Lords Sitting of 6 March 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Mortmain and Charitable Uses* (16–33); Pharmacy Acts Amendment (13–34).
Committee—Report—County Courts Consolidation *(5).

HOUSE OF LORDS—REFORM.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, their Lordships would, recollect that in the early part of this Session a Notice was put on the Paper by the noble Earl (the Earl of Dunraven) to the effect that he would move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it has become desirable to alter and improve the constitution of the House; and that a Committee be appointed to report and inquire thereon."
  That Notice was set down for Tuesday, the 6th of March. On Thursday last the noble Earl gave Notice that he withdrew that Motion, but that he would lay on the Table a Bill containing his propositions. Their Lordships were, of course, naturally anxious to see what those propositions were, as the subject was one of great interest and of great importance. On Saturday last his attention was called to a notice in The Daily News couched in very remarkable terms, and which no doubt attracted a great deal of attention. The notice was as follows:—
  "Lord Dunraven's House of Lords Reform Bill.—The Central News understands that the Bill for the reform of the House of Lords, of which the Earl of Dunraven gave Notice last evening, will propose to limit the number of Peers, the number fixed upon to be elected in equal proportion by the existing Peers, the new County Boards, and the Crown and the Prince
  326
  of Wales, and the Law Lords to sit by virtue of their office. The measure will also provide that Members of the Upper House guilty of misconduct shall be dealt with by a properly-constituted tribunal, that the sons of Life Peers shall not enjoy courtesy titles, that Cabinet Ministers may speak in either House, and that Peers not elected to the Upper Chamber may be eligible for election to the House of Commons."
  He confessed he was somewhat startled, perhaps he should rather say astounded, at this notice. Their Lordships would see that, according to the paragraph, the Bill embraced first the entire disestablishment of that House and sending it altogether away, and that it settled the number of the new House of Lords. They would assume for the moment that the number should be settled at 300; distribution of that number might be taken to be 75 to be chosen by the Crown, 75 by the Prince of Wales, 75 by the new County Boards, and that to their Lordships would be left 75—but from what sources?—including the creation of a tribunal to deal with Members guilty of any misconduct. Excluding for misconduct might embrace everything from murder down to the most trivial offences. He had no desire whatever to intrude himself into this question, in which he had only an individual interest as one of the public at large. But it seemed to him to be so important as to warrant him in departing from ordinary precedent by putting a Question to a private Member of that House, especially as that private Member had laid the foundation of the question by withdrawing the Notice he had given and substituting another—namely, that he would present to their Lordships a Bill containing his propositions on the subject. It had struck him that there might be something authentic in the paragraph, and therefore he thought it desirable that some inquiry should be made about it. He did not seek at the present moment to initiate any discussion upon the question or to enter upon any controversial matter. He simply sought for an Answer to the Question of which he had given the noble Earl private Notice. He had given him Notice of two Questions, but the one which he now intended to ask was whether the notice which he had read from The Daily News of Saturday last contained and expressed the substance or an approximation to the substance of the measure which the noble Earl had

  327
  given Notice that he would lay on the Table of the House. He sincerely hoped that their Lordships might be able to get an answer to this Question, and that the answer would be in the negative.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN, in reply, said, that he had looked at the paragraph which the noble and learned Lord had quoted, and that he shared in the astonishment with which the noble and learned Lord had regarded it. The noble and learned Lord asked him whether the statement made in The Daily News on the authority of The Central News, approached approximately to his ideas on the subject of what might be necessary for the reform of the constitution of that House. It was somewhat difficult to say whether a proposition rather wide did or did not approach approximately to propositions which might he held to be sound and legitimate; but so far as regarded the statement all he had say about it was this, that, as far as he was concerned, it was an entirely unauthorized programme. The impossibility of it was patent on the face of the propositions themselves, because he was made to say that he intended to do things which, in the nature of them, appeared to him to be absolutely impossible. He was made in that paragraph to desire to interfere with rights which were inherent in the Crown, and to interfere with the law of the land by constituting some special tribunal. He did not know what might happen to a man in the present day who attempted anything of that kind; but, at any rate, he had no desire whatever to run the risk of losing his liberty in a lunatic asylum or his head on Tower Hill. It was also said that he desired that the sons of Life Peers should not enjoy courtesy titles. He rather fancied that the sons of Law Lords did not get courtesy titles at all, and to take away from a man that which he did not possess would surpass the transcendent power of Parliament itself. He would therefore answer the Question of the noble and learned Lord with a distinct negative. The propositions their Lordships had hoard did not represent his views on this great subject. It was impossible for him to say when it was probable that he would lay his Bill on the Table. Their Lordships would understand the great difficulty of drafting a Bill of this
  328
  complicated nature, and all he could say was that he should use his best endeavours to lay it on the Table as soon as was practicable.

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Ordered, That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Friday the 22nd day of June next:
  That no Bill originating in this House authorizing any inclosure of lands under special report of the Land Commissioners for England, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be road a first time after Friday the 11th day of May next:
  That no Bill originating in this House confirming any provisional order or provisional certificate shall be read a first lime after Friday the 11th day of May next:
  That no Bill brought from the House of Commons authorizing any inclosure of lands under special report of the Land Commissioners for England, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a second time after Friday the 29th day o June next:
  That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any provisional order or provisional certificate shall be read a second time after Friday the 29th day of June next:
  That when a Bill shall have passed this House with amendments these orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended:
  That this House will not receive any petition for a Private Bill after Tuesday the 24th day of April next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice; nor any petition for a Private Bill approved by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice after Thursday the 17th day of May next:
  That this House will not receive any report from the Judges upon petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Thursday the 17th day of May next:
  Ordered, That the said orders be printed and published, and affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall. (No. 32.)

PHARMACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL
(The Earl of Milltown.)
PHARMACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

  (NO. 13.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he had hoard, since the second reading of the Bill, that it was no uncommon thing for qualified chemists and druggists to open branch shops, and put unqualified persons in charge of them. He thought all would agree that that constituted a very serious danger to the public, and imposed a great hardship on properly qualified assistants who had gone

  329
  through a course of training and passed examinations which cost time and money. This practice was distinctly in contravention of the Act of 1868; but it had been held that under that Act prosecutions could not be sustained against persona who did this, and he, therefore, begged to move the insertion of a new clause to alter that state of things.
  Moved, to insert the following clause:—
  "It shall be unlawful for a duly-qualified keeper of an open shop for retailing, dispensing, or compounding poisons to keep open shop in more places than one unless he shall engage and employ at each branch shop a person who would himself be a duly-qualified keeper of an open shop for retailing, dispensing, or compounding poisons, and such person is bonâ fide occupied in such branch shop; provided always that each partner in a duly-qualified partnership may keep a separate open shop for retailing, dispensing, or compounding poisons. Every keeper of an open shop for retailing, dispensing, or compounding poisons acting in contravention of the preceding section shall for every such contravention be liable to pay a penalty of £5, and the said penalty may be sued for and recovered in the manner provided by the Pharmacy Act, 1852, for the recovery of penalties under that Act."—(The Earl of Milltown.)
  LORD THRINGsaid, he objected that the Amendment had reference only to branch shops, and did not deal with the main shop at all, so that a man would still be able to employ unqualified assistants in the main shop. In his opinion the clause was redundant, as the case was met by the Act of 1868.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYpointed out that the Amendment dealt only with the question of vending poisons. Prescriptions might be sent to a druggist for preparation which contained no poisons at all, but which, if badly prepared, might cause very serious consequences.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he should support the Amendment. There were, it was said, cases in which a qualified druggist owned several shops and left them in charge of unqualified persons while attending to only one himself, and the object of the Amendment was to put a stop to this and provide that any person in charge of a branch shop should also be duly qualified.
  LORD HERSCHELLpointed out that the Amendment only dealt with branch shops, and there was nothing in it to prevent the proprietor absenting himself entirely from his chief establish-
  330
  ment and leaving it in charge of some unqualified person.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, the noble and learned Lord might bring forward an Amendment on Report if he considered it necessary to carry out his view. It was his own desire to protect, as far as possible, the public from the danger of drugs being dispensed by other than duly qualified persons. At the same time it was not advisable to overweight the Bill, as that might increase the opposition to be encountered in the other House.
  Amendment agreed to: the Report thereof to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 34.)

NAVY—POSITION AND PAY OF LIEUTENANTS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD SUDELEY, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether the Admiralty propose to take any steps to improve the position and pay of lieutenants and to remove the block which at present exists in that list? said, the Question had been answered to a great extent in the proposed programme of the First Lord of the Admiralty. In the Memorandum he was glad to see that the grave condition of affairs had been frankly acknowledged and was stated to be one of "undoubted hardship." It was there allowed that, whereas in 1875 the numbers of lieutenants of 16 and 20 years' service as commissioned officers wore 12 and three respectively, the relative numbers now were 208 and 53. The First Lord also confirmed the statement that only two out of every nine could ever be promoted, and thus the wretchedness of their position was made only too apparent. It was proposed to ameliorate in some measure this very grave state of things by giving a small addition of pay of 2s. per day after eight years' service, and the Memorandum gave the impression that there would be a further 2s. a-day after 12 years' service. But if he understood the matter rightly, the second 2s. was not increased pay—this was merely moving what was now given at the end of 10 years to the end of 12 years. He hoped the noble Lord would explain whether this was so or not, as it seemed very misleading. The greatest

  331
  credit was due to the First Lord for proposing even this small additional pay at the end of eight years, but he felt bound to say that far stronger steps wore necessary to put the list on a sound and proper footing. Even in this question of pay he doubted whether they were doing enough. He questioned very much whether an English lieutenant was as well paid as a lieutenant in the French Navy, where he understood that about £50 a-year was allowed for table money. The senior lieutenants ought certainly to have more. In any case, there were many points in the positions of lieutenants which required improvement. The age of the list was so rapidly increasing—nearly a quarter of the list being now over 10 years' standing—that some step ought to be taken to remove the block. It was clear that if the Admiralty could only promote two out of every nine this state of things must rapidly increase. It had been acknowledged over and over again that this list, which was the backbone of the Service and from which all our captains and Admirals were drawn, ought to be a thoroughly efficient body of officers, young, and full of zeal. Everyone connected with the Service was aware that when a lieutenant was over 12 years in seniority he was bound to become discontented and unsettled, as he knew that he had little chance of being promoted, and had become too old for the position he filled. There was only one remedy besides promotion that was possible for this state of things, and that was to give officers when they reached the age of about 33 or 35 the opportunity of retiring if they so wished, and of seeking some other employment before they were too old. He was aware that at the present moment this could not be done, because the list had not reached its full strength of 1,000, and there were not sufficient sub-lieutenants ready, but, at the same time, the right course for the Admiralty to take was at once to make known to the lieutenants as a body that as soon as the list should have got up to the full number a considerable number of lieutenants would be allowed to retire every year, at the discretion of the Admiralty, at the age of 33 or 35, with an increased retirement of, say, £100 a-year over what they would get if they were to hang on till they were 40.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that he was the person who originally brought this question, so far as it related to increased pay, before the House five years ago. He had then asked that eight years' standing should be the period at which a lieutenant should receive extra pay. The following year the noble Earl opposite, then First Lord of the Admiralty, granted them 2s. a-day at 10 years' standing. He had only asked for 1s. Now, it appeared by the Memorandum of the present First Lord, just published, that, under certain conditions as to service, they would receive 2s. a-day at eight years' standing, and another 2s. at 12 years' standing. He expressed his thanks to the First Lord for this concession. He would abstain from saying anything on the questions of promotion and retirement, which he had not studied.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, there was no doubt whatever that, owing to the stagnation of promotion, the position of many of the lieutenants was one of very great hardship. Their Lordships might remember that, in reply to a Question put by the noble Lord last year, he entered very fully into the causes which had led to the state of the various lists and to the difficulty of insuring a uniform and steady flow of promotion through those lists. With regard to the lieutenants, he pointed out that in 1879 the number of commanders was fixed at 225, and the number of lieutenants at 800. In that same year it was determined that the navigating class should be abolished, and the duties of navigating undertaken by the lieutenants, the number of lieutenants being increased to 1,000. One thousand lieutenants had, therefore, to be passed into a list of 225 commanders, which was, of course, an impossibility, it being impossible to make four go into one. Last year the present Board of Admiralty, finding that employment could be given to a greater number of commanders, determined that that list should be gradually increased by 45. The effect of this increase would be that, whereas formerly only two out of every nine lieutenants rose to be commanders, two out of every seven would now attain that rank. His noble Friend suggested that the pay of lieutenants should be increased, and he was glad to be in a position to inform him that from April the pay would be in-

  333
  creased. Lieutenants of eight years' seniority, on completion of six years' service, three of them having been spent in a ship of war at sea, would get 12 s.; lieutenants in independent command would have 13 s.; lieutenants of 12 years' seniority, on completion of nine years' service, six of them having been spent in a ship of war at sea, would have 14 s.; lieutenants in independent command receiving 15 s. By the present regulations lieutenants might retire at the age of 40, and must retire at the age of 45, and the Admiralty did not propose to make any change. When, in 1879, it was determined to abolish the navigating class, all entries into that class were stopped. About the same time the number of entries of naval cadets was comparatively small and irregular. There had been a want of correct and sufficiently frequent calculations in past years. The result was that the combined lists—by which he meant the lists of lieutenants, staff commanders, navigating lieutenants, and sub-lieutenants—had fallen, were still falling, and would continue to fall until the year 1892 or 1893. The lieutenants' list and the sub-lieutenants' list were below their proper strength, and 42 lieutenants were doing sub-lieutenants' work. Therefore, until the lists should be in such a position as to supply a sufficient surplus of officers, no optional retirement could be allowed before the established age of 40. During the last two years the number on the combined list had fallen by 25, and until the recent more regular and systematic entry of naval cadets made itself felt the lists would be incomplete, and it would not be possible to allow officers to retire at an earlier ago than that of 40. His noble Friend referred to the lieutenants in the French Navy. He was not quite sure, but his impression was that the noble Lord was correct. He did not like to say so positively; but he should be happy to obtain the information if the noble Lord wished for it. The subject was one to which the Admiralty were really paying great attention. They felt the position of lieutenants was a serious and grave one, and they were trying in every way they could to meet the difficulties of the case.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.