Lords Sitting of 4 April 1889

TOWN POLICE CLAUSES ACT (1847)
AMENDMENT BILL. (NO. 38.)
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Earl of Milltown).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Moved, "That the first and third paragraphs of Standing Order No. XXI. be suspended, and that the Motion for the appointment of a Chairman of Committees have precedence of the Orders of the Day and Notices which stand before it;"—(The Marquess of Salisbury).
Agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY), in rising to move—
"That the Lord Balfour of Burley be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for the remainder of this Session; that the Lord Balfour of Burley do take the Chair in all Committees of the whole House unless it shall have been otherwise directed by the House; that the Lord Balfour of Burley do also take the Chair in all Committees upon Private Bills and other matters unless where it shall have been otherwise directed by the House,"
said: My Lords, when I made, in this House, a similar Motion, four years ago, I little thought it would ever be my lot to repeat it. It is an invidious motion to make, because it involves a question of preference, and it exposes the man who makes it to the imputation of not being sufficiently alive to the merits of those whom he may sincerely respect, but who are not the objects of his Motion. It is a Motion on which I
1534
certainly shall not propose to detain your Lordships long. The very nature of it—the very fact that we are arguing a personal question in the presence of the persons to whom we refer—makes it impossible that our arguments should be long, or that we should dwell upon them with great emphasis. On the other hand, though we are not able to go at any length into these questions, we have the happiness of knowing that the noble Lords whose qualifications are under consideration are well known to all Members of the House, and that they are as capable of forming a judgment as we are who make a Motion on the subject and recommend a judgment to the House. With regard to another noble Lord whose name I see the noble Earl opposite has put upon the Paper, I will only express in passing the very great respect which not only I, but I am sure all the Members of the House, feel for him both in his individual and his public capacity. And I wish carefully to guard myself from being supposed to utter a word which is disrespectful to him in the language which I am going to employ. On the contrary, I prefer to pass by the question of the alternative altogether, and in the very few remarks which I have to make confine myself to pointing out the reasons which appear to me to make it desirable to elect Lord Balfour of Burley to be the successor of the Duke of Buckingham, whom we so much lament. My Lords, Lord Balfour is well known to you as a noble Lord who has taken the deepest interest in the Private Business of this House, who is well acquainted with the Standing Orders and the Business of the House, who has taken a leading part in all discussions which concern the interior management and conduct of this House.

1535
He is a man also well known to you for great capacity and singular industry; a man of business, a man who has acquired in other fields among his own countrymen great influence and great estimation, and who has received much public employment. I will not enumerate the various occasions on which he has had public employment, but I will merely recall to the minds of your Lordships one duty which he had to perform, which was a duty of a critical and difficult character, and which brought out very forcibly a capacity for dealing with business, which is one of his great qualifications—I refer to his conduct of the Local Government Bill through this House last year. It was a Bill full of detail, full of questions of business, a Bill as to which there was much danger that it might be wrecked or seriously injured in this House, where many different opinions might prevail on matters with which your Lordships were exceptionally familiar; but he conducted it through with that grasp of subject and that perfect knowledge of detail which met every questioner and answered every objection, and he succeeded in uniting your Lordships without difficulty in maintaining the main principle of the Bill. My noble Friend occupies a position in Her Majesty's Government. I only refer to that in order to meet by anticipation a criticism which I remember the noble Earl opposite addressed to me with reference to the noble Duke who was the last holder of the office. He said to me, "Why, if you admire his business capacity, have you not included him in your Government?" Whatever justice or injustice there was in that argument on that occasion, it is an argument which is inapplicable now. My Lords, there is only one other consideration which makes me think at the present time that Lord Balfour of Burley would be a singularly fit occupant of this Chair. Our system of private business has many anomalies and defects, and I think that those anomalies and defects are somewhat exaggerated in some quarters; but the only part of the country where it meets with real hostility, and from which a demand for a change comes with great vehemence, is Scotland. I feel that in the discussions which lie before us in respect to private business,
1536
and in the conduct of any efforts that we may make for improving its procedure, and for meeting the complaints from Scotland to which I have referred, it will be a great advantage to have as the representative of the conduct of private business in this House the man through whose hands some of the most important portions of it passed a noble Lord who has established a great influence in Scotland, and who is thoroughly trusted by the men of business in that country. I feel that that would be a circumstance of great advantage, and at the present time a Scotchman, if we may make any preference among the three Kingdoms, is the fittest occupant of that Chair. My Lords, I will only venture to remind you in conclusion that there is one special quality which we require in dealing with our Chairman of Committees, and that quality is stiffness and firmness. He has to deal with a body of men who principally are remarkable for the variety and multiplicity of their ingenious modes of carrying their objects into effect. They are men whose appeals would melt any heart ordinarily soft, and whose sophistry would confuse any brain that was not exceptionally clear. They are some of the cleverest men which the country can produce, and they are men who will put into operation every means they can employ in order to carry out the duty which they have undertaken to their clients. In dealing with such men, I ventured to submit to your Lordships when the Luke of Buckingham was appointed that a stern and stiff character was an essential qualification of the noble Lord who has to occupy that Chair. In addition to these things he must have a great knowledge of business, he must be a man in whom men repose confidence in the transaction of business; and for all these reasons I move that the name of Lord Balfour of Burley be the one selected to follow that of my lamented Friend the Duke of Buckingham.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I quite agree with the preface of the noble Marquess's speech, and I should have preferred if the Leader of the House had proposed a Peer for the Chairmanship of your Lordships' Committees who would have been unanimously considered not only

1537
as a good candidate, but as the best. But, as on the last occasion, this has not been found possible. The choice is all the more important for the House itself and for the public, because, although you appoint the Chairman at the beginning of every Session, yet, from the custom which obtains, the first appointment is hardly more provisional than the selection of a wife in private life. You take him for better or worse. I wish it to be clearly understood that I raise no objection to Lord Balfour. He has of late years deservedly gained the respect of your Lordships, and, although I must bring in a few words in comparison between the two, as it is our duty to compare their claims, yet nothing will fall from me offensive to the noble Lord. With regard to his nationality, I confess I thought the argument on that point was a little more ingenious than conclusive, and it is one that I am not sure will not be appreciated by the Irish Peers whom I see opposite. The only question is whether this would be the best possible appointment? When, three years ago, I proposed Lord Morley, I dwelt upon the complete fulfilment in this House of the promise which his great distinction at Oxford had given. I appealed to the way in which he took part in our debates, the authority with which he conducted the business of the important offices which he had represented here, and the power which he undoubtedly possesses of getting hold of the favourable attention of the House. I mentioned the high reputation he had obtained, during six years in the Home Office and five years in the War Office, for ability, judgment, and tact, for celerity combined with accuracy. The noble Marquess, three years ago, laid great stress upon the Duke of Buckingham's experience in important offices of the State, and upon his having had the training of a Chairman of Quarter Sessions. He laid it down as a necessity of the position of our Chairman that sufficient authority should be attached to the decisions which he gives. He should, he said, be a person of that age, experience, and past services which imposed his judgment upon others. Well, Lord Morley was for many years a Chairman of Quarter Sessions; he is now Deputy
1538
Chairman of the County Council. He is older than Lord Balfour; he has been twice as long in this House, and in constant attention to its private business. He has been successfully performing official work for more years than Lord Balfour has done for months. In stating his peculiar qualifications I am not merely giving my own opinion; they were recognized three years ago by Peers from each of the political sections of the House. I trust that the same evidence of opinion will be forthcoming this evening, more especially after the distinct assurance which has been given by the noble Marquess, and on which I entirely place my confidence, that he wishes to exercise no Party influence on this occasion. My Lords, I move, as an Amendment, that Lord Morley's name be substituted for that of Lord Balfour.
Amendment moved, to leave out "Lord Balfour of Burley" and insert "Earl of Morley."—(The Earl Granville.)
THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: I rise to second the proposition of the noble Earl opposite. I hope in doing so that I am not taking any unusual course, and that your Lordships will not think for one instant that I am in any way wavering in my political allegiance to the noble Marquess. On the contrary, I may say that that allegiance increases every day. Neither can it be said that I am under the seductive influence of the noble Earl opposite—that seductive influence which it is well known he exercises upon several noble Lords in this House and many other persons outside the House. The noble Marquess has distinctly stated that this is not a political matter, and that the House, in making its selection, is to be guided by its own opinion. Therefore I trust that the noble Lord (Lord Balfour) who has been proposed by the noble Marquess will not think that, in seconding the proposition of the noble Earl, I, in any way, intend to show disrespect to him. On the contrary, no one in this House admires more than I do the great ability which has distinguished that noble Lord during the time he has had the honour of a seat in this House. But, to speak plainly and straightforwardly to your Lordships, I think that Lord Morley has the first claim. It may be within your Lordships'

1539
recollection that about three years ago the noble Marquess stated that the noble Lord to be selected as Chairman of Committees should be one who had the greatest experience of private and public Committees. For that reason the Duke of Buckingham was selected. To use an expression which may not be unfamiliar to your Lordships, Lord Morley was second favourite on that occasion. Now that the circumstances have altered, I venture to think that he might be considered first favourite. His Lordship has, during his 21 years of experience in this House, met with the approbation of your Lordships, both with regard to his studiousness and his ability, and the time during which he was free from the trammels of the Government he has devoted to the private Committees of this House. Upon them he has shown ability, quickness of perception, firmness, tact, and courtesy. The noble Marquess has spoken of firmness as one of the great attributes which ought to distinguish the Chair. That attribute distinguishes Lord Morley. I cannot, my Lords, sit down without expressing my sorrow—a sorrow which I am sure will be shared by all your Lordships—at the reason which has brought us here to-day in order to make a new selection of Chairman. The late Duke of Buckingham was only a few days ago among us and suddenly was taken from us. His loss will be felt by your Lordships, and especially by those with whom he was brought in contact in connection with the work of public and private Committees.
On question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion," their Lordships divided:—Contents 77; Not-Contents 95.
Resolved in the negative.
It was then moved to resolve, "That the Earl of Morley be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for the remainder of this Session; that the Earl of Morley do take the Chair in all Committees of the Whole House, unless where it shall have been otherwise directed by the House; that the Earl of Morley do also take the Chair in all Committees upon Private Bills and other matters, unless where it shall have been otherwise directed by the House."
Motion agreed to; and resolved accordingly.

LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 9.)
Amendment reported (according to order).
THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved to insert after Clause 42, page 26, a new clause as follows:—
42A.—(1.) Mechanical means of bodily restraint shall not be applied to any lunatic unless the restraint is necessary for purposes of surgical treatment, or to prevent the lunatic from injuring himself.
(2.) In every case where such restraint is applied, a medical certificate shall, as soon as it can be obtained, be signed, describing the mechanical means used, and stating the grounds upon which the certificate is founded.
(3.) The certificate shall be signed, in the case of a lunatic in an asylum or hospital, by the medical superintendent or a medical officer thereof, in the case of a lunatic in a licensed house, by the medical proprietor or medical attendant of the house, in the case of a lunatic in a workhouse, by the medical officer of the workhouse, and in the case of a single patient, by his medical attendant.
(4.) A full record of every case of restraint by mechanical means shall be kept from day to day; and a copy of the records and certificates under this section shall be sent to the Commissioners at the end of every quarter.
(5.) Any person who acts in contravention of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.
LORD HOBHOUSEmoved to insert after the first sub-section the words "or in case of gross violation of decency or order."
THE LORD CHANCELLORobjected to the addition as inconsistent with the whole theory upon which this amendment of the law was desirable—namely, that the person directly responsible for the application of mechanical means of restraint should be the medical officer.
Further Amendment negatived.
LORD HOBHOUSEmoved, after the words in Sub-section 5, "Any person who acts in contravention of this section," to insert the words "except under the reasonable belief that restraint is necessary."
THE LORD CHANCELLORobjected to this, but consented to the introduction of the word "wilfully" before the word "acts."
The new Clause, thus amended, was agreed to.
Further Amendments were made.
Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.—(No. 35.)
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
*LORD THRING: My Lords, when I put a question in this House the other day to the Under Secretary of State for War (Lord Harris), my noble Friend administered to me a rebuke for intruding the matter of Army discipline upon the attention of the House before making myself thoroughly acquainted with the subject. Now, I may say that in the position I had the honour to hold during various Administrations under successive Ministers of War the subject of military discipline was continually under my consideration. I prepared the existing Code of Law and every document connected with that law. "The Manual of Military Law," which is the text book of the Army, was written under my superintendence, and several chapters by my own hand. Further, General Elles, now Adjutant General in India, then Colonel Elles, was deputed to assist me, and initiated me into every detail of military life and military discipline. I trust, therefore, your Lordships will pardon me if I take an interest in a subject which has been my study for many years. Now, with respect to the existing state of the law relating to military punishments, I wish to point out that the Order of 1887, which was brought forward and formulated by His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, the true friend of the soldier, has removed a great many grievances of the soldier, and, as has been well said by a distinguished officer, it has effected a complete revolution in military discipline of a beneficent character. It diminished crime in the Army by 18 per cent immediately; it reduced the number of military prisoners in one year from 1,127 to 727. Has not the time come, I ask, when this beneficent system, which is now only a General Order, should be embodied in a Statute, and that the soldier should not be left to the caprice of a Court Martial? There is only one possible objection that I can conceive to embodying this reform in a Statute. We are often told that it is desirable to keep over the head of the soldier the possibility of an extreme punishment even for trivial offences by way of making an
1542
example in cases where general insubordination prevails; but what was the meaning of making an example? I have been behind the military curtain, and I say that, when a regiment becomes disorganized and gets out of discipline, it is either from the undue laxity or the unjust severity of its incompetent colonel, and the example which ought to be made in such a case is to discharge the colonel, and not to unduly punish the private soldier. I should not insist so much on this point if it were not that the Bill before the House seems to afford little hope that the Government intend to make further progress in this line of legislation. On the contrary, there is a clause in it which I hope has crept in without the sanction of the Under Secretary—a clause utterly and absolutely antagonistic to the whole spirit of the Order of 1887. The present Code discriminates between offences against military discipline and offences of an immoral, dishonest, and shameful character. Yet it is proposed to take men guilty of such merely military offences as breaking out of barracks and so forth, and degrade them among criminals and felons of the worst description. Then there is another point—the effect of the military law upon recruits. In 1883, 3,711 men deserted; of those 2,106 deserted during the first year of their service—that was two thirds. In 1884 there were about three-fourths. In 1885 about two-fifths. These figures show that the severity of the military law operates against the successful recruiting for the Army. Another point is that it is almost impossible to exaggerate the ignorance of officers in the law which they have to administer. They are not taught that law. Instead of making the officer acquainted with the principles of the law he has to administer, the whole examination is taken up with questions which encourage him to learn by rote a few technical details utterly useless for practical purposes. It may be objected that the officers care nothing for the law; they say—"Confound the lawyers; the less we have of them the better;" and I agree with their condemnation of law as opposed to common sense, but I will undertake to say that any man who has seen any number of Courts Martial must be aware that of all technical tribunals in the world a Court Martial is the most

1543
addicted to technicalities, and officers entangle themselves in legal cobwebs, which would be swept away in a moment by a magistrate of any experience, Young officers, although men of great ability and willing to learn, have not the means of learning the principle of the law which they have to administer, and the examiners have not the skill to elicit such knowledge as they have. It has been stated that it is not the province of your Lordships' House to consider questions of discipline. Is it conceivable that if it is the duty of the House to pass a Bill of this description, which menaces with imprisonment, with penal servitude, and with death thousands and thousands of our countrymen, we ought not to look into this Act and scan every word of it? Is it conceivable that we are not to look to the administration of this most Draconian Code and to see wherever possible that justice is tempered with mercy?
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS): My Lords, I wish, at the outset, to observe that I thoroughly agree that it is not only perfectly justifiable, but eminently desirable, that a noble Lord who has had such wide experience in military law as has my noble Friend opposite should express his views upon a Bill of this character. The general tenour of the noble Lord's remarks, as I understand, is to justify the leniency which has crept into military punishments since 1887, and to ask the military authorities to consider whether, as time passes, it would not be possible and wise to extend that leniency still further. The noble Lord will quite understand that on a question of military discipline of this kind, and on such short notice, I am hardly able to give an answer offhand as to the extent to which the military authorities, from the experience they have gained in two years, would be justified in extending that more lenient system of dealing with military offences. The military authorities are satisfied with the experience they have gained up to the present time, and it is only reasonable to suppose that they will be prepared, if they find that that experience tends in the same direction in future, to meet the good behaviour on the part of the soldier by a proportionate relaxation of the bonds which surround him. The noble Lord asks whether it is not time
1544
that the advantages gained by the General Order of 1887 should be made law by an Act of Parliament. I do not see any advantage in that, because I am under the impression that all Courts Martial undergo very careful scrutiny both from the Judge Advocate General and also from the office of the Adjutant General. I think the soldier has ample security against an unfair or excessive sentence in the close scrutiny which is given to all Court Martial sentences. The noble Lord objects to Clause 4 in the Bill because it sends men dismissed from the Army to a civil prison, where they have to consort with felons. Although this is a change in the Act of 1881, it is a return to the principles of the Act of 1847. The noble Lord must remember that a soldier who has been dismissed with ignominy is only subjected to that extreme penalty after a series of the very worst offences—after having shown himself a thoroughly bad character. Such a man is not worth keeping in the Army; and the object is to free from military prisons those men who are not worthy of returning to the Army. That is the object of the Amendment, and I trust that the noble Lord will see that it is a desirable change to keep from the society of soldiers men who at the close of their sentence are not thought worth returning to the Army. As to military education, I would point out to the noble Lord that it is somewhat difficult in the course of an officer's career to make him both a first-rate lawyer and a first-rate soldier. The officer's time is limited. The object of the education given to the officer before entering the Army and afterwards is to make him, first of all, a first-rate soldier, and then as good a lawyer as time will permit. Military law is included in the syllabus at Sandhurst and Woolwich, and it is also included in the examinations for promotion. These facts show the anxiety on the part of the military authorities to give officers every opportunity of obtaining experience in legal matters. I am inclined to think that an officer of the present day has so much to learn that it is not always found easy to attend lectures on legal subjects such as the noble Lord referred to. All these suggestions, however, which the noble Lord has made, will receive the very closest attention from the military authorities, and I am certain

1545
also from my right hon. Friend, Mr. Stanhope.
*LORD NAPIER OF MAGDALA: The noble Lord has dealt very severely with Courts Martial. I think there are very few officers who have had more Courts Martial pass through their hands than I have, except those connected with the headquarters of the Department, and I must say that a Court Martial is a very fair Court. It is conducted with great solemnity. Before a man is sentenced by Court Martial his character—that is, his defaulter's sheet is placed before the members of the Court—they judge not merely by the crime, but they judge by the accumulation of crime. A man receives, in the first instance, a very gentle punishment. The officers are very tender and gentle to offenders, who are at first warned and reprimanded; and anyone looking at the regimental books can see how careful officers are to deal gently with men for their first offences. If the soldier repeats his offence after being warned he is punished slightly, and heavy punishment only comes after repeated offences. I do not know at this moment whether Courts Martial in this country are attended by the Deputy Judge Advocate General, but until recently every Court Martial in India, where it was possible, was attended by a gentleman who had studied the law particularly. But military laws are very simple; the facts constituting the offence are generally very simple ones, and there are eye-witnesses inmost cases. Besides, the sentence passed is reviewed by several authorities, and finally by the Judge Advocate General, who, if the sentence is considered too severe, may see his way to make a recommendation to mercy. Soldiers are much better educated now than they were fifty or sixty or even forty years ago; His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief has been able to lighten their punishments; much more clemency is extended to them than formerly. I venture to think that the noble Lord has taken a very severe view of Courts Martial. In my own opinion they are considerate and just Courts, always inclined, if possible, to mercy. I have myself never been a severe man towards soldiers. Forty years of my life were spent in India in the endeavour to ameliorate the condition of soldiers; but at one time mild punishment
1546
led to a large increase of crime. Crimes of violence and insubordination increased to such a degree that in one year no fewer than 250 of these offences had to be dealt with. I was then compelled to make very severe examples, and in the following year the number of crimes was reduced to 35. I hold that the whole tenour of military administration is one of careful watching, warning, and guiding the soldier, and punishing him only when milder measures fail.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

OVERTIME ON RAILWAYS.
EARL DE LA WARR, in rising to ask the Government when it would be convenient to lay upon the Table the Return promised last Session relative to the overtime work of railway servants, said: My Lords, this Return was ordered last Session. I know it is a Return that must require time and give a considerable amount of trouble to the Railway Companies. I should be very unwilling to appear unduly to press upon Her Majesty's Government and the Railway Companies for the Return; but I think it is not unreasonable to ask that this Return should be in your Lordships' hands at an early time.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: I am asked by noble Friend (Lord Balfour of Burley) to answer this question. The Return to which the noble Earl refers was laid on the Table of your Lordships' House on the 28th of March. The Papers are now in the printer's hands, and will be circulated without delay.

INCOME TAX ON CHARITIES.
*LORD ADDINGTON, in rising to call attention to the recent Return (289), Income Tax on Charities, showing more than 200 claims for restitution of income tax rejected by the Board of Inland Revenue upon their own authority and upon an interpretation of the law which has been judged erroneous by the Supreme Court of Appeal in the case of the Moravian Brotherhood; and to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Board of Inland Revenue would at once appeal from the Supreme Court to the House of Lords, or would revert to its former practice, and restore to the

1547
claimants the moneys levied as income tax upon exempt properties, and now retained by the Department, to the detriment of the charities concerned, said: My Lords, I propose, with all possible brevity, to call your Lordships' attention to the subject of the question I ask Her Majesty's Government. The Board of Inland Revenue have, in the exercise of their own discretion, taken upon themselves to impose income tax upon property which has hitherto been exempted. I venture to think that that procedure is tainted with illegality. I say so because I think it is not warranted by circumstances, and because I feel that the purpose at which it aims is to inflict a very serious injury upon the community at large and to discourage the exercise of that charity which is an essential element in all civilization. That being the subject of my impeachment, I feel that I am bound to make it good. The Income Tax, as we first knew it by history, was introduced by Mr. Pitt in 1799, and, as then constituted, it was strictly a personal tax. It is distinctly a personal tax now, but there has been this variation in the mode of the collection. Under Mr. Pitt's Act, every individual was bound to make a statement showing on one side of the account the whole of his property, and on the other the whole of his outgoings. There were exemptions of various kinds. For example, there was an exemption necessarily attaching to poverty. You cannot take from a man that portion of his income which, if he lose, he cannot subsist. Therefore, in Pitt's time, £60 a year was the limit below which incomes were exempt. Then there was another and a larger category of exemptions, and these were the multifarious charities with which this country is so happily distinguished. But in 1803, when the income tax came to be renewed, it was found to be convenient no longer to allow the exemption in the returns, but to assess all income at its source and refund to the parties entitled the income tax after it had been levied. In fact, it came to this—that instead of an individual making his own return of what he was worth and paying upon it, all his different properties were taxed at the source—his funds in the hands of his bankers, and so on in that indirect fashion. But the tax
1548
being levied in that way, it extended also to those properties which belonged to charities, and the Board of Inland Revenue, having first of all received the income tax upon all kinds of income, were charged with the duty of restoring to the charities the portion of the tax which referred to their several revenues. In that way they stepped into the position of trustees; they are receivers to the charities; they are, provisionally, only the holders of this money, and they are bound to give it back; and when, instead of giving it back, they retain it to themselves, they commit, in my humble opinion, a breach of trust. I will not myself use strong language with regard to the action of the Inland Revenue. I prefer quoting to your Lordships some tolerably strong evidence that I am not exaggerating in the words I use. In the year 1863, with the same amount of zeal which appears to be inherent in Somerset House, the Board of Inland Revenue desired to make certain exceptions to the charities which were then exempted, and they appealed to the Treasury for permission to exercise their judgment in the matter. They gave an interesting sketch of the history of the tax, and they asked to be left to follow their own devices in regard to exemptions. The answer of the Treasury at that time was as follows:—
"The actual administration of the Act has acquired, it may be held, so much of prescription as ought to stand good, at least, against any interposition by an authority purely administrative.…. The subject is one which should be reserved to be dealt with by the Legislature."
I think that when, in the face of that instruction, we find the Inland Revenue, without any further notice, taking upon themselves to appropriate this money, they are committing an illegal act. I know it may be said, although an act may be illegal, still it may be politic, and it may be beneficial in its results. So far, however, from such a conclusion, we arrive at one the exact reverse. Charity, by reclaiming the vicious, by teaching the ignorant, and tending the suffering, minimizes all the social evils which injure the community at large. Taxation of charity obstructs its exercise and weakens the checks upon demoralization, I invite your Lordships' attention to the Return (289) on the Table of

1549
the House. You will find in it some hundreds of claims, various in their character, but rejected with remarkable uniformity upon the plea that they were "not within the scope of exemption." Societies for building and repairing churches were told that the only plea available for them was a "provision for funds held by trustees under Schedule C," whereas their claim rested upon an earlier exemption embracing their funds as devoted to "charitable purposes." The argument of the Inland Revenue lands them in this dilemma. The "repair" of churches is exempted, although not a charity, but the "building" of a church is not a charity, nor is it exempt. "Repairs" are exempt, if provided by funds assessed under Schedule C. They are not exempt if provided through rents under Schedule A, or interest under Schedule D. Repairs, now exempt under Schedule C, would be taxable if the securities were changed from Consols to Rents. Since this list was published the question has been fought out in the Law Courts, in the case of the fund of the Moravian Brotherhood, and in the Court of Appeal the unanimous decision of the Lords Justices has been given against the position taken up by the Inland Revenue, and that body ought not to be allowed to continue to act on a basis which has been held to be illegal. My Lords, I am not going to prolong needlessly my remarks upon the subject. I think I have said enough to show you that the matter is one which cannot be left as it is, and I will ask my noble Friend at the head of the Government whether the Government will choose definitely between the two alternatives—either to recur to the old system of exemption, or at once proceed, by way of appeal in the Moravian Brotherhood case, to obtain a final decision as to the law of the matter.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: The Inland Revenue Commissioners found their refusal to exempt charities from income tax, though hitherto exempted, on the judgment of a Scotch Court. The Members of that Court showed an undisguised jealousy of the interpretations of the English Court of Chancery passing as current or taking effect in Scotland. Those Judges claimed that the most ordinary and vulgar sense of the word charity should be taken in
1550
Scotland. In short, they would only recognize doles and such charity as the Charity Commission and public opinion in this country have set their faces against. But what do we know in this country of a Lord Ordinary? Most of us are more familiar with the Président de la Cour de Cassation; and by what right do the Inland Revenue Commissioners attempt to administer Scotch law and Scotch judgments in England? The Presidents of the French and Scotch Courts of Appeal both interpret a modern form of Roman Law. The Chairman of Inland Revenue would hardly base his action on a judgment of the French Court of Appeal. Why, then, should he, without the excuse of being a Scotchman, endeavour to enforce the equally foreign decision of a Scotch Court upon English taxpayers? Lord Justice Fry in his judgment last December in the English Court of Appeal upset the arguments of the Scotch Court, for he showed, from the number of technical words used in the Act, that charitable uses should be taken in the technical and not in the ordinary sense of the words. Another anomaly is to be found in the Return now under consideration. The Inland Revenue Commissioners show as much animosity to all funds intended to assist either building or repairs of churches or devoted to religious purposes as they could do if they were Commissioners of King Henry VIII. charged with rooting out "superstitious uses." But, although the funds of confraternities which are quasi-monastic bodies, if employed in church repairs, are exempt under Schedule C, yet if they get taxed under Schedule A no mercy is shown to them. As the destination of those funds is the same in either case, both funds, whether under Schedule A or C, ought to have the same exemption. There are 13 cases of refusal of exemption from income tax which might be called the worst. Of these six were refused on the ground that the deeds of trust were not binding; but if the accounts show that the money is used for the charities designated by the titles of the funds taxed, those accounts should be sufficient. Five charities are alleged by the Inland Revenue Commissioners not to be for a charitable purpose. Two of these are the Royal Humane Society and a Liverpool humane society. If it be a

1551
charitable purpose to make the life of the poor more endurable, is it not a charitable purpose to save life, to preserve the life of, perhaps, the breadwinner of a family? Two institutions for the relief of decayed governesses and poor ladies are said not to be charitable. Two other charities, one for confirmed invalids, the other a dispensary, are denied to be charities, because some small payments were made by those benefited by the charity. Where a sum is required by a poor person which he cannot provide, is it no longer a charity to provide him with three quarters of it because he found the other quarter? The action of the Inland Revenue Commissioners and the good work done by the Secretary of the Charity Commissioners, Mr. Gauntlett, in defending the interests of the charities, will drive many people to put their charities under the wing of the Charity Commission. It is contrary to public policy that charity should be taxed and discouraged: my earliest recollections in this House of the noble Marquess the Prime Minister are of his defence of the pious founder, and I hope that he will not allow him to be extinguished, and will save the charities from the expense of further litigation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have some difficulty in answering the two speeches we have just heard, because, although they are very eloquent and convincing, they should rather have been addressed by counsel to the Courts, and not in this House, where we cannot deal with the matter at all. This question is still sub judice; the Board of Inland Revenue are taking steps as rapidly as possible to bring up the question for the decision of this House. As soon as that is done we shall know what the law is, and if the law as then ascertained does not satisfy my noble Friend, it will be open to him to bring forward a measure to amend it. But while the matter is still in litigation it would be entirely contrary to the general practice for Members of the Government to express any opinion. I must say that it is rather hard that the Board of Inland Revenue should be subject to the adverse criticism of my noble Friend. My noble Friend near me (Lord Stanley of Alderley) has taunted me with the fact that I have more than once invoked the interference of this House with the
1552
action of the Charity Commissioners. It is true that I have done so, but in doing so I was only asking the House to exercise the power which has been reserved to this House by the Act of Parliament. Now my noble Friend is asking us to do that which the House never has done and I hope, never will do—namely, to interfere in litigation that is still going on.
*LORD ADDINGTON: May I just say, in reply to the noble Marquess, that the Board of Inland Revenue have given no signs whatever of their intention to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have here the Statement of the Inland Revenue—
"That on the advice of the Law Officers an appeal will he lodged against the decision in the case of the Moravian Brotherhood, and the final judgment of the House of Lords upon the points at issue will be obtained at the earliest possible date."

THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
THE EARL OF MEATH, in rising to ask the Government whether they intended to remove the unsightly wooden hoarding which surrounds the vacant space in front of the National Gallery on its eastern and northern sides, to level and turf the ground, and to cover the blank walls of the Gallery with ornamental trellis work, said: The National Gallery is perhaps the most important building in the Metropolis. Those who have passed on the eastern side of that building, opposite St. Martin's Church, will have noticed a hoarding hiding a considerable space on the north and east of the Gallery. Formerly there was a building on the north which partly hid this space from view. But this building has been destroyed, and the hoarding now erected in its place is simply hideous to the eyes. If such a disfigurement had surrounded a County Council hall, it would long ago have been denounced. No such eyesore would be tolerated in any Continental City. I believed it is the permanent officials who are to blame for this, and I say that although I have for many years been a permanent official myself. The present Government is, I think, more alive to the improvement of the Metropolis than any other Government has been. I hope that I shall not be told that the Government are impecunious.

1553
I do not believe the country would grudge the expenditure necessary to make the National Gallery worthy of this Metropolis. We are told that the Government are going to build. But how soon? Why should not the ground be nicely laid out as an open space with flowers and shrubs until the final use of the site was decided upon?
LORD LAMINGTON: I am very glad that the noble Lord, who takes so much interest in the well being of the Metropolis, has put this question. There is another matter to which I might also call attention. Nothing has been done in regard to that hideous structure, Queen Anne's Mansions, which are, I believe, to be raised another 20 feet. Again, there are the new buildings at Albert Gate, which are being raised to an enormous height. I believe we shall never have proper regulations with regard to buildings until we have some permanent authority vested with power to prevent the erection of buildings which effect a disfigurement of the Metropolis.
*LORD HENNIKER: My Lords, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner is, as a matter of course, always quite ready to take the responsibility of the care of any of the buildings and works entrusted to him, and he has no wish to say that it is not the duty of the Office of Works to look after the National Gallery. I am glad that it is not necessary for me to plead on this occasion that the reason for not making the improvement he suggests is that we cannot get the money, although I think the noble Earl who brought forward the question will find that it is not so easy to get money out of the Treasury for improvement as he seems to suppose.
THE EARL OF MEATH: On the contrary, I put that as a most important point, but I said you ought to get the money.
*LORD HENNIKER: With regard to what my hon. Friend has said about the height of the buildings in Hyde Park, I think he is misinformed. I have no special information at the present moment, because I had no notice of the question, but from the information I have, I think I am right in saying my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner has succeeded in reducing the height of these buildings very considerably. The question brought forward by
1554
the noble Lord will, I need hardly say, receive every attention, for we all know the great interest that has been taken in the improvement of the buildings of the Metropolis; but I may say that this is a question which requires a great deal of consideration, and there are some very great difficulties to be overcome. As I suggested just now, it is not a question on this occasion of asking for money; it is a question of spending money wisely. I am told that it would be very expensive indeed to remove this hoarding and to put up railings round the National Gallery. There are also some walls round the National Gallery which must be dealt with, and if operations are undertaken at the present time, they might do no permanent good, for the ground of which the noble Lord speaks may before long be required for building purposes.
THE EARL OF MEATH: How long?
LORD HENNIKER: We can hardly say how long. The noble Lord will see that under the circumstances the matter requires more consideration than he at first supposed. All I can say is that I will undertake that the question the noble Lord has brought forward receives immediate and careful consideration.
*EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I think there is one point that has been too much lost sight of by successive Governments. They take down buildings for improvement, and we know how large a sum is spent in renting private buildings for official purposes, and that is because there is always a difficulty in finding the requisite money for providing proper permanent offices on the spaces thus extravagantly kept vacant. Now, when a large space is even temporarily left vacant in a populous district, I think it would be worth while to spend some money to give the tens of thousands living near the temporary enjoyment of an open space thus for a while rendered available to them, and to the hundreds of thousands passing by the sight of something pleasing instead of the reverse during that time; and I am glad to hear that Her Majesty's Government will take this matter into their consideration. I am informed that near the Law Courts the private munificence of a generous man, who does not wish his name to be known, is about to do what, even temporarily, will be a source

1555
of great enjoyment and health to many in that crowded district.
The House adjourned at twenty-five minutes to Seven o'clock, until To-morrow, a quarter after Ten o'clock.