bill in question, which had come up from the Commons, the Preamble having been proved, but the Bill itself being thrown out by a Committee of their Lordships' House, was to annex the two small burghs of
  638
  Hillhead and Kelvinside, a district which embraced the Botanic Gardens, which were 25 acres in extent. These Gardens, by the Bill, were to be transferred to the Corporation of the City of Glasgow, and were to be maintained by the Corporation in perpetuity as a public park. The Botanic Gardens Institution had got into financial difficulties recently, so much so, indeed, that it was necessary to get loans from the Corporation of Glasgow on the security of the land. These loans amounted, with interest, to between £46,000 and £50,000, and the Corporation of Glasgow had, in consequence of the rejection of the Annexation Bill, been forced to foreclose, and the Gardens passed into their hands on 1st April last. These Gardens were situated near to the University of Glasgow, connected with which there was a medical school attended by a very large number of students amounting in 1885 and 1886 to 694, of whom over 200 attended the Botanical classes. It was incontestable that a Botanic Garden, with proper appliances, was a sine quâ non to the successful study of science. As the matter now stood, however, the Corporation of Glasgow were unable to continue the maintenance of these important Gardens, and there seemed to be only one course open, which he believed was, that the Gardens should be disposed of by sale for building purposes. That would, unfortunately, involve the destruction of the plant and glass houses recently erected at a cost of £20,000, and would also involve the dispersion of very valuable collections which had been accumulated during the pas 50 years. He need hardly say that would be most detrimental to the interests of the University of Glasgow. He might also say that the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Dublin, and Edinburgh had Botanic Gardens, which were made use of regularly for the benefit of their medical students, and for which public grants were received in the case of Edinburgh, amounting to an annual sum of £1,600. For these reasons he had put the Question standing in his name on the Paper, and would appeal to the Government to take the case into their favourable consideration. He wished to make an acknowledgment due to the Corporation of the City of Glasgow, by stating that although these grounds were not available to the public just now, they had kindly made ar-

  639
  rangements by which, the students had access to them during the summer session.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he was Chairman of the Committee before which the Bill referred to had been considered. The real object of the Bill was to secure the annexation of districts in the West End of Glasgow, which included the Botanic Gardens, and the Committee had decided that it should not proceed. Though his own individual opinion was in favour of the Bill proceeding, he was bound to say that the other Members of the Lords Committee gave the most careful attention to the subject, which was one of very great difficulty, and one on which a great deal might be said on both sides. The particular point raised by the noble Earl (the Earl of Stair) was, as he understood it, not on the merits of the general question raised by the Bill, but on the particular question of the Botanic Gardens. So far as he could gather from the noble Earl, it seemed that the Corporation of Glasgow, having lent money to the Botanic Gardens, they now proposed to sell the Gardens for building purposes. He (the Earl of Northbrook) could only say he hoped that the Corporation of Glasgow would not take that course. It did not appear to him that it was at all necessary; because they had already, as stated in the Preamble of the Bill, powers, under a previous Act, to arrange with the Trustees of the Botanic Gardens to take over the Gardens as a public park, and though it might be necessary in order to carry out that arrangement that some further legislation should take place, he could not think that the Corporation of Glasgow would find any difficulty in getting the sanction of Parliament to any such proposal. It might be said, certainly, that the district of Hill-head which lay between the University and the Gardens, not being annexed to Glasgow, it would be unfair to put the charge of the Botanic Gardens upon the City of Glasgow, while the people of Hill head made no contribution towards the maintenance of the Garden; but the Committee had distinctly before them the statement of the Commissioners of Hillhead, that they were prepared to agree to any reasonable arrangement for rating the population of Hillhead in support of the Gardens in question. He
  640
  did not think, therefore, that the Corporation of Glasgow would be justified, in consequence of the rejection of the Bill by their Lordships' House, in taking a step so vary detrimental to the public interest as to sell the Gardens for building purposes. Before the Committee they had evidence from most distinguished Professors of the University, which entirely supported the statement of the noble Earl, of the great educational value of the Gardens, besides their value as a place of relaxation. Therefore, he trusted that some measure would be adopted to prevent so undesirable an act as that these Gardens should be utilized for building purposes.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, his attention had been called some time ago to the question how far it was important to annex outlying suburbs. His opinion, generally speaking, had always been that such suburbs, which were really part of a city, ought to resist annexation to a neighbouring town. Their general object was to escape the increased taxation involved, and he must say it was a legitimate object. But he must also say in this case, that two years ago, on looking into the facts, he said that Glasgow was quite entitled in going in for the annexation of those districts which were so thoroughly identified with the city, and were so thoroughly part of the city that annexation was necessary. One of the questions involved in the Bill was the support of the Botanic Gardens, one of the most valuable institutions in the district. The Gardens stood adjacent to the University, and were extremely important to the Medical School of the University. The citizens of Glasgow ought to think twice before they closed these valuable Gardens. He understood the people of the district were willing to bear a share of the maintenance of these Gardens, and he hoped, in the meantime, some arrangement might be made by which they would continue to be supported.
  THE MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALEsaid, that having taken some interest in the Bill referred to by the noble Earl who had just put the question (the Earl of Stair), perhaps he might be allowed to say a few words. He did not propose to enter into the question of the desirability, or the contrary, of annexing the outlying burghs to the City of Glasgow, for that was not now before

  641
  the House. Suffice it to say that the decision of the Committee of their Lordships' House had his entire concurrence, and was, indeed, in conformity with no less than four former decisions on the same subject. In regard to the maintenance of the Gardens, there was no ground for the statement of the noble Earl that there was only one course open to the Glasgow Corporation. The noble Earl who had just spoken (the Earl of North-brook) referred to a proposal made by the burgh of Hillhead during the time the Bill was before the House, and repeated since, that the burghs of Hillhead and Kelvinside should contribute to their maintenance. The noble Earl did not state what that proposal was; and he (the Marquess of Tweeddale), therefore, begged to state it. The sum required to maintain the Gardens and pay the interest of 3½ per cent on the Glasgow Corporation's loan was £3,000 per annum. Now, of that it was proposed that the burghs of Hillhead and Kelvinside should contribute £2,000, and the Corporation of Glasgow £1,000, In other words, a community of 15,000 persons were willing to contribute £2,000 a-year, as against £1,000 a-year by the 500,000 inhabitants of Glasgow. He thought that would be admitted to be a most reasonable proposal; and it was impossible, in the face of it, and of the power which the Corporation already possessed, under the Act of Parliament before referred to, enabling them to purchase the Gardens, to contend that they were compelled to foreclose the mortgage and sacrifice the Gardens. It would almost seem as if the Corporation feared to loose the lever which the mortgage gave them wherewith to coerce the small burghs into annexation. At any rate, there seemed no solid ground or good reason for the extreme step which the Corporation appeared inclined to take.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)said, that the Government would view with the greatest possible regret the abolition of the Botanic Gardens. Unlike the noble Duke, he had no personal acquaintance with the situation of the Gardens; but, from what he had been able to learn respecting them, it appeared to him that the maintenance of the Gardens was not only a question of great importance to the City of Glasgow, but also to the University. Every facility had been
  642
  afforded, he believed, to the students of the University of Glasgow for making use of these Gardens; and it would be a distinct blow to the University, and it would handicap it in its relations as regarded the other Universities of Scotland, if these Gardens were abolished. Apart from that question, there was another which seemed to him to be of great importance—namely, this—that these Gardens were started about 70 years ago, and they had been growing and increasing in value from that time to this. Their area, he believed, was only short of Kew; and in extent they were, in fact, the second of the kind in the United Kingdom. The collection of plants they contained was in itself invaluable; but, if sold, it would bring nothing like the real value. As regards the suggestion of his noble Friend (the Earl of Northbrook), he must confess it seemed to him it was in the power of the City of Glasgow, as he understood, to promote some other Act which would enable trustees to take over the Gardens under the Glasgow Parks Act. In fact, by Clause 28 of last year's Act, the City of Glasgow would be able to take over the Gardens as a public park, and maintain them in the interests of the district. On the part of Her Majesty's Government, he would say, although they took very great interest in the question, he was afraid, as the noble Earl (the Earl of Stair) had not made any suggestion as to what course the Government should pursue, he could not make any suggestion himself. He could only say this—that if any practical suggestion could be made by the noble Earl, or by anyone else, by which these Gardens could be maintained, Her Majesty's Government would take it into their serious consideration, and would be very glad if, by any means, that object could be attained.

  COLONIAL SERVICE (PENSIONS) BILL.
  (The Earl of Onslow.)

  (NO. 98.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, he had been very glad to see that one result of the Colonial Conference had been that a step had been taken in the right direc-

  643
  tion by the Government in connection with this matter. It had always been a matter of the greatest regret to him, taking the interest which he did in the Colonial Service, that no class had been more neglected than those employed by Her Majesty's Government in the Colonies. Twenty years ago it had been left to him, as a private Member, to introduce a Governors' Pension Bill; until that period no Governor had received any pension at all. The Bill which he had introduced had been very considerably changed during its pro-gross through Parliament, the period of service having been altered from six years to 18. He would endeavour to introduce some Amendment in the present Bill; and he trusted that now, when the public interest in Colonial matters was so great, justice would be done to those who served in the Colonies.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 14 th of June next.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE AND ART—THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    LORD LAMINGTON, in rising to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the position of the National Portrait Gallery, said, he wished to remind their Lordships that two years ago, when Mr. Gladstone had been Prime Minister, the Trustees of the Gallery had agreed to allow the portraits to be removed from South Kensington to Bethnal Green, Captain Shaw having reported that they were not safe in South Kensington. That, however, had been done upon the distinct understanding that in two years' time they would be replaced in a proper position. The two years had now elapsed, and the pictures were still at Bethnal Green; nothing had been done, and apparently nothing was intended to be done. He (Lord Lamington) had objected to the step that was taken at the time, as he thought that a great injustice was done to those families who had given pictures to that most interesting and valuable Gallery, in which the public took so great an interest that 160,000 persons had visited it in the year before its removal from South Kensington. The Collection was really lost now in a
    644
    general Museum, the visitors to which took little interest in historical portraits. For his own part, he deeply regretted the mode in which public works were now carried on in this country, and the utter lack of public spirit which seemed to prevail. Nothing, for instance, had yet been done with regard to Parliament Street, and the value of the property was increasing year after year. Such a method of conducting improvements, instead of being economical, was most expensive. In the case of the National Portrait Gallery, however, distinct obligations had been entered into by the Government two years ago, and the present Government were bound to carry out the pledges given by Mr. Gladstone's Government. He trusted, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government would give them an assurance that something would be immediately done.
    VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, he was very glad that attention had been called to the subject, for he thought there seemed to be some probability of the Collection remaining at Bethnal Green now that it had been removed there. The fact was that many necessary things were left undone that ought to be done in consequence of having to square a popular Budget. The National Portraits had been driven from pillar to post in an unaccountable manner. First, they were in very bad rooms in Great George Street; then they were transferred to South Kensington, and placed over Spiers and Pond's refreshment establishment; then the fire occurred, when they were removed to Bethnal Green, on the distinct understanding that in two years provision was to be made for their reception in a permanent and central home. Mr. Plunket was most anxious that a permanent site should be granted for the Portrait Gallery. He had suggested the site next the India Office, but was always met with difficulties, on the score of expense, by the Treasury. The present Offices where the Board conducted their ordinary business were very small, and it was very desirable that some temporary accommodation should be found for exhibiting those pictures which from time to time were purchased, and which could not be removed to Bethnal Green. Under these circumstances, he earnestly hoped that the Government would take up the matter seriously, and that no further delay would take place in pro-

    645
    viding a suitable receptacle for the National Portraits.
    THE EARL OF ELGINsaid, that he had stated last year that the difficulty arose partly from want of funds, but also from the impossibility of dealing with sites in possession of the Government until the position of the new Government Offices was determined. He would point out, however, that at the present time there was a considerable plot of vacant land belonging to the Government in close proximity to the National Gallery, in the new street near Charing Cross; and he would suggest that it might be used with advantage as the site for the National Portrait Gallery.
    LORD HENNIKERsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Lamington) would, no doubt, recollect an answer he gave to a Question on this subject in August, 1885. It was then considered that the Gallery in which the National Portraits wore housed were unsafe. Several proposals were made, such as to place it in the West Gallery, to place it in the Natural History Museum, and so on. No place, however, was found to be available. It would be remembered that some of the Galleries at South Kensington were the old Galleries of the Exhibition of 1862. The South Gallery, where the pictures were placed, was pronounced unsafe, and so was the West Gallery. The East Gallery was devoted to the Indian Museum, facing Prince's Gate, and so was not available. Accordingly, the Collection was moved to Bethnal Green as the safest and best place, and where it was not only not wasted, but likely to be fully appreciated. To show that it was appreciated, he might say that, taking 10 years, 1876 to 1885 inclusive, the largest number of visitors at South Kensington was, in 1883, 146,187; while to take the last complete year at South Kensington and the only complete year at Bethnal Green—that was, 1884 and 1886—the numbers were in 1884 120,716, and in 1886 446,722. It must be recollected that the portraits were moved in September, 1885, and that the present was the month of May, 1887, so he could give no better comparison. In 1885 he stated that the First Commissioner of Works could give no pledge as to finding a permanent home for this Collection, but expressed his desire that a home should be found as soon as possible. He was glad his noble Friend had called attention to this
    646
    question, and he was sure that no one was more anxious than his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner to find a permanent home for this valuable Collection. The noble Lord would recollect that the Office of Works depended a great deal on the favour of the Treasury. At present there were large schemes on foot for erecting public buildings, which were hung up for the time. This altered the circumstances of the case very much. The Office of Works could not take too many large schemes in hand at a time; and all he could say was that when an opportunity offered and Parliament granted the necessary funds—which he hoped they soon would—the plans would be ready. No plan had been decided on at present. The noble Earl (the Earl of Elgin) had spoken of the site in Hemming's Row. This had been most carefully considered, but there were grave objections against it. No doubt the suitability of this site would be carefully considered again when the proper time arrived. He stated in 1885 that the housing of the pictures at Bethnal Green was a temporary loan, and he thought that this should be distinctly understood—that they were only there till a permanent home could be provided. Meanwhile, they were in the safest and best place that could be found, and he thought he had clearly proved that they were not thrown away in their present position.

    SITTINGS AND ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE—THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.—QUESTION.
    In answer to The Earl of KIMBEKLEY,
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the House would adjourn on Monday next, subject to certain formal Business from the House of Commons; but, practically, it would be on Monday; and it was proposed to meet again on Thursday, the 9th of June. He was aware that it was usual to meet on a Friday; but as they never did much on the first day except to put down Notices for other days, he thought they might utilize the 9th for that purpose.
    House adjourned during pleasure.
    House resumed.
    The Lord KINTORE chosen Speaker in the absence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Commissioners.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered To-morrow in order to its being dispensed with for the remainder of that day's Sitting.
    House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Four o'clock.