Lords Sitting of 15 May 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Lloyd's Signal Stations (84); Factory and Workshops Act (1878) Amendment (Scotland) (76); Local Bankruptcy (Ireland) (93); Coroners (36).
Committee—Glebe Lands (100–119).
Committee—Report—Considered—Third Reading—Local Government (England and Wales) Electors (103), and passed.
Report—Church Discipline (108–118),now Clergy Discipline; Suffragans' Act Amendment* (83).
Third Reading—Tithe Rentcharge * (53); Tithe Rentcharge Recovery and Variation* (99); Copyright (Musical Compositions) * (92); Merchant Shipping (Life Saving Appliances) (96), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—First Reading—Local Government * (113); Local Government (No. 2) * (114); Local Government (Poor Law) * (115); Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 2)* (116); Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 3) * (117).
Second Reading—Local Government (Ireland) (Dublin Markets) * (85).
Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) (Coleraine, &c.) * (63), and passed.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
Moved, "That the Earl of Selborne do take the Chair in all Committees upon Private Bills this day, in the absence of the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos from illness, unless where it shall have been otherwise directed by this House."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Motion agreed to.
Moved, "That the Lord Knutsford be appointed to take the Chair in the Committees of the Whole House, in the absence of the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos from illness."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CON- FIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92 and 93 be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Whitsuntide, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the recess.

INDIA—THE CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS.— QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON asked the Secretary of State for India, with reference to a statement made in the House of Commons on the previous night on the subject of the Contagious Diseases Acts in India, Whether it was the intention of the Government to take steps to repeal the Acts as they had been repealed in this country, or whether it was only proposed to suspend their operation? He hoped that the Acts would be repealed.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Viscount CROSS),in reply, said, that the whole question was brought under his serious notice last year by the Bishop of Lichfield, and, in consequence of what was stated to him, he at once placed himself in communication with the

267
Viceroy upon the subject. The Answer, which was given in "another place" on the previous night, was as follows:—
"In consequence of the action taken by the Secretary of State upon the Questions put to him in "another place" last year by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield, what is known as the regimental system has been absolutely stopped. The Commander-in-Chief has prohibited women from accompanying regiments on march or to camp, and also from residing in regimental bazaars. The administration of the Contagious Diseases Act in Bombay, Madras, and Bassein, the only places in which it is in force, has been suspended by the Government of India under a power contained in the Act. The Government of India is now engaged in a revision of the regulations made for preventing the spread of venereal disease in cantonments, under Section 27 of Act III. of 1880: and a despatch is going out to India from the Secretary of State in Council, which will prohibit the compulsory examination of women and the making of any regulations which can be justly construed into a legalization of prostitution."
He thought the noble Marquess would see that important steps had been taken in order to do away with what was somewhat of a scandal. The action which the Government of India had taken was the suspension of the operation of the Acts. The Government of India had asked his assent to that suspension, and he had given it. The results would be carefully watched.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND) WALES) ELECTORS BILL.—(No. 103.)
(The Lord Balfour.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND) WALES) ELECTORS BILL.—(No. 103.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 (Short title and construction).
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he rose to move an Amendment. The Bill had been described to them last night as one of a very complicated nature, and it was proposed that it should be passed through the House under circumstances which, through its connection with another Bill now in the other House, made it difficult to give it that amount of consideration and revision which its importance deserved. If they were to have another franchise, they must ask what it was to be, and were they to exclude those who were owners of property? It seemed to him that this Bill, as it was framed, excluded from the franchise all the owners of property as such; and if its principles were adopted without modification and protest, it appeared
  268
  to him that they would lead necessarily to what was known as the one man one vote system, and ultimately by a logical sequence to universal suffrage, including all who were of full age. He did not know whether their Lordships were prepared for the adoption of principles loading in a direction so fraught with important consequences to the country. As the Bill stood, the owner of property as such would have no voice whatever in the election of the representatives returned to the proposed County Councils. In their desire to facilitate the passing of the Bill on the responsibility of the Government, their Lordships, he thought, ought not lightly to part with all control over a measure of such importance. In the case of the Ballot Act, their Lordships reserved their right of giving to the measure that revision which might be required at the expiration of a certain number of years; and although after a limited period experience induced Parliament to re-enact the Ballot Act without substantial alteration, yet no one could question that their Lordships had acted wisely in reserving the right of reconsideration in regard to a matter of such importance. But if that argument held good in respect to the Ballot Act, it applied with still greater force to the case of the present Bill, which could receive no examination at all at this moment. Moreover, when that Bill and the other Bill which was its corollary passed into law they would, at no distant period, experience the working of the measure. He therefore proposed to amend that clause by moving the insertion of words providing that the Bill should continue in force till December 31, 1889, and no longer, unless Parliament should otherwise determine.
  Amendment moved,
  In line 11, after ("1888") add ("and shall continue in force till the thirty-first day of December 1889, and no longer unless Parliament shall otherwise determine.")—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  LORD BASINGsaid, he hoped that their Lordships would accept that Amendment. He intended to have moved it himself if the noble Lord had not done so. Apart from the special reasons given by his noble Friend in favour of the Amendment, the Bill was very faulty in its form, because it proposed to legislate on important matters

  269
  by means of reference to various other Acts of Parliament; and even an expert would find very considerable difficulty in ascertaining what was the exact meaning of its provisions. They ought to have a Bill setting out in clear language what the intentions of Parliament were. He could not admit that because owners of property did not participate in municipal elections they ought to be equally excluded from participating in the elections for County Councils. He denied that there was a perfect analogy between Municipal Corporations and County Councils. It was, no doubt, intended to give to the counties as much of municipal functions as could properly be extended to them; but they would not be able to carry that so very far. As an ilustration of his argument he showed that the money raised by the rates in boroughs was expended for the common benefit of the town, while in the country districts precisely the reverse was the case. The occupier of land might be rated for purposes as to which he had no interest whatever. He would only have one vote, whereas by status and wealth he might be equal to 10 or 20 occupiers of houses. He agreed with his noble Friend as to the desirableness of amending the Bill and limiting its operation. When more experience had been gained they would be able to discuss the question of franchise more freely than at present.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he believed that the Bill, although complicated in appearance, would be simple in its operation. Both noble Lords had complained because the Bill enacted by reference to other Acts. The reason for this was a very good one. The basis of the Bill was the extension of the municipal franchise and municipal privileges to the county. The Acts which conferred those privileges were extended by means of the present measure, the word "county" being substituted for "borough" where necessary, in addition to other incidental and necessary changes. If all the Burgess Acts, amended and altered as they had been by the Rating Acts, were to be set out in the form of a Schedule, instead of the measure being less complicated than now, it would be rendered much more difficult and complex. The simple effect of the enactments in Clauses 2 and 4 was this, that the burgess qualification of the
  270
  boroughs would be extended to the counties. Those charged with making up the lists of electors for the register would place in three divisions in the list those who were qualified. Leaving out of sight the lodger and the service qualifications, there would be one list containing the names of all those who were qualified in each district to vote for municipal and Parliamentary purposes. Next would come those who were qualified to vote only for Parliamentary purposes; and, thirdly, those who were entitled to vote for municipal purposes alone, this list including Peers and women. The noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp) took a most alarming view of the principles of the Bill, but he could not make out from what the noble Lord said how it was that this Bill committed them to the principle of universal suffrage. That was a new idea, and he did not see anything in the Bill which led to that conclusion. If noble Lords thought that in another year there was a likelihood that they would revert to the system of giving owners the right to vote in respect to their property situated within the boroughs, they were, he believed, much mistaken. However, he thought it would be more convenient to take the discussion on that question when the Committee reached the consideration of a subsequent Amendment which raised the point in a particular form. He hoped their Lordships would not accept the Amendment, because he could not see what good purpose would be gained by keeping open an agitation with respect to the franchise for another year. It was urged that if their Lordships passed the Bill as it stood they would part with it for ever. But surely if the Bill did not operate successfully the question could once more be raised by means of an amending Bill. To say that the Government were creating a new franchise unknown to the law was hardly an accurate statement of the case. The Bill simply extended the present municipal franchise to the counties. The Local Government measures at present before Parliament were sufficiently complex already, and he therefore hoped the Amendment would be rejected.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 28; Not-Contents 64: Majority 36.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
  THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid, he rose to move the insertion of new clauses giving an ownership franchise qualification to owners of property not resident within the rural electoral districts in which their property was situated. As the Bill now stood, it would operate very hardly upon the owners of property in counties. The County Councils would have great powers entrusted to them, under which they might make, assess, and levy rates, and deal with roads, bridges, rivers, tramways, gas and water supplies, and, in fact, everything that had to do with the management of the district; and they would also have the very dangerous power entrusted to them of borrowing money, and thereby to make a practically permanent charge upon the land. As the Bill now stood, a landowner might possess several cottages for which he paid the rates, but unless he lived in the district his cottagers, who paid nothing to the rates, would have a voice in levying and spending them, whereas the owner would have no vote in the matter whatever. That was hardly a reasonable position in which to place the landowner. The question affected not only the large landowners, but also the small landowners, of whom there were a great number in the country, and upon whom the rates would fall very heavily. It would be said that they were only extending to counties the borough franchise. But they must recognize that county affairs were not exactly similar to borough affairs. He did not ask for any special privilege or favour for owners of property. He only asked that the right which Parliament had hitherto jealously preserved for those who paid the rates—the right of representation—should not be taken away from them by this Bill, but that there should be left them the power of dealing with those local affairs with which their own interests were so deeply affected.
  Moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Ownership of land to qualify.)
  "Every person who in respect of any property situated outside the limits of a municipal borough is entitled to be registered as an ownership voter within the meaning of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1885, shall be entitled
  272
  to be registered as a county elector in respect of such qualification, in like manner in all respects as if the sections of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, relating to a burgess qualification included the said ownership qualification."—(The Earl of Jersey.)
  LORD BALFOURsaid, that to enable the House to judge of the Amendment he would ask them to consider its effect if applied as proposed only to rural districts in counties. There was no suggestion that property in boroughs was to qualify. They would often have a case like this. Some of those districts to be created would be partly urban and partly rural, and very often the divisions were of a very arbitrary kind. They might have the houses on one side of a street within a borough, and the houses on the other side in the county. The effect of this proposal would be that upon the same day, for the same Council, and within the same district, they would have owners qualified on one side of the street and owners disqualified on the other. That was an anomaly which had not grown up or happened by accident, but which the noble Earl would deliberately create by a vote in Parliament. The grievance of owners not having a vote was a sentimental one only in rural districts, for proprietors who were non-resident existed to a much greater extent in town than in country districts. To make the change proposed would be to change the whole burgess qualification in such a manner as to create the greatest anomalies. Her Majesty's Government had to choose between the Parliamentary or the municipal franchise, and in preferring the latter to the former he contended that they had solid ground to go upon. The proposal of the noble Earl would change the whole burgess qualification, which would be an uncalled-for step. He ventured to say that this was rather a sentimental than a real grievance; and there could be little hardship in this matter, because as all the elections took place on one day a non-resident owner would not have an opportunity to give many votes even if he had them.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 34; Not-Contents 55: Majority 21.

  CONTENTS.

  Breadalbane, M.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Bathurst, E.

  Feversham, E.

  273

  Jersey, E. [Teller.]

  Clanwilliam, L., (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Kingston

  Lindsay, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Milltown, E.

  Donington, L.

  Morton, E.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Powis, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  FitzGerald, L.

  Strafford, E.

  Herries, L.

  Lamington, L.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Magheramorne, L.

  Norton, L.

  Addington, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Aveland, L. [Teller.]

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Basing, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Wimborne, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Ashbourne, L.

  Balfour of Burley, L.

  Cranbrook, V.(L. President.)

  Brassey, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Bedford, D.

  Burton, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Rutland, D.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Harris, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Herschell, L.

  Mount-Edgcumbe, E. (L. Steward.)

  Hopetoun, L.(E. Hopetoun.)

  Brownlow, E.

  Kensington, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Derby, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)[Teller.]

  Fife, E.

  Granville, E.

  Knutsford, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Morley, E.

  Lingen, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Monk-Bretton, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

  Cross, V.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Poltimore, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Oxenbridge, V.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Truro, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Watson. L.

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

  Carlisle, L. Bp.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Moved, to insert the following New Clause:—
  (Tenure of house by office or service not to invalidate vote.)
  "Where a man himself inhabits any dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service, or employment, and the dwelling-house is not inhabited by any person under whom such man serves in such office, service, or employment, he shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be an inhabitant occupier of such dwelling-house as a tenant."—(The Earl of Jersey.)
  LORD BALFOURsaid, that the same general considerations ruled the answer to this Amendment as in the last. The burgess qualification had been taken as the basis of the new franchise, and it had been resolved neither to level up nor to level down. He hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clauses 4 to 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Separate list of persons residing within fifteen miles of county).
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNasked whether it did not relate to the qualification of persons to be elected members of the new Councils, and import into this Bill the qualification now existing in the Municipal Corporations Act? If, as he was of opinion, that it was not desirable, and might be mishievous, a gentleman who might reside a little beyond the stipulated distance from his property would be ineligible, although he might be the very person whom the electors should desire to represent them. We had long since done away with the qualification for Members of Parliament, and he thought there was no reason for retaining it in the case of members of County Boards.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)replied in the affirmative. No doubt, the question of qualification was a most important one, and their Lordships would have an opportunity of fully discussing it when the larger measure was before them.
  THE EARL OF JERSEYasked, whether the Government could give the House any information with regard to a matter which was mentioned in "another place," and in respect to which they then gave a kind of promise—namely, as to whether owners not having votes as ratepayers would under the Local Government Bill be qualified to sit upon the County Council?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it would be irregular to discuss this point, which did not arise out of the present Bill, and he hoped his noble Friend would be satisfied with the assurance, to use a common expression, that the Government had a very open mind on the subject.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendment.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he begged to move the suspension of the Standing Order in order to allow of the Bill being read a third time and passed. It was essential that the Bill should become law before Parliament again met after the Holidays, and, therefore, that it should receive the Royal Assent before the adjournment, which had been fixed for to-morrow or Thursday.
  Moved, "That Standing Order No. XXXV, be considered (according to order) and dispensed with."—(The Lord Balfour.)
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, he extremely regretted the proposal to hurry this important Bill through the House. At the close of last Session, as late as the month of September, an important measure dealing with allotments was introduced into this House when the attendance of Members was very attenuated, and when no adequate opportunity of discussing it was afforded. He thought the practice of thus hurrying Bills through this House was calculated to undermine the authority of the House, as tending to give the country the impression that measures did not here receive due deliberation. He objected to the practice generally, and he objected specially to it on this occasion in regard to this Bill, which was really legislation in the dark. They were creating a constituency before they know what the representative body would be. Would it cause any very great inconvenience supposing the Local Government Bill were retarded? Was that Bill likely to establish a system so very superior to the present system that there was any hurry about it? On the contrary, it was generally admitted that the present system of administering county business had been most admirable, being efficient and economical. A little delay would, if anything, be an an advantage as giving time for preparation and consideration, and he desired to enter his protest against the proposal of the Government to suspend the Standing Orders and hurry the Bill through.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that if it were hereafter found that this Bill did not work well, there would be great regret in this House that it had not received
  276
  due consideration, and he hoped that the responsibility would then rest where it ought to rest—namely, on Her Majesty's Government, who had denied their Lordships the opportunity of giving it full consideration.
  THE MARQUESS of SALISBURYsaid, he agreed that the alteration in the present system of county government was not a matter of great urgency; but this Bill was connected with financial changes which could not come into operation until the Local Government Bill was passed, and which would be very satisfactory to the rural population. He did not think that that population would be grateful to the noble Earl if he were to succeed in postponing those financial changes for another year. As to the actual proposal to suspend the Standing Order, he should not make it if he thought any considerable number of their Lordships objected, though the consequences of its not being made would be that this House would have to sit on Thursday, and possibly Friday. If there was any considerable body of their Lordships who wished to consider the Bill on third reading, the Government did not desire to stand in the way of their doing so.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he ventured to say that their Lordships would be perfectly willing to put on one side their private and personal convenience in order to secure the consideration of this Bill, which seemed to him to be a Bill of a very important character. It was admitted on all hands that the measure was defective in its construction. The practice of enumerating clauses had been constantly condemned on both sides of the House in the strongest language, and by the highest possible authority. In many cases, no doubt, this was inevitable, and the imperfections of Parliamentary and Party Government, he supposed, were like the imperfections of human nature. But this measure, by the confession of everybody, involved very serious principles, and principles which he believed were very dangerous. It was a part of a larger measure which would sweep away an ancient, a well-tried, and a successful institution of the country. For 300 years and more that institution had stood the test of all trials; for 300 years and more it had exercised a vast influence—an influence which both sides

  277
  admitted to be wholesome and wise. But that was now to be swept away by a measure which any of their Lordships would be pleased to discuss when it came before them. The Bill now under discussion, however, was intertwined with that measure—it was a part of the larger measure; and he was, therefore, very sorry to see it hurried through by the suspension of the Standing Order. The Bill, in his opinion, contained very questionable, if not dangerous, principles.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it was only because he believed that the Bill in its present shape was acceptable to the vast majority of their Lordships that they ventured to move the suspension of the Standing Order.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a, and passed.

  LLOYD'S SIGNAL STATIONS BILL.
  (The Earl of Onslow.)

  (NO. 84.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of ONSLOW),in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said it would go a long way to bring about the introduction of electricity to lighthouses round the coasts.
  Moved,"That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS ACT (1878) AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  (The Earl of Aberdeen.)

  (NO. 76.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it only applied to burghs in Scotland, and was rendered necessary by a change that had taken place respecting the observance of Fast Days, which was a distinctly Scottish institution. For some time past the observance of Fast Days in Scotland had greatly fallen into disuse, not from any want of fidelity towards religious ordinances, but rather because if the old system
  278
  were to be maintained it would have to be maintained more frequently than formerly. The Fast Days in Scotland had long filled the place of the observance of Good Friday and Bank Holidays in England, and the object of the Bill was to secure that the persons employed in factories should have a holiday on such days as there was a general holiday in the district where these factories were placed. Under previous Acts dealing with this subject it was provided that the two holidays should be the Fast Days. Now that the Fast Days had been largely discontinued, they were left the holidays, but no certain day was fixed. The Bill provided that the magistrates in burghs where no Fast Days were kept should appoint two holidays in the year at an interval of not less than two months. He had been asked why it was not applied to the whole of Scotland. There were two reasons why it had not been made to apply to the whole of Scotland. The first was that it was mainly in burghs that the institution of Fast Days had been discontinued, and therefore in counties opinion was not so ripe for the change; and, secondly, that the Bill would not have received such general approval as it did if it had applied to the whole country. He therefore thought it desirable that the Bill should be confined to the burghs. He hoped the House would give the Bill a second reading.
  Moved,"That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Aberdeen.)
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he thought the reasons given for confining the Bill to burghs were hardly sufficient. He knew that many country districts as well as burghs had discontinued the Fast Days, and in some of these, as in his own parish, there were more than one factory. Yet no provision was made for a holiday. It might thus happen that while in an adjoining burgh there would be a holiday, those employed in a neighbouring factory situated in the county would have none. He therefore thought it a most extraordinary proposal that a Bill of this kind should be made to apply only to burghs. In his opinion it would have been a less evil to have waited until next year, when there would probably be a County Bill for Scotland, and then the necessary

  279
  steps could have been taken to give the power of appointing these holidays to the Local Authority.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

  LOCAL BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL.
  (The Lord Ashbourne.)

  (NO. 93.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."(The Lord Ashbourne.)
  LORD FITZGERALD,in moving that the second reading of the Bill be postponed till after the Whitsuntide Recess, said, his object in doing so was to get time for the consideration of its provisions by the great bodies in that country who were interested in the matter. His noble and learned Friend had not given any reason whatever for pressure being put upon their Lordships to force this Bill through the House at this particular time. There was in Ireland a society known as the Incorporated Society of Solicitors. It was a body similar in all respects to the well-known body of the same name in England. He had received a letter from the secretary of that Society to-day, stating that he had only received a copy of the Bill yesterday, and that he had not had time to consider it, and he had not time to call the council of the Society together, as they were scattered throughout the country, and the few members of the Society that he had communicated with had expressed their disapproval of the Bill. It was curious that, with respect to a Bill of this character, they should be asked to pass the second reading without any explanation. Amongst the letters which he had received on the subject of this Bill was one which he had received that morning, in which the writer stated that the Recorder of Cork, who was to be one of the Judges under this Bill, entirely disapproved of it, and that the mercantile community of Cork did not accept it. This, as their Lordships would see, was a Bill to constitute certain Local Bankruptcy Courts in Ireland. When a similar Bill was last before the House of Commons it was opposed by the Public Bodies. The circumstances of the country had since altered; but the alteration of the circum-
  280
  stances made the case much stronger against the Bill. The proposal made by this Bill involved considerable expense, and it rested upon a wrong principle. Another Bill—the Judicature (Ireland) Bill—had been brought into the House of Commons, which was an adoption, to some extent, of the provisions of a Bill of Lord Spencer's in 1855. It related to the judicial system in Ireland, and proposed to abolish the two bankruptcy Courts in Dublin, and to transfer their business ultimately to the Superior Court. While it was thus proposed to abolish the two Bankruptcy Courts in Dublin, which were at present efficiently administering the Irish Bankruptcy Law, the noble and learned Lord proposed to continue the administration of this condemned bankruptcy system by instituting a number of local Courts with official staffs, necessitating great expense. This Bill proposed to provide a Local Bankruptcy Court for Belfast, including portions of the Counties of Antrim and Down, with a population of 950,000; and it proposed a similar Court for the City and County of Cork, with a population of 750,000; and the Lord Lieutenant would have power, by Order in Council, to establish Local Bankruptcy Courts also in Londonderry, Galway, Waterford, and Limerick, or any of those places. The Bill provided that the Recorders of Londonderry and Galway, as well as Belfast and Cork, should be the Bankruptcy Judges for those towns. The County Court Judges of Waterford and Limerick should also be constituted Bankruptcy Judges for the purpose of carrying out the Bankruptcy Law. These proposals must necessarily involve very considerable expense, because anyone who knew anything about Bankruptcy Law knew that it could only be carried out by a trained Judge and a trained staff. Then there was to be a registrar for each Court; there was to be an official assignee, who was a very important officer, and there was to be such other clerks and officers as the Lord Lieutenant might consider it necessary to appoint. He did not particularly understand those provisions of the Bill by which the Counties of Antrim and Down were to be distributed in such a way that Antrim might become part of Down, and Down part of Antrim, for the purposes of bank-

  281
  ruptcy jurisdiction, and in Cork in the same way the East Riding was to become part of the West Riding, and the West Riding part of the East Riding, for the same purposes. The Bankruptcy Judges must reside in the places in which they officiated all the year round. It was also provided by the Bill that compensation should be given to the official assignee in Dublin, and it contained a sweeping clause for the appointment by the Lord Chancellor of all the other necessary officials whose appointment was not otherwise provided for, so that their Lordships would see that this was a very sweeping measure of expenditure. In 1883 it was proposed in the House of Lords that Mr. Chamberlain's Act should be extended to Ireland, and the same proposition had been made, he believed, in the House of Commons, but it was thought then that it was better that it should not extend to Ireland immediately, but that they should wait, and if its operation was successful that it might then be extended to it with such Amendments as suited the institutions of the country. But there was no such object aimed at by this Bill. If Belfast and Cork wished to have local Courts he did not object to it, but let the bankruptcy system be put upon a proper basis. He had in his hand a document sent to him by a Dublin solicitor in which he gave an estimate of the bankruptcy business of the whole country. From this it appeared that the total liabilities amounted to £364,457 for one year, of which sum £6,840 represented the bankruptcies that arose in Belfast. That would show that the establishment of a Local Bankruptcy Court there was not so very pressing a necessity. The solicitor further stated that when the Bankruptcy Bill was formerly introduced, he was asked by the Home Trade Association of Manchester to explain its provisions, and the result was that the Home Trade Association arrived at three resolutions to the effect—(1) that the business of the Bankruptcy Courts in Ireland was not sufficient to occupy the time of a single Judge of ordinary business capacity; (2) that if the small business was distributed over the country it would weaken the central Court; and (3) that it would be inconvenient for the merchants to be professionally represented
  282
  in the various local districts. This Bill was only intended for the convenience of debtors, and not for the convenience of creditors, while it did not provide a small bankruptcy jurisdiction which would enable small traders and small farmers to have their affairs settled expeditiously and inexpensively. The Bill, as he had said, was expensive, unnecessary at present, and not based upon a right principle, and he hoped time would be allowed to examine its provisions before the second reading was taken.
  Moved, "That the further Debate be adjourned."—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)hoped that their Lordships would not assent to the proposal of the noble and learned Lord. The provisions of the Bill were explained when it was introduced, 10 days ago, and had been circulated for eight days. He came over from Ireland last week with the intention of moving its second reading. The noble and learned Lord opposite asked him a few days ago to postpone his Motion for the second reading of the Bill until after the Whitsuntide recess. He told the noble and learned Lord that he could not do that, but that he would, in order to suit his convenience, postpone his Motion until to-day. In these circumstances he thought that their Lordships would agree that he had done all that courtesy required of him in the matter. His time was not his own, and it was not easy for him to be away from his duties in Dublin, and he had done everything he could to meet his noble and learned Friend. With regard to the provisions of the Bill he would remind their Lordships that now-a-days the desire was that there should be a local administration in the case of bankruptcy, and in his opinion it was most desirable that the great places in Ireland, such as Cork and Belfast, and possibly also other places, should have Bankruptcy Courts of their own. He had previously explained that. As far back as 1879, Lord Cairns gave the great authority of his name to a measure practically almost identical with that now before their Lordships. That Bill passed through their Lordships' House with the approval of both sides in all its stages; it passed two readings in the House of Commons, and was only lost in consequence of the close

  283
  of the Session rendering it impossible that it should be carried. In 1883, a similar Bill was prepared by the Government of the day, and was supported by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Spencer). The present measure was drawn upon almost identical lines with that Bill. In the last Session of Parliament there were three Bills brought in on this subject. They were not confined to one side of the House, and commanded support from politicians of every shade of opinion, and one of those Bills was actually sent to a Select Committee, and it was in its essential details largely identical with the present Bill. How had the noble and learned Lord met the Motion for the second reading? The noble and learned Lord asked that the Motion should be postponed, on the ground that the law societies in Ireland had not had sufficient time to consider its provisions. It would, however, have been very easy for those societies to have obtained copies of the Bill in ample time for them to consider it before the second reading. The principle of the present measure had been known for years. The noble and learned Lord said that he objected to this measure on the ground that it proposed to perpetuate the condemned Irish bankruptcy system. He denied that the present system of Irish bankruptcy had been condemned; on the contrary, it had worked very well, and the noble and learned Lord was the last person who ought to condemn it, seeing that he was the author of it himself. Ireland had been excluded from the scope of Mr. Chamberlain's Bankruptcy Act, because Ireland had an existing Bankruptcy Law, which on the whole worked well, according to the requirements of the country. There was no condemned bankruptcy system in Ireland. The Irish bankruptcy system had worked well, though he did not say that there might not be Amendments made in it. There might be Amendments made it it, but at present he did not know that there was any demand from any considerable section of opinion in the country for anything like a change in the Irish Bankruptcy Law. The noble and learned Lord had referred to the Irish Judicature Bill before the other House, but it proposed to make no change in the bankruptcy laws. It only proposed to abolish the existing
  284
  Bankruptcy Court in Dublin as a separate Court, handing over the jurisdiction as a going concern to the High Court. He would reserve his answers to the detailed criticism till the Committee stage, and he would be glad if his noble and learned Friend would furnish him with any figures or statements he might have, in order that he might consider and examine them. But he asked their Lordships to say, was it reasonable that great commercial communities with growing populations like Belfast and Cork should not have a local bankruptcy jurisdiction? In order to afford their Lordships time to examine all the details of the Bill, he proposed to postpone the Committee stage till the 8th of June, if that would meet the convenience of their Lordships.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that neither he nor any noble Lord, he believed, on the Opposition side of the House objected to the localization of bankruptcy jurisdiction. The Bill of 1883 was not extended to Ireland—though they had been pressed in the Grand Committee by Irish Members, and especially by Representatives from Ulster to extend it—because there was a sufficiently strong minority in the House of Commons to hamper the further passage of the Bill, and it was naturally not considered desirable to import an Irish discussion into the debates upon that Bill. The reason Ireland was excluded was not because the Irish people were satisfied with the existing system, but for the reason he had stated. There had now been several years' experience of the working of the Act in England, which had been sufficient to disclose its advantages and disadvantages. He believed that it would be a great benefit to Ireland if the advantages found to proceed from the English system were extended to her.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that what he meant by the condemned system was that the passing of Mr. Chamberlain's Act, which condemned the English bankruptcy system, had also condemned the Irish bankruptcy system, because the two systems were identical previous to the passing of that Act. The former English system was the present Irish system. He spoke of the principle of the system, not of the machinery. It is true that 31 years ago he carried through the House of Commons a Bankruptcy Bill, which continued to be the

  285
  law; that was much altered by the Bill of 1872, but its principles were condemned by the Bill of 1883, with which he had nothing to do.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative; Then the original Motion was agreed to; and Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday the 8th of June next.

  GLEBE LANDS BILL.—(No. 100.)
  (Viscount Cross.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 (Short title and extent of Act) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Application by incumbent to Land Commissioners for sale of Glebe).
  LORD ADDINGTONsaid, he rose to propose an Amendment, the effect of which was to make it necessary for an incumbent to obtain the consent of the patron of his living before applying to the Land Commissioners for a sale of the glebe land of the parish. He urged that to give the incumbent the power of absolutely disposing of the glebe of the parish without the consent of the patron was a very dangerous proceeding.
  Amendment moved, in line 7, after ("benefice"), insert ("with the consent of the patron.")—(The Lord Addington.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS)said, he must oppose the Amendment, which would result in very few sales being carried out. Ample provision was made by the Bill for the just rights of the patron by making it necessary that notice should be given him so that he could object, if he saw fit, before the Land Commissioners who had to decide the matter.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he thought that there was a great deal to be said in favour of the Amendment of the noble Lord, and that it could not be quite so easily disposed of as the noble Viscount appeared to think. The law now gave the patron considerable rights in restraint of alienation on the part of the incumbent. He could conceive many cases in which it would not be for the permanent good of the living that the glebe should be sold. Frequently a clergyman had private means, and wished to make alterations in the parsonage-house which would be entirely unsuit-
  286
  able for a poorer successor. He thought it salutary that the patron, as a representative of the lay element, should have something to say in these matters.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, he would urge their Lordships to adopt the clause in its present shape, not as a privilege to the clergy, but as a distinct measure of public policy, the object being, wherever it could be done, that clergymen should no longer trust to so uncertain, so embarrassing, and so cruel a source of income as globe land. The sufferings of many of the clergy had been extreme in consequence of this having been their one source of income. The teachings of the time had pressed upon the mind of Parliament the necessity for taking measures to discourage the continued existence of this source of income. If it were intended to produce any results, the machinery of the Act must be made to work as smoothly as possible. If, after the machinery were set going by the clergyman, the necessity of the patron's consent was interposed, it would be found that friction would result, and the machinery would never be got to move. What would happen would be that the clergyman would go to the patron; the patron might be a minor, or he might be abroad, or he might be a very old man who did not like to be disturbed, or, perhaps, a man who quarrelled with the Church and never spoke to the clergyman, or perhaps a man who did not like the land to be let on building leases, because it would interfere with his privacy, and so it would be impossible to sell the globe at all. When all these difficulties had been overcome, the family solicitor might consider whether it was not a breach of trust, and whether the patron was doing the best thing possible for some possible future presentee. He thought their Lordships would be very hard-hearted indeed to introduce these additional difficulties.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 3, 4, and 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Provision where land is subject to mortgage or other debt).
  Amendment moved,
  In Sub-section 2, page 4, line 37, leave out ("so") and insert ("provided that no mort-

  287
  gage created for a limited term, and which is by statute only repayable by annual instalments out of the income of the benefice within such term, shall be discharged out of the purchase money of land sold under this Act, and"); line 38, leave out ("is") and insert ("shall be.")—(The Earl of Powis.)
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he thought the Amendment was of great importance, as he had known not a few cases in which great difficulties had been caused by very imprudent borrowing on the part of the clergymen.
  VISCOUNT CROSSwas now unwilling to accept the actual words of the Amendment, but he hoped to be able, before the next stage of the Bill, to meet the view of the right rev. Prelate and of his noble Friend.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Provision as to annual charges on benefice) agreed to.
  Clause 8 (As to sale).
  On the Motion of Viscount CROSS, Amendment made—In page 5, line 24, at end insert as a separate paragraph:—
  "Before approving of a sale under this Act of glebe land of any benefice, the Land Commissioners shall require such notice of the proposed sale to be given as they think sufficient to give information thereof to the parishioners."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Power to make rules).
  On the Motion of Viscount CROSS, Amendment made—In page 6, line 1, leave out ("sales of land by and other"); page 6, line 4, leave out from ("Act") to ("and") in line 5.
  The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday the 4th of June next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 119.)

  CORONERS BILL.—(No. 36.)
  (The Lord Chancellor.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY),in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the first part dealt with the powers of the Coroner to hold certain inquests, and the second part with the mode of his election. There appeared to be a general
  288
  consensus of opinion on the 1st section of the Bill, which gave the Coroner power to hold inquests in respect of fires. He was not sure that such power did not already exist. Such inquests used to be held, but owing to a legal decision that had been given by the Courts, they had been discontinued. However, it was felt that a power to hold such inquests ought to exist, and it was consequently conferred by this Bill. The subject of the mode of election of the Coroner was a more debatable matter, and though he had read a great number of communications, which all concurred in condemning the present practice as an intolerable nuisance, there was no such unanimity as to the system to be substituted for it. At present every freeholder in the district was entitled to vote at an election of a Coroner, no matter how limited his freehold or how recently he might have become possessed of it. There was, therefore, no register and great confusion, with consequent enormous expense, and many a candidate had been ruined by his success or failure. It had been suggested that the Parliamentary constituency should be substituted. There was a particular objection to that part of the Bill which vested the appointment of Coroners in the Lord Chancellor. His mind was quite open upon this matter, and he certainly should not jealously claim the patronage which the Bill gave him. It might be suggested that the new County Councils should have the power of appointing Coroners; but the objection would at once arise that this could not be provided in the Bill, because no such Bodies existed at the present time. Even if they did, it would require consideration whether the election of Coroners by those who were themselves an elected body was altogether a desirable mode of meeting the difficulty. All he would say at present, therefore, was that the present system ought to be altered, and that when the Bill reached Committee he should gladly welcome any suggestion which would get rid of the difficulty. The responsibility of appointing Coroners was not one which he had desired to attach to the Office of Lord Chancellor. He asked their Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
  Moved,"That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he wished to express his strong objection to the 1st clause of the Bill with reference to the mode of appointing Coroners. He entirely shared the view expressed by his noble and learned Friend as to the extreme inexpediency of the present mode of appointment; and he looked upon the proposal to vest the patronage entirely in the Lord Chancellor as a very serious one. There could be no doubt that the abolition of the system by which the freeholders had a voice in the appointment of the Coroner would be regarded by many with some jealousy. The mode of popular election was an unsatisfactory one; but there was a widespread feeling that the Coroner ought to be regarded to some extent as a representative of the people, and should not be appointed by the Executive. If they did away with popular election altogether in this matter as it now existed, they were not likely to carry public opinion with them in attaining the end which they had in view by substituting for the present system a system of appointment by the Lord Chancellor or any other officer of the Government of the day. The only step by which they would be able to accomplish what they had in view with general assent would be to vest the appointment in some elected body. Many of the municipalities had for years lead the power of appointing Coroners, and any proposal to take that power away from them would be regarded with the utmost jealousy and hostility. It was proposed to constitute County Councils, and it seemed to him that the natural course would be to extend to the County Councils the power of appointing Coroners. It was true that the County Councils were not yet brought into existence; but they had that night passed a Bill which was based upon the assumption that these Councils were going to exist. He would suggest, therefore, that the question of appointment should not be dealt with until they were able to deal with it in the way he had pointed out. At all events, do not let them transfer the power of appointment to the Lord Chancellor. He should feel it his duty to bring this question forward when the Bill reached the Committee stage.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

  SITTINGS AND ADJOURNMENT— THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY),in moving the adjournment of the House, said, that it was proposed that the House should sit to-morrow at 2 o'clock for the purpose of a Royal Commission—there would be no other Business before their Lordships—and that at its rising the House should adjourn to Monday, June 4.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow Two o'clock.