Lords Sitting of 8 August 1889

OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS AND OFFICE OF THE GENTLEMEN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD.
Second Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed (No. 217); and to be considered on Tuesday next.

ADVANCE NOTES TO SEAMEN BILL. (No. 93.)
Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
LORD BALFOUR: I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw this Bill. I move that the order for the Third Reading be discharged, and that the Bill be not further proceeded with, because the only two clauses of which it is composed have been incorporated with another Bill, which is now passing through your Lordships' House. That has been done for the purpose of avoiding that more than one Bill amending the same Act should pass through in the same Session.
Order for Third Reading discharged, and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

CHARITIES RECOVERY BILL. (No. 164.)
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read, and discharged; and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

POOR LAW BILL. (No. 195.)
House in Committee (according to order).
Clause 1. Amendment made; Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I beg on Clause 3 to move an Amendment, of which I have given notice. It speaks for itself, and is not likely to excite opposition. The Clause is founded upon the recommendation of your Lordships' Committee last year. The Committee seems to have gone very much on the evidence of Dr. Bridges, the local inspector, who gave very strong evidence that it is greatly in the interest of asylums and of the poor people treated there, that medical instruction should be allowed as proposed. The President of the Royal College of Physicians has informed me that he has been in communication with Mr. Ritchie on the subject, and that he entirely agrees with this proviso. I have also made a verbal alteration with regard to the asylums managers.
Amendment moved, to insert the following clause:—
"The managers of the Metropolitan Asylums Board may, if they think fit, allow the asylums provided by them for fever, small-pox, and diphtheria, to be used for purposes of medical instruction, subject to any rules and regulations which the Local Government Board may, from time to time, make with regard to such use of the said asylums."—(The Earl Granville.)
LORD BALFOUR: I entirely accept this Amendment after the representations which have been made to the Local Government Board in its favour, not the least being the consideration that fever cases are now so promptly removed to the proper hospitals, and there would be a possibility of there not being sufficient

715
instruction afforded for medical purposes.
Clause agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; the Bill to be printed as amended (No. 218).

PAYMASTER GENERAL BILL. (No. 208.)
  REVENUE BILL. (No. 209.)
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  CRUELTY TO CHILDREN PREVENTION BILL. (No. 211.)
  Amendments reported according to order.
  THE EAEL OF MILLTOWN: I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the change which has been made in the title of this Bill at the last moment. Originally its title was "The Prevention of Cruelty to Children Bill." Afterwards Lord Kimberley proposed it should be altered to "The Protection of Children Bill." The Standing Committee were of opinion that the alteration proposed was a proper one, but, at the last moment, it has been again altered. I now propose that the shorter title should be adopted, as this lengthening of the title seems absurd. Under this title it might be supposed to be a Bill for the prevention of cruelty to children and the prevention of protection to them, which I think is hardly the meaning of the noble Earl.
  LORD HERSCHELL: No doubt an alteration was made in the title in Standing Committee in order to meet the objection that there were subjects covered by this Bill which do not come within the title of "Prevention of Cruelty," but deal rather with the protection of children. Objections were made to such matters being included in a Bill bearing that title. Representations were made which induced my hon. friend, Lord Aberdeen, to propose an Amendment to that title, to which I readily assented. It was represented that there were advantages in letting it be known that a Bill had been passed for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which might not follow if the Bill were entitled merely
  716
  for the Protection of Children. There seems to me no objection to the whole of the title being giving to the Bill. I have only to add that notice of the Amendment was given on the Paper, and that it was not made in any way that would create surprise.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): Is the House to understand that this is called the "short title" of the Bill?
  LORD HERSCHELL: Yes. There are degrees of shortness.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I beg to propose an Amendment to Clause 3. By sub-sections (b) and (c) it is provided that any person who
  "(b) causes or procures any child, being a boy under the age of fourteen years, or being a girl under the age of sixteen years, to be in any street, or in any premises licensed for the sale of any intoxicating liquor, other than premises licensed according to law for public entertainments, for the purpose of singing, playing, or performing for profit, or offering anything for sale, between ten p.m. and five a.m. from the first day of April to the thirtieth day of September inclusive, or between eight p.m. and five a.m. from the first day of October to the thirty-first day of March inclusive; or
  (c) causes or procures any child under the age of ten years to be at any time in any street, or in any premises licensed for the sale of any intoxicating liquor, or in premises licensed according to law for public entertainments, for the purpose of singing, playing or performing for profit, or offering any thing for sale, shall on conviction thereof by a Court of summary jurisdiction in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds alternatively, or in default of payment of the said fine, or in addition thereto, to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding three months."
  I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that the evening newspapers are sold in the streets within those prohibited hours. It really does seem a monstrous hardship in these very hard times to prevent, by the operation of such a Clause as this, poor people deriving the little, but, to them, most valuable addition to their means which is earned by the boys who sell newspapers in the streets. I cannot see why there should be any difference made between winter and summer with regard to the out-door sale of newspapers by boys. The gas-lamps are alight in the streets just the same at all seasons, and

  717
  it is immaterial to these poor boys, whether it happens to be winter or summer, if they can earn a little in that way. It is hardly to be supposed that they will consult the almanack to see whether they may carry on their trade within the particular hours when papers or anything else may be sold by them in the streets, and really this seems to be a most extraordinary tyrannical piece of legislation. I would ask your Lordships whether boys should not be allowed to sell newspapers in the streets after ten o'clock in the evening? To fix the prohibited time at ten p.m. in the summer and eight p.m. in the winter seems to me to be not only cruel, but ridiculous. It is true that power is given to local authorities to vary those hours, but it seems to me that this is a matter which it would be very much better not to leave to local authorities. They might possibly choose not to vary those hours, and it would be much better for Parliament to fix the hours within which it is to become unlawful for poor boys to carry on their lawful occupations. I move, therefore, to omit the words after "eight p.m."
  Moved, to omit all words after "eight p.m." in line 14, down to the word "or" in line 17.—(The Earl of Milltown.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: The provision to which the noble Earl refers does not relate to newspaper boys only. He has given a particular case, in which he says it would be unreasonable to restrict the hours and prohibition to the extent laid down in the Bill. It must be remembered that this Clause would give, even in the winter, fifteen hours during which children may be employed, and I think that will be considered by your Lordships a sufficiently long period for the employment of any child, only nine hours' rest remaining. I think, my Lords, to say that children shall not be employed for more than fifteen hours out of twenty-four, is not any extraordinary interference with either liberty or rights, and that it is saying no more than will, I am sure, be thought desirable. To meet particular cases such as that referred to, the proviso giving power to the local authorities to vary the hours, has been inserted; but I do not know that it would be advisable to enable
  718
  them to extend the hours in the case of a particular employment. It seems to me that meets the whole objection.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I mentioned the case of the newspaper boys, as that is the most glaring; but as your Lordships are aware, boys earn their living in the streets in other ways. For instance, there are the boys who sell matches. As I have said, the amounts which they earn are not great, but still to these poor boys themselves they are of considerable importance. The noble Earl speaks of there being fifteen hours' work; as though it were continuous for that period, but surely he would not say that remark applies to boys who sell evening papers. The point is that this clause prevents their being employed within the prohibited time, and therefore I ask your Lordships to accept the amendment for the omission of those words.
  On question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 13; Not Contents, 23.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Clause 3, subsection (c), about which there has been so much discussion, as it at present stands, prohibits the employment of children under 10 in premises licensed for public entertainments. That will not cover travelling circuses and like places of entertainment throughout the country where children may be employed for acrobatic purposes, and in ways in which their employment would be even more undesirable than in licensed theatres. It seems to me if it be considered inexpedient to permit such employment in theatres it would be unfair to the theatres to permit it in circuses and traveling shows. I would therefore suggest that after the words "licensed according to law for public entertainments," there should be inserted "or any circus or place to which the public shall be admitted by payment," so that those places may be put on the same footing in this respect as theatres, which are required to be licensed.
  Moved to insert in clause 3, line 21, "or any circus or place to which the public shall be admitted by payment."—(Lord Herschell.)
  Agreed to.
  LORD HERSCHELL: With reference to the next amendments I will state the course which I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to take. I will either more them now or leave them to the Third Reading. I have been unable to give notice of them, because it was not until yesterday that I obtained a copy of the Bill as it had passed through Committee, and of course it was impossible for me to propose amendments until I received it. If there is no objection to my moving them now, I will state that the first amendment which I have to propose is in. line 38, to insert the words "stipendiary magistrates or."
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD WATSON: I wish to move that the words "Sheriff or Sheriff-substitute" should be deleted, and the words "School Board" inserted, in deference to a very generally expressed desire in Scotland. The employment of young children is by no means such a burning question in the North as it is in England. For the last 11 years, that is to say, since the passing of the Education (Scotland) Act of 1878, the power of permitting children under age to be employed on special occasions has been entrusted to School Boards. I have not heard any complaints of the manner in which they have performed that duty, and in Glasgow, where that Clause has been in operation, very wise and carefully-framed regulations have been issued by the School Board as to the conditions under which children shall be permitted to assist in dramatic performances. I think it would be a great pity to take that power from a tribunal which has given entire satisfaction for so many years, and to vest it in the Sheriffs arid Sheriff-substitutes. I doubt whether it is at all consistent with the duties which those gentlemen perform that they should be compelled to enquire into the circumstances under which children should be thus employed. Even if they were enabled to make inquiries, I doubt whether they could perform that duty more efficiently than the School Board.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I have no objection whatever to the Amendment. Indeed, I should like the same thing to be done in England, but I fear there
  720
  would be no chance of its being adopted here. I have certainly no objection to it as regards Scotland.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I will now move my next Amendment. I desire to say, before doing so, in order to avoid misapprehension, that I do not like the proviso, though I am seeking to amend it any more than when it was first pro posed. My objections to it remain, but I do not attempt to compass the impossible, and, therefore, I do not propose, against your Lordships' opinion, to omit it. As the Amendment is drawn, it enables the Court to order that a child not exceeding seven may be permitted to take part in such entertainments. It strikes me that, instead of so enacting, the better form would be to enable the Court to grant a license; that the Court might be empowered to grant a license during such hours, and subject to such restrictions and conditions as it might think fit. I have been led to that opinion having observed what has been done by the Glasgow School Board. That Body grants exemptions to the children, authorising them to take part in these entertainments, stating for what time they shall be employed, and making regulations for the purpose of ensuring that they shall be properly taken care of. It seems to me that, whatever tribunal has the power of granting exemptions, should also have the power of imposing reasonable restrictions and conditions. If permitted at all, it should only be permitted under those circumstances. I will not press the Amendment now if it be thought better I should leave it to the Third Reading. The Amendment is to leave out the words "in order that," and to insert "grant a license for such time during such hours of the day, and subject to such restrictions and conditions as it may think fit, for a child to take part."
  LORD MILLTOWN: I think it is very inconvenient that Amendments should be discussed otherwise than in order as they appear in the Paper.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): We had so much discussion upon this proviso in Committee that I think it would be very inconvenient now to discuss Amend-

  721
  ments except as they occur in the Paper.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I will not press the Amendment. I have an Amendment at the end of this section. I made a promise that I would provide that the part of sub-section (c) which relates to children performing in premises licensed for public entertainments, should not come into operation until the 1st November next. I will put down for the Third Reading an Amendment to that effect.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to, with Amendments. Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow, and to be printed as amended (No. 219).

  SETTLED LAND ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 203.)
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  JUDICIAL FACTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 202.)
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment, according to order): Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (WALES) BILL. (No. 201.)
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.

  LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 199.)
  Commons Amendments considered (according to order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Most of the Commons Amendments to this Bill are of a formal character, and I do not think it is necessary that I should go through them. A few errors have crept in by inadvertence. One is that the penalty imposed shall not extend to prevent the employment of male persons on urgent occasions as may, in the judgment of the superintendent or proprietor of the asylum or registered house, be desirable. It is obvious that the intention was to provide for cases where there might be a necessity for employing male attendants on urgent occasions, but the draftsman has hardly expressed that idea.
  722
  Some Amendments agreed to; Some agreed to, with Amendments, and a consequential Amendment made to the Bill: Some disagreed to; and a Committee appointed to prepare reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to some of their Amendments: The Committee to meet forthwith.

  COURT OF SESSION AND BILL CHAMBER (SCOTLAND) CLERKS BILL. (No. 152.)
  Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 179.)
  Amendments reported (according to order.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: With reference to Clause 82, upon which there was some discussion, I have to say that I have no proposal to offer. I do not know whether the House will accept the Clause as it stands.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I regret that Her Majesty's Government have not thought it desirable to modify the form of this Clause. The words are very large and very arbitrary. It would appear that, in many of the Scotch counties, it would make the Valuator the servant of the Treasury and not of the county. That, I think, would be a serious inconvenience. Though I have every confidence in the Treasury as at present represented, I think, in such a matter as this, we must look to the future, especially in a Bill to give Local Government and local powers. It seems to me inconsistent with the principle of this Bill that you should make one of the principal officers of the Council the servant of the Treasury.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: When this matter was brought forward the other night, the noble duke stated that in the House of Commons the Clause had slipped in without much consideration. The matter is one concerning Scotland and concerning the Treasury, and on both those grounds I feel that I am not very competent to deal with it. These Clauses were dealt with and adjusted after full consideration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Lord Advocate, and the

  723
  permanent officials concerned. So that, at all events, this Clause has been adjusted with full knowledge of all the circumstances: and it seems to me if there is anything too rigid or severe in the Clause, the County Councils can protect themselves by not employing officers of this kind.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, before we leave this Bill, I would mention one matter which the noble Marquess proposed to take into consideration the other night, but with regard to which he has said nothing, and nothing has been done. I moved an Amendment on behalf of Lord Aberdeen with reference to the stereotyped rate on the owners. I put to the noble Marquess several points; he admitted there was some force in them, and he undertook to consider this matter before the Report.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: It is quite true I did undertake to consider this question again before the report, but I said at the same time that I could not undertake to consider it favourably. I am afraid I cannot go back from what I said then, and I consider it undesirable to accept the amendment. This measure is based by the Government upon an intelligible principle: that is to say, that works which had been paid for out of annual rates are not to be left out of consideration in, fixing the basis of the rate on the average of the last ten years. The noble Lord will himself see that it would be very difficult otherwise for the Sheriffs to see on what basis they are to proceed in dealing with capital account for the purpose of fixing the stereotyped, rate. Of course the capital account may include very large and very small works, and, it would be very difficult for the Sheriff, to decide what ought to be placed in the annual rate for the county, and what in his judgment ought to be spread over a term of years and paid for with borrowed money. I think the Sheriffs would, be in a difficult position, and it would be almost impossible for them to ascertain the basis they should take in fixing the stereotyped amount. The proposal of the Government in this Bill is that only works paid for with borrowed money shall be exempted from calculation for the stereotyped rate. That proposal is based upon a broad and intelligible principle, and I think that
  724
  any other would create difficulty in the amount being fixed by the Sheriff.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The argument now used by the noble Marquess is precisely the same as he used the other night, and which, after a great deal of discussion, he was obliged to admit was not a very strong one. I am afraid the course he has adopted will oblige me to take the equally objectionable course of repeating one or two of the observations I made the other night. I beg leave to say in answer to the noble Marquess when he says that the good in this measure lays down a broad and intelligible principle, that it does neither the one nor the other. No such principle in rating was ever heard of before, and if it could have been conceived possible that any such principle would have been adopted, no county would ever have thought of paying for public works by rate instead of by the ordinary course of borrowing. This proposal of the noble Marquess, if he insists upon it, will undoubtedly, as Lord Aberdeen considered in bringing forward his amendment, inflict considerable hardship in more than one county in Scotland. As I understand, the noble Marquess challenges me to explain the possibility of the Sheriff being able to calculate how much of a certain sum which has been expended as capital ought to be apportioned to each year. Is not this a very simple way? Suppose the question is with regard to Some county building which has involved an outlay of £4,000 or, £5,000 paid by rate levied instead of by borrowing in the ordinary way. The noble Marquess knows just as well as I do the ordinary terms of borrowing for such purposes; it might be fixed at 20 years or 30 years, or at any other term-which might on consideration seem advisable to the Sheriff. What could be more easy than adding the amount so arrived at to the stereotyped rate? I cannot understand how there could be any difficulty whatever. As the matter stands there will be great hardship inflicted on more than one county. The noble Marquess was the other night obliged to admit that his argument was a weak one, and he said he would reconsider the matter. Of course one cannot in any way bind the Government to say they will introduce

  725
  an amendment; but still when one hears of reconsideration one hopes for something in that direction. To admit on one night that one's argument is barren and to say that the matter will be reconsidered, and then to simply repeat that argument to the House on another night, is not a course which is very gratifying to those proposing an amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I must deny altogether that I said my argument was either a bad or a weak one. When I said I would consider the matter again, it was only after pressure had been pat upon me. In deference to the wish expressed by noble Lords on either side of the House I said I would do so, but I expressly said that I could not promise to consider it favourably. The noble Lord has not grappled with one of the main difficulties. He has taken a particular instance of county buildings, and he said, as I understood, that the expenditure upon that one place might be easily dealt with by the Sheriffs spreading it over the ten years. I admit there would not be much difficulty if one had only to deal with one class of expenditure; but, as I stated just now, there are many other kinds of expenditure which would come under this head. No doubt many counties would like to put a large amount of their expenditure under it. Questions with reference to reformatories, police stations, and others of that kind had been raised, and if once the proposition of the noble. Lord is admitted, similar questions will be raised by others. The question at once arises, How low down in the scale of expenditure is the Sheriff to go in fixing the capital expenditure of the county. I have already said that the whole proposal of the Bill is based upon a broad and intelligible principle, and upon that ground I must decline to accept the noble Lord's suggestion.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I think it would not be impossible to meet the difficulty in some cases of expenditure out of capital; but I am bound to say that I attach very little importance to this point, and I do so because in my opinion the whole of these rates fall really on owners and not on occupants. It has been the custom in Scotland to make most of the rates payable half by the owner and half by the occupant; but,
  726
  under the present system of letting, the whole must ultimately fall on the owners. The rates levied during existing contracts will fall upon the occupants. I approve of the system of half-rates upon owners and occupiers, and if it prevailed in England I think it would convince a good many persons who entertain rather curious views upon these matters, for ultimately the whole of these rates come out of the rent.
  Formal Amendments made: Bill to be read 3a to-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 220.)

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. (No. 186.)
  Read 3a (according to order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 204.)
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read:
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, in moving that the House resolve itself into Committee upon this Bill, I should like to say a few words upon it, as by your Lordships' permission the other night I made no remark on the Bill. I shall say very little, because the Universities (Scotland) Bill, which I introduced last year into this House was, after most easeful Consideration by your Lordships, and alteration in many particulars, read a third time but, owing to the lateness of the period of the Session at which the Bill left the House, it was impossible for the House of Commons to consider it then. Under the circumstances I think I am justified dm considering that your Lordships are perfectly aware of the object, and principles of this Bill. I think the most practical way of asking your Lordships to consider the Bill which was read a second time the other night, is to look at it as if had been considered during one Session of Parliament, and that the Amendments which have been made to it in the House of Commons during this Session are Amendments on the Bill as it was passed by your Lordships' House last, year. The Bill introduced into the House of Commons was almost identical in every important particular with that which passed your Lordships'

  727
  House last year. There was one slight alteration made with reference to the constitution of the University of St. Andrew's, another as to the constitution of the Commission, and another with reference to the Botanical Gardens and Observatory in Edinburgh. They were taken out of the financial portions of the Bill. I cannot refrain from expressing now, on the part of the Government—as I see the noble Earl, to whom we are indebted in the matter, on the crossbenches—the gratitude which is due to him for the generous gift which he has made of the whole of his magnificent observatory apparatus and library for the public use. With these few observations, I beg to move, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, it is quite unnecessary to occupy your time with many remarks for the reasons just given by the noble Marquess who has moved this Bill. It corresponds very closely with the Bill which was introduced last year, on which so much attention was bestowed, but there are two or three points to which it is necessary to call attention. Your Lordships will bear in mind, while this Bill is passing through Committee, that it deals very thoroughly indeed with the University question, and introduces great changes. It deals with the whole question of the management of Universities, their property and revenues, as well as their discipline, touching, therefore, that which has been for all time in the hands of the Senates Academicus. It takes the general control from the Senatus Academicus, and also places the power of making orders after the expiration of the Commission in the University Courts, on which the graduates of the Universities will be largely represented. It is important we should bear those facts in mind, with reference to various points to which your Lordships' attention will be called in Committee. With regard to the constitution of the Courts, there is one important change, and, as I think, a very considerable improvement. Last year it was proposed that nominees of the Crown should be be appointed on the University Courts. As your Lordships know, considerable difference of opinion prevails on University questions between the two opposing parties, one of whom I may de-
  728
  scribe as the party of the Senates Academicus, or the professorial body, and the other whom I can only describe by a name well understood in Scotland, although, perhaps, not a very classical name, that is, the extra-mural teachers. When the Crown took the power of appointing Assessors on the University Courts, it might have been very easily attempted to remedy any manifest disproportion which might exist between the relative powers of those two parties. I hold that the Crown ought not to be entrusted with a power of that sort, and last year exception was taken to those appointments in this House. I am glad to say that this year those appointments do not re-appear in the Bill. There is only one other point to which I will call your Lordships' attention now, and that is with reference to the composition of the Commission. Those who have taken an interest in the development of this Bill know perfectly well that last year the noble Marquess did everything in his power to obtain the very best and most representative Commission he could. He spoke to many members of this House about the matter, and, although he was not successful in persuading many who entertain very different opinions on this matter to take seats upon the Commission, it was not his fault that he did not obtain the most representative Commission. He did all he could. The only desire of the Scotch Office was to secure a thoroughly good Commission in order to obtain a body which would carry out the measure in a manner most acceptable to the people of Scotland. I regret that the names of some who would have been of great assistance are absent, but I think those who have been placed on the Commission add considerable strength to it. One thing may be said: both the University parties are this year represented upon the Commission. When you have two parties existing, and questions to be decided by a Commission as to which great difference of opinion prevails between them, there is only one alternative in dealing with the two parties which represent the opposite shades of opinion: they must be altogether omitted from the Commission, or a fair and adequate representation of each side must be given upon it. This year the latter

  729
  course has been taken, and upon the whole I think it is a wise course, because it is now quite certain that the divergent opinions will be expressed at the Commission in the most complete and satisfactory manner; so that the general body of the Commissioners will be able to apply themselves to the consideration of the various questions, and it is absolutely certain that every question of interest arising will be discussed in the most intelligent and intelligible form. I think, therefore, in that way the Commission is improved. Perhaps, as my noble friend Lord Elgin is not present, I may say that I am glad he is to sit upon the Commission. With your Lordships' permission, I will reserve any further remarks I may have to make upon matters of detail until they arise in Committee.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1, 2, 3, and 4 agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: In clause 5, at line 35, I propose to insert the word "Lord" before the words "Provost of Dundee." I merely wish to say a few words in support of my proposal. In the first place I am perfectly well aware that this is a proposition upon which it would not be possible for me to take the sense of the House, and therefore if the Government do not see their way to entertain it favourably, I do not feel disposed to press it. At the same time I think it is only right I should bring this question before the House. My Lords, in years long gone by, the Provost of Dundee was always styled "Lord-Provost." As your Lordships know Dundee played an important part throughout early Scottish history. In the days of Queen Mary the Lord Provost was appointed one of the Commissioners to arrange the marriage of the Queen in Prance. He was one of the Committee of the Lords upon the Articles sanctioning the Queen's demission of the Crown. He was also appointed Lord High Commissioner. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries petitions and applications to the Corporation were addressed "To the Lord Provost"; and that title was continued and was unanimously recognized by the Convention in 1692. A little later the Provostship was placed
  730
  in Commission, and, when a new Provost was appointed, the ancient title was not renewed. But Her Majesty has lately been pleased to grant a Charter to Dundee, making it a royal city; and, therefore, I would suggest to the First Minister of the Crown, for his consideration whether it may not be possible for him to submit to Her Majesty the title, "Lord Provost of Dundee" with a view to the restoration of the title as used in former days.
  Amendment moved, Clause 5, line 35, before the words "Provost of Dundee," to insert the word "Lord."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should be very sorry, while saying that I cannot assent to the proposal of the noble, Earl, if it should be thought I do not recognize the antiquity of the office of Provost of Dundee, but it seems to me this is not the occasion or the place to confer such a title. It seems to me that the object of the noble Earl is, by a sort of side wind, to obtain for the Provost of Dundee a Parliamentary recognition of his claim to the title of Lord Provost. The are other towns in Scotland which at one time had no less right to the title Lord Provost for their chief authorities, but they no longer possess that right. Whether or not the Provost of Dundee ought to have the title of Lord Provost is not, I think, a question which ought to come before the House in this way. If that title is to be given him by Act of Parliament, it ought to be by some Act dealing directly with the privileges and position of the City of Dundee. I presume the question has arisen now in consequence of Dundee having lately been raised to the rank and position of a city; but that circumstance does not, ipso facto, give a right to the title and dignity of Lord Provost. I think there has been a little misapprehension on that point, and, therefore, I take this opportunity of making this statement. I do not at this moment say whether the Provost of Dundee has a right to the title Lord Provost or not; I only say this is not the way to raise the question upon a Bill dealing with an entirely different matter.
  A Noble LORD: As the Provost of of Dundee has been mentioned, I should

  731
  like to ask the noble Marquess whether or not it is intended to give him a seat upon the University Court of St. Andrews, irrespective of the union of the University College of Dundee with the University of St. Andrews? Ought his seat to be made conditional upon the affiliation of the University College of Dundee to St. Andrews, or is he to have a seat on the University Court irrespective of such union?
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: The noble Lord has called attention to a point of some difficulty, because, under the constitution of the University Court of St. Andrew's, it was provided that the Provost of Dundee should have a seat upon that Court, but he would not have a seat unless the University College of Dundee was affiliated to the University of St. Andrew's. However, that can be provided for on the Third Reading, upon the Report.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: There is another matter. My attention was called to the constitution of the University of St. Andrew's by a noble Lord, not present to-night, who takes a lively interest in academical questions—Lord Powis. He pointed out to me that there was a discrepancy between the constitution of the University Court of St. Andrew's and those of all the other Universities. In the case of all the other Universities the Provost has a seat on the University Court, and that is so with regard to the University of St. Andrew's; but, in addition to that in the other three Universities, the Provost, the Town Council, and the Magistrates have the right of appointing an Assessor. The object of making such a provision is to give the Municipal body a more sustained interest in academical affairs. Now, in the case of the University of St. Andrew's, the Provost and Town Council have not the right of appointing an Assessor. Perhaps, if both the Provost of St. Andrew's and the Provost of Dundee were on the Council, the Municipal element might be considered strong enough. Of course, the Provost's functions are of a transitory character. In some cases they may be elected, but in no case would they have the privilege of sitting for four years on the Council. I ask, then, why is there no power given for the appointment of an Assessor in the case of that University?
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: The answer is simple enough: it is because, in the case of the University of St. Andrew's, if this proposal is carried out, there will be two municipal representatives then of the town of St. Andrew's and the City of Dundee. In the case of the other Universities, there will be only two representatives of the municipality. If the noble Lord's proposition were to be accepted, in the case of St. Andrew's there would be no less than four representatives of the municipal body.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: They might be nominated alternatively.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: That would import confusion into the Bill.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: Perhaps the noble Marquess will also consider that there is no certainty that the Provost of Dundee will ever sit upon the Council. However, I do not desire to press the point further.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: The question raised by the noble Lord who spoke previously was, whether the word "Lord" should be inserted before "Provost."
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I withdrew the Amendment. I would only point out to the noble Marquess, with regard to what he has stated as to the Provost for the time being, that is dealt with by sub-section (g). I thought it was the intention of the Government to make the Provost of Dundee a member of the body of St. Andrew's University. That is very clearly expressed in the Affiliation Clause. In cases where the contrary was proposed, words were inserted in the Bill, saying that this should only be done when the College was affiliated to, and made to form part of, the University. If the noble Marquess does not intend the Provost of Dundee to be on the University Court, unless the Dundee College is affiliated to St. Andrew's University, he has simply to remove the name from where it stands now and place it in sub-section (c), either before or after the Principal of St. Mary's College. That would dispose of the difficulty.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I will take into consideration the point which has been suggested by the noble Lord.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: I hope I am not out of order in asking another

  733
  question upon this clause. This clause contemplates the creation of a number of Assessors who are to be nominated by many diverse authorities. I confess I do not distinguish from the language used whether it is absolutely obligatory on all those authorities to nominate the Assessors, or whether they have any discretionary power. If it is absolutely necessary that all those Assessors should be nominated, it seems to me some inconvenience might arise. It might occur that this duty of nominating Assessors will not, on some occasion or other, either by neglect, accident, or ill-will, be performed If all the obligations in that respect were not performed at the right time, would the Court be then not legally constituted, and would its acts be invalidated or not? It seems to me it might be better to make the nomination of all those Assessors rather discretionary than obligatory. In general, they will undoubtedly be nominated, but on some occasion or other there might be a failure in the nomination at the right time. I merely want to know whether the nomination of all these Assessors is discretionary or obligatory, and whether their presence is absolutely necessary to constitute a University Court.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: The noble Lord has asked two questions; one, Whether it is absolutely necessary that all the Assessors should be elected,' or if a smaller number would be sufficient? and the other, Whether the University Court would be a properly constituted body even if the full number of Assessors were not elected to it? In answer to the first question, I will inform the noble Earl that it is not obligatory to elect the full number of Assessors, though I have no doubt that in all cases the full number Would be elected. In answer to the second question, there is no doubt the University Court would be a properly constituted body, although there were vacancies upon it.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am now going to ask your Lordships to strike out the last sentence of the last sub-section of Clause 5, on page 4. It runs as follows:.— "No member of the Senatus Academious of any University shall be entitled to vote or take part in the election of any Assessor of the General Council of the University" The effect
  734
  of this clause is to disfranchise the whole body of Professors of all the Universities in regard to voting for an Assessor representing the General Council of the University. I want to know what is the reason for such a proposal being inserted in the Bill. No such proposal was inserted in the Bill last year, or as it was introduced this year, and I think I shall be able to give your Lordships very good reasons why you should vote with me against this sub-section. In the first place I suppose the argument which will be used against me is this: That the members of the Senatus are already represented by three Assessors whom they themselves will vote for; and therefore, if they are graduates of the University, they ought not to vote for any further Assessors; and if they are not members of the Council they are all the more disqualified and unfit to vote for such assessors. Now, in the first place, I wish to point out that the n amber of those whom you propose to disfranchise is absolutely infinitesimal in comparison with the whole number of Graduates in the Universities. In St. Andrew's University the Members of the Senatus are 15 in number, and there are 1,508 members of the General Council; in the University of Glasgow the Senatus has 29 members, while there are 4,562 members of the Council; at Aberdeen there are 24 members of the Senatus, and 3,109 of the General Council; and at Edinburgh there are 41 members of the Senatus as compared with 6,100 members of the Council. In other words, there are members of the Senatus who, without this clause, would vote for these Assessors to the number of 109, as compared with 15,279 members of the General Councils; and this amendment, therefore, has been introduced solely for the purpose of disfranchising those 109 persons. It would not, of course, be fair if I were to state the case only in that way, because I ought to remind your Lordships that those 109 members of the Senatus would have an influence with regard to those elections considerably out of proportion to their mere numbers, because the whole 109 being connected with the teaching in the Universities, are necessarily present during the greater part of the year; and as there might be some difficulty in collecting a large

  735
  number of the members of Council the votes of the 109 would be more important than their comparative numbers would seem to indicate. But, my Lords, I would ask what reason is there for a proposal of this sort? What had the Professors done? You are to single them out, and disfranchise them alone. You are not to treat the Provosts of the various University towns in the same way. The Provosts have seats upon the University Courts, and if they are members of the Council they will also vote for the Assessors who are sent to represent the Council. Besides that, in three cases out of four the provost will appoint an Assessor of his own, and he is therefore represented much more fully than these Professors. But you do not treat him or anybody else in the same way that you are treating these Professors. If colleges are affiliated to the University, and if the members of the Colleges are all members of the University, they will have a vote in this respect. So that it simply comes to this, that the Senatus is selected, and the Senatus alone to be disfranchised. I hope the House will consider the very great alteration which is made by this Bill in the relative powers of the Senatus and the University Court. I will again remind your Lordships that we have taken away from the Senatus the whole power of administration over the resources; we have given the Courts a general control over the proceedings of the Senatus, and therefore we have increased the power of the Court to a very large extent. But the Bill proposes as it now stands that we shall not be content with that; we are to go further and disfranchise the Senatus altogether. The insertion of this Clause seems to me to be a very great mistake. It was not in the Bill when first drafted. My Lords, it seems to me a very mean and petty proceeding, and I trust your Lordships will strike out this Clause.
  LORD WATSON: My Lords, I must express my sympathy with the motion now made to the House, whether it be successful or no. I can quite understand the principle of disfranchising Professors who sit in the University Courts, but why should you disfranchise Professors who do not sit in the University Courts? Even then, I should not
  736
  object to legislation in this direction if it were general, and not personal and invidious. This Bill contemplates that there shall be brought into the University affiliated Colleges which are to be represented in the University Court. Every teacher in those Colleges is left at liberty to vote for an Assessor in the General Council, but not one of the Professors in the University is permitted to do the same. I have not yet heard any reason why that invidious distinction should be made between the two bodies. I should have thought that upon the rationale of the question, the weightier reasons would be in favour of the Professors, and for this reason: that the Universities of Scotland owe their distinction in the past, and will owe any success which they may have in the future, not to the provisions of any Bill of this character, however useful they may be, and I admit their usefulness to the full, but upon the character and the attainments of the Professors who constitute the Senatus.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I cannot help saying that I am sorry the noble Earl has thought it right to introduce this Amendment; because the form in which he has put it (and I admit that the arguments he has used are very strong) makes it appear that the Government by this proposal in the Bill desires to put an invidious distinction upon the Professors, but I need not say that is very far indeed from the intention of the Government. In the University Courts the Senatus Academicus are fully represented by the four Assessors. The Senatus Academicus elects four Assessors, and the Council also elects four Assessors. As I understand, what the noble Earl contends is, that this puts a slur in some way upon the professorial element.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: And upon them alone.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Upon them alone; that they are debarred from voting as members of the General Council. It is possible there may be differences of opinion upon matters affecting the University between the Assessors who represent the General Council and the Assessors who represent the Senatus Academicus. I do not like to look forward to any such differences, but it is possible

  737
  they may arise, and I cannot help thinking it is a provision your Lordships will accept which secures that while the Senatus Academicus has a larger representation than by the Bill of last year, not only in actual numbers, but in proportion, they should not have a vote for the Assessors as members of the General Council. I really do not know how to answer the noble Earl when he says this is a provision which is invidious to the Professors; still less do I know how to answer Lord Watson's remark, from which he appears to think that the Government do not recognise to the full what the Universities have owed to the Professors in the past, and how much the success of the Universities will be due to them in the future. But the Government wish to draw no such distinction. They do recognise most absolutely, and to the full, that the entire success of the Universities must depend upon the professional body. But there was one point advanced by the noble Earl which rather tells against his own argument. He pointed out, and very truly, that the professorial vote, if allowed to them as members of the General Council, would be infinitesimal. I would ask, is it worth while when the Bill comes up from the House of Commons in this form to raise this question, which is really a question of sentiment? Really, it is nothing more than a question of sentiment; because the noble Earl has himself shown that the voting power of the Professors on the General Council would be almost nil; that is so say, it would come practically to about I in 150. My Lords, I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Earl, but, in declining to accept it, I repeat that I most absolutely repudiate the idea of a slur of any kind being put upon the merits of the professorial element in the Universities of Scotland.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am sorry, but I shall be obliged to take the sense of the House upon this question. If I wanted an argument in support of my position, I do not think I could find a stronger one than the speech which the noble Marquis has just delivered. Because, what does the noble Marquis say? He says it would be a great mistake for the Professors, or any one else, to suppose that, by this enactment, the Government intend to cast a slur upon them. That is
  738
  not the question. The question is, what the Bill does, in fact. It is no use telling a man that you do not intend to cast a slur upon him if you disfranchise him. The Professors ask why this has been done. It was not done when the Bill first came into the House dealing with the position of all these various parties and Universities. If the Government intends to inaugurate a system of counting up votes, and to say that so-and-so will have so many votes in a particular assembly, and, therefore, that they have no right to complain if they are not allowed to vote for the Assessors, I think they have set themselves an impossible task, and a task which I do not think Parliament either can, or ought to, undertake. I wish to remind your Lordships again that, by this Bill, great power is given to the University Courts and to the General Council. It is not a question whether there is any intention to cast a slur or not, but it is a question whether it is not a wrong step, a very wrong course indeed, as it is a most invidious thing, to take away the votes of these Professors. I am very sorry to be forced to take the sense of the House upon the matter, but I am afraid I must do so.
  Amendment, Clause 5, page 4, line 39, to omit the words, "No member of the Senatus Academicus of any University shall be entitled to vote or take part in the election of any Assessor of the General Council of the University."
  On Question, "That those words stand part of the Clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 24: Not-contents, 8.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I propose, in Clause 8, to leave out the words "University Court," and to substitute the word "Commissioners." The object of the Amendment is this: As the Clause now stands, it will be necessary, on the 1st February every year, for the University Court to fix the Governors of the General Council. Should there be any points of difference, it merely means that you will give facilities for raising and reviewing them, by each year fixing the number of the quorum of your General Council. I propose that the number should be fixed by the Commissioners, and the result would be that, in the future, if any one wished to make an alteration in the General Council, if

  739
  the Court were disposed to do so, the thing would be done. It is very desirable there should be the means of raising questions every year. Then, of course, by a subsequent Clause in the Bill, after the expiration of the Commissioners' functions, it is in the power of the Court to pass any necessary ordinance.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am not quite sure that the number fixed by the University Court, as proposed by the noble Earl, would not remain in perpetuity.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: In Clause 21 it says they shall have the power of altering or revoking any ordinance framed and passed under the Act of 1858, and of making new orders.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I do not think that would come under the new ordinance. I think they would be absolutely unalterable. However, I will consider the matter.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: May I ask the noble Marquess whether he will give it his favourable consideration?
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I cannot say that I will give it favourable consideration, but I will give it consideration.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.

  COMPANIES CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT, 1888, AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 187.)
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  PRINCE OF WALES'S CHILDREN BILL. (No. 212.)
  House in Committee (according to order; Bill reported without amendment; and to be read 3a to-morrow.
  MARRIAGES (BASUTOLAND, &C.) BILL. (No. 155.)
  Commons Amendment considered (according to order), and agreed to.

  LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 199.)
  Report from the Committee of the reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to certain of their Amendments; read, and agreed to; and a message sent to the Commons to
  740
  return the Bill with Amendments and reasons.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock till to-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.