Lords Sitting of 19 July 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Indian Councils Act, 1861, Amendment* (224).
Committee—Solicitors (195–226).
Committee—Report—Limited Partnerships (on re-comm.) (213): Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland) (1877) Amendment (199).
Bill reported from the Select Committee (on Recommitment)—Land Charges Registration and Searches (186–221).
Report—Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (211–225); Victoria University (218); Archdeaconry of Cornwall (219); Lloyd's Signal Stations (220).
Third Reading—Factory and Workshops Act (1878) Amendment (Scotland) (76), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—First Reading—Pier and Harbour (No. 2)* (223).
Second Reading—Commons Regulation (Therfield Heath)* (209).

SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he had received any news recently from Zululand, or whether he

  1731
  could give any information to their Lordships on the subject?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): I have received this morning the following telegram from Sir Arthur Havelock, dated Pietermaritzburg, July 18:—
  "Improvement in situation of affairs, Zululand. Referring to my telegram of 8th July, Osborn reports movement of Hlopekulu has largely checked spirit of disaffection and alarm. Magistrate of district Lower Umfolosi gave assistance without opposition, and his proper authority strengthened by establishment of advanced posts near him."

SOLICITORS BILL.—(No. 195.)
(The Lord Esher.)
SOLICITORS BILL.—(No. 195.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clauses 1 to 10, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 11 (Constitution of discipline committee).
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he should move that the clause be omitted, on the ground that it proposed a complete change in the present method of dealing with a solicitor who was guilty of an offence either against the law of the lend or in relation to his conduct to a client, and also on the ground that it established a tribunal of an entirely novel kind. At present, if a solicitor were charged with an offence which made him deserving of punishment, he was called upon to answer matters in an affidavit; and if the charges were of sufficient gravity and proved, the solicitor was struck off the Rolls or suspended, and a very serious punishment it was. That was all done in open Court, and after discussion. But now it was proposed that this most respectable Society—the Incorporated Law Society—should have the power, not, indeed, of striking a solicitor off the Rolls, but of hearing the case, and of hearing it in private instead of in open Court, the idea being that these preliminary proceedings should be referred to a Council of Discipline. It might be that there were some persons for whom the ordinary tribunals of this country were not good enough, and for whom fresh tribunals had to be created; but be trusted that their Lordships would not, without grave consideration, give to this Society to which 5,000 out of the 15,000 solicitors in England be-
  1732
  longed, and which, he admitted, had a Governing Body of gentlemen of the greatest respectability, the powers mentioned in Clause 13—namely, of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents, of administering an oath, and of awarding costs. He thought that this was a most extraordinary proposition, especially coming from a noble and learned Lord who was not specially given to reform.
  Moved, to leave out Clause 11 as amended.—(The Lord Bramwell.)
  LORD ESHER (MASTER of the ROLLS)said, he did not think that the Incorporated Law Society was a mere private society. It was already entrusted with the examination of all persons who desired to become solicitors, and no person could become one without passing that examination. Besides this, they were the registrars and custodians of the Roll of Solicitors. Although all solicitors were not members of that Society, all were able to become members of it, and there was reason to believe that all the great bodies of solicitors in England were in favour of this proposal. The object of this and later sections was not to substitute a new tribunal for an old one, nor would the present power of the Courts of Law in any way be touched by these provisions. The existing mode of proceeding in regard to striking a solicitor off the Rolls was complicated, dilatory, and expensive, and the object of these sections was to remedy that inconvenience, so that a solicitor who was to be struck off the Rolls should go before the Law Society in the first instance, instead of in the second, as at present. He thought that it was impossible for a case to be conducted more fairly than by the Law Society; and he had thought it right, when it became necessary to bring in a Bill of this nature, to give them these powers, although he had declined to put them with regard to solicitors in the position which Benchers occupied with regard to barristers. By application being made at the first instead of the second step to the Law Society, the number of steps necessary would be shortened. He was sorry, therefore, that he could not consent to the proposal to strike out this clause.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he would suggest the adoption of a middle

  1733
  course—namely, that the reference should be made in the first instance to a Master of the Court of Queen's Bench instead of to the Law Society, and that his Report should be made to the Court.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he thought that the real objection was that this proposal was to create a Court outside the Superior Courts, and to create a temporary jurisdiction—a private, irresponsible, unsworn tribunal, under none of the sanctions or obligations of an ordinary tribunal. He thought it dangerous and very objectionable that these excrescences upon the powers of the Courts of Justice should be created.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)thought that his noble and learned Friend who had just spoken had a little overstated what the clause was intended to do. In the publication of applications for a rule nisi in these cases the name of the solicitor was always suppressed, and nothing was known until cause was shown against the rule. All that his noble and learned Friend behind him wished to do was to get rid of the preliminary inquiry as it was now conducted. The proceedings before the Society would resemble somewhat those before a Grand Jury. He could not agree with the noble and learned Lord that if the Incorporated Law Society declined to interfere that would practically put an end to the case. He had a strong impression that the person who believed himself aggrieved would, nevertheless, proceed himself. On more than one occasion the Incorporated Law Society declined to interfere, and thereupon the aggrieved person, on his own motion, proceeded against the solicitor. He thought it would be possible to find a middle course between the section as it stood and the Amendment, and that it would be well to make the section somewhat clearer than it at present was. At the same time, he considered the new course of procedure would be a great improvement on that at present in force, and he should support his noble and learned Friend, and vote for the clause.
  LORD ESHERobserved, that all that the 12th clause said was that if the Law Society was satisfied that there was no case they need not proceed further. He was willing to modify the clauses to the extent that the Law Society should have power only to examine persons on oath in all matters before them.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid that, although it was customary not to name the person against whom the application was made, the application was made in public, and very useful it was, because the knowledge that it might be made, and that the name might get known, must have a very salutary effect in preventing persons from doing what, if the matter was secret, they might do. He could not understand why, when proceedings were taken against a solicitor, his name should be kept secret, any more than the name of a man accused of perjury. His noble and learned Friend who was in charge of the Bill said that all the solicitors in England were in favour of the measure. They might be so to a large extent because, though a solicitor might not be a member of the Incorporated Law Society, he might well wish for an addition to its dignity and importance. But he could assure their Lordships that all the members of the Incorporated Law Society were not in favour of the Bill. His noble and learned Friend said that the matter was now referred to the Master, who gave a sitting for an hour. Well, then, let him give a sitting for a longer time. Because the Master's business was managed badly, why should this power be given to the Incorporated Law Society? His main objection to the clause was that it proposed to create a new Court, not strictly of private persons, he admitted, but a Court which was to act in secret.
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 40; Not-Contents 25: Majority 15.
  Clause 12 (Applications to be made to discipline committee; report of committee to court).
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he contended that a man who considered that he had been aggrieved ought to have the right of bringing his view of the case before the tribunals. He, therefore, begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment moved, to add, at the end of Clause 12, the following Proviso:—
  "Provided that any person who but for this Act would have been entitled to apply to the court to strike a solicitor off the Roll of Solicitors, or to apply to require a solicitor to answer

  1735
  allegations contained in an affidavit, shall be entitled so to apply although the committee is of opinion that there is no primâ facie case of misconduct against the solicitor, and shall be entitled to be heard if the Society brings the report of the committee before the court."—(The Lord Bramwell.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendment to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 226.)

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—BOARD SCHOOLS (METROPOLIS)—THE PLAY-GROUNDS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MEATH, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they consider it desirable that the playgrounds of Board Schools in the Metropolis should be opened for the benefit of all children on Saturdays, instead of being closed as at present; and, if so, whether they will amend the Elementary Education Act so as to make it quite clear that the expense of carrying out the above scheme may be provided for out of the ordinary School Board rate? said, there were in the Metropolis 385 schools with a playground of less than one acre each, and 12 schools with a playground of over one acre each, and the whole extent of these playgrounds was about 70 acres in all. These 70 acres that had been purchased at great expense by the ratepayers of the Metropolis were closed to the children on Saturday afternoons, when they could be best utilized owing to the half-holiday which the children then enjoyed. The explanation of this was that if the playgrounds were kept open it would be necessary to provide for the attendance of caretakers, and this was an expense which the School Boards did not consider that they were authorized to incur. There was much difference of opinion on the point; but at present considerable doubt existed as to whether the Education Act of 1870 permitted any outlay on physical instruction. Another point was whether the right of entrance to these playgrounds ought to be confined to children attending the schools, or whether it should not be conceded to all the children of ratepayers. This matter of physical training for children was one of great and increasing importance. At the commencement of this century the bulk of the population in
  1736
  England was agricultural; but now there were two Englishmen living in towns of over 4,000 inhabitants for every one who lived in the rural districts, and this disproportion was annually increasing. Their Lordships were probably aware of the fact that the population of large towns, especially the poorer part of it, was growing up under conditions adverse to health and strength, and it was becoming very necessary that steps should be taken to promote that physical training which was so conducive to health. It was, therefore, very important that a decision should be given whether or not the Code did permit the School Boards of London to pay for physical training. If not, the Act ought to be amended so that we might follow the example of France and Germany and other Continental nations in this matter.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he cordially agreed with the noble Earl as to the importance of physical training. He did not know that an amending Act was necessary. He was under the impression that the existing Act permitted School Boards to provide for such training out of the rates; but it would be desirable to have an authoritative statement on the subject. Many of the gymnasia were provided by private donors in connection with the School Boards. The difficulty seemed to arise in regard to the very trifling expense that was needed to provide caretakers and keep the gymnasia and appliances in order. Rather than incur that expense the School Boards preferred to shut the places up.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, that the Question on the Paper merely referred to the matter of opening the playgrounds on Saturday afternoons, and he had received no Notice of the noble Earl's intention of raising the point as to the powers of School Boards in regard to physical training. He could not, therefore, give a specific answer to the inquiry of the noble Earl on this point. It was his impression that, to a certain extent, at any rate, it was within the power of School Boards to provide for physical training. Several School Boards, he knew, supplied a drill sergeant. In regard to the playgrounds, he had not received any representations on the subject, nor was he aware of the

  1737
  difficulty which prevented them being opened on Saturday afternoons. The noble Earl suggested that all children, whether attending the school or not, should have a right to be admitted to the playground on such occasions. He should rather doubt whether the School Boards would undertake to control such a population in so small a space. He should make inquiries into the whole matter, but it must be borne in mind that it was not wholly within the control of the Education Department, for all the expenditure of the School Boards was subject to the review of another Department. When the School Board for London made an experiment by erecting a small workshop and furnishing it with tools of a simple kind, the expenses were disallowed by the Auditor of Public Accounts. For himself, he should have thought that the expenses might have been allowed on the ground that the workshop was required for the instruction and recreation of the children. It was not necessary to assure the noble Earl that the tendency of the times was in the direction in which he wished the Education Department to go, and that probably in future more would be done for the training of the eye and hand than had been done hitherto.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, everyone must sympathize with the object the noble Earl had in view. It would be of advantage that the Lord President of the Council should state whether he thought that caretakers of playgrounds on Saturdays could be provided out of the rates.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that he should not like to express an opinion, for were he to do so his decision might be overridden by those who had control of the money.

ARMY (WAR DEPARTMENT)—PROPOSED RIFLE RANGE ON THE SOLENT AT BROWNDOWN.

  POSTPONEMENT OF QUESTION.
  LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSS, who had given Notice that he would ask, Whether it was true that the War Department had applied to the Board of Trade to have a large portion of the sea on the north shore of the Solent buoyed off for the purpose of a rifle range at Browndown? said that, at the request of
  1738
  the War Department, he had consented to postpone the Question until that day week. The subject had caused a great deal of anxiety in the locality concerned, and he hoped to hear shortly that the War Authorities had thought better of this unsatisfactory and extremely dangerous project. He assumed that until his Question was answered they would take no steps to carry the scheme out.

  INDIAN COUNCILS ACT, 1861, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Indian Councils Act, 1861—Was presented by The Viscount Cross; read 1a. (No. 224.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.