Lords Sitting of 16 July 1889

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1883) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 42.)
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL. (No. 141.)
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
SERVITUDES REDEMPTION (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 126.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: My Lords, I have some little compunction in bringing before your Lordships this very legal question; but the gravity of the subject must be my excuse for asking your attention while I very shortly venture to put before you the reasons which induce me to intrude it upon you. My Lords, the Bill relates to what are called in Scotland servitude rights, and I will explain shortly what they are. These servitude rights have been obtained in various ways. Some are the relics of the feudal system; some have arisen through friendly permission at a time when very little value was attached to the land over which the right was given; some were acquired by prescription, the freedom of the exercise having been allowed without hindrance for 40 years, which under Scotch law gives the right; and some are held
  494
  under old grants in the titles to the land. They consist chiefly of pasturage and grazing; of sporting, which includes the various descriptions of fowling, hunting, and foresting; of taking turf and peats, or, as it is called in Scotland, of feal and divot. This divoting, or paring the surface of the ground for fuel, is a remnant of a most barbarous custom, and it is universally prohibited by proprietors; but where a neighbouring proprietor has this servitude right over the land, the owner cannot prevent his tenants from divoting. I will remind the House that these servitude rights are most antiquated ones; they are the relies of a bygone age; they are not, and have not been for a long time, granted in modern charters. The tendency of the day is to get rid of these joint ownerships. I may also claim for the Bill that it follows the lines of recent legislation by enabling those who have grazing rights to become the proprietors of land. When the rights were acquired the land was of little commercial value, and the privileges the rights carried were really more for the convenience of neighbours than for any important money value contained in or attached to them. But there has been a very great change in the value of land in Scotland, more particularly in grazing and sporting districts; and as the lands have increased in value these rights have been found to cause a great amount of inconvenience to the proprietors of the soil. With the rise in the value of land, and especially of grazing and sporting land, the situation has become altered, and very great inconvenience is occasioned. The proprietor of the soil is hampered in dealing with his own land by reason of these rights. The original privilege granted is much;

  495
  abused. The tenants from an adjoining estate may pasture an owner's land, interfering with his own tenants, cutting the turf and trees, and turning in their sheep or cattle wherever they like, and he has no control over them. The proprietor cannot fence his land, cannot plant it, cannot plough it, or improve it in any way. He might have rival shooting parties on his land—a case in regard to which I could give an amusing instance—organizing battues and striviing which could shoot the largest number of grouse on the 12th of August. Apart from the questions affecting ownership, there is a practical one from the farmer's point of view. Where flocks of sheep are disturbed by different owners running them on a grazing with separate sets of shepherds and dogs, the sheep never settle or feed so well, and all parties are damaged by the intermingling. Supposing that a proprietor has a hill-grazing which carries 900 sheep, and a neighbour has the right to send 300 sheep more to the hill, it would not only pay the proprietor to give up a piece of land—even a third of it—to his neighbour for his separate use, but it would pay the proprietor's tenant to have his remaining ground fenced off and his flock allowed to graze undisturbed; while, at the same time, the neighbour would much prefer to have his grazing right valued, and so much land given to him for it. I think it is clear, from every point of view, that there exists a state of matters which is most undesirable, and is not beneficial to the country, or to any individual. Several proprietors whom I have consulted feel with me that they would be much better off with a smaller quantity of land free from these servitudes, than, as now, with a larger extent burdened with and rendered nearly useless by them. The method by which the Bill proposes to deal with the question is to follow the old Scotch principle of dealing with commonties, or lands held jointly under common right by two or more proprietors. An old Act of the Scottish Parliament provides that a proprietor, having an interest in a commonty, may raise an action against all persons concerned to determine their joint rights and interests, and to value and divide the lands according to the proprietors' several rights and interests. The point I wish to insist on, and
  496
  this is the reason for asking for legislation on the subject, is that there is practically no difference between commonties and servitude rights; if division is good in the former case it certainly holds good in the latter. The commonty implies a joint proprietorship, while the latter is a right of property burdened with a right of servitude in favour of another person, which is a limited right of property. Yet in those cases no division can be insisted upon as with commonties. If a joint proprietor can demand a division with other joint proprietors, it is, I submit to your Lordships, desirable that in the same way he should be able to demand a division with those who have only the right in certain degrees with him to certain uses of the land. Now, my Lords, the Bill is a very short one. My proposal is by the first clause in the Bill to enable any owner of lands burdened with these rights to apply to the Sheriff of the county to have such rights valued, and that the Sheriff, after having the rights reported on and valued, should fix and adjudge the value of each. This value by the 2nd clause is to be paid in money; but as it might be desired by the holders of these servitudes to receive a portion of the land over which their right existed in preference to money, it is provided by the 3rd clause that the Sheriff may adjudge so much of the lands in lieu and in place of the right of servitude if so wished. There is a provision by Clause 4 to enable limited owners to redeem the servitudes, and to burden the lands in their possession with the sum payable by them to the holder of the servitude. There may be cases where objections could properly be raised to the commutation of these rights, and provision is made by Clause 5 that notice of any application shall be intimated to all parties interested, and that any one of those parties may appear before the Sheriff and state objections to the proposed redemption. I do not apprehend that the provisions of the Bill are likely to be taken advantage of by the superior or owner of the solum unless the servitudes over it are a serious drawback, as the holders or tenants would have to be compensated very substantially indeed for giving up their rights. It would be for the public good that action should be taken, and the present

  497
  state of things put an end to; and the holders of the servitude rights will not be prejudiced or injured, inasmuch as they will receive compensation in money or land where it is found desirable that their rights shall be commuted. I must remind your Lordships that lands burdened with these servitude rights are practically stereotyped to remain as they are. If nothing is done to relieve them there will never be any improvement, and they will remain for ever abandoned to their present condition. If there exists a right of grazing the proprietor cannot fence his land, cannot plough it or plant it, or improve it in any way. I know of thousands of acres in the North of Scotland which lie under these restrictions, burdensome and practically useless alike to the owner of the solum and the person holding the servitude. My Lords, I feel that, without the support of the Secretary for Scotland, it would be impossible for me to carry the Bill at this period of the Session; but I appeal to him to consider whether he cannot see his way to support it, as from all sides I have received a favourable report on the Bill, and I am sure that it is a much needed measure of reform, would be most beneficial, and would meet with general approbation in Scotland. I therefore hope he may see his way to support the Bill of which I now move the Second Beading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª."—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
  LORD WATSON: My Lords, whilst I do not quite agree with the noble Marquess in the account which he has given of the origin and position of the rights with which his Bill proposes to deal, I think it involves matters which are well worthy the consideration of the House; but whether, at this period of the Session, there ought to be legislation on the subject is a very different question. In the northern parts of Scotland there are some large tracts of land which are at present not available to the owner, and of not much use to the servitude holder, because of the contrariety of rights and interests arising from that state of affairs, and in such cases the Bill might be useful. I have no doubt that the measure would be popular and beneficial to those parts of Scotland. I think, my Lords, the old law of Scotland with regard to the divisio com-
  498
  monties—which requires the presence of one or more joint proprietors—should be extended to these cases. But having said so much, my Lords, the approval which I can give to this Bill ends. In the Northern parts of Scotland, as I have said, no doubt the measure would be beneficial. But coming further South a very different state of things exists. There are in that part of the country a great number of small feuars and village communities who possess servitude rights of that kind founded upon contract—some ancient, some modern. As far as they are concerned, it appears to me that a very strong case would have to be made out for the interference of Parliament, because I believe that in many cases the existence of the servitude right which each feuar possesses in an undivided portion of land is much more beneficial than division; and I believe also that in many cases where it is to the interest of the proprietor of the servient land to buy out the right which encumbers it its mere money value would be no compensation to those who lose it; and I do not think that a man should be deprived of the right which he has by contract with his superior, and be compelled to deliver it up whenever it becomes to the landowner's interest to require it. The existence of the servitude rights which each tenant possessed was much more valuable than any compensation he would receive for their loss. I think, my Lords, if the Bill were confined to the first class of rights to which I have alluded, it might be a useful measure; but I do wish to say this—that although I am acquainted so far with the facts which bear upon this legislation, I cannot pretend to know them all, and am therefore not prepared to approve of the Bill farther than I have stated. I would suggest to the noble Marquess that this is a Bill which ought to be circulated in Scotland and the terms of it made known, so that those who are in possession of interests which might induce them to oppose the various clauses of the Bill may have an opportunity of presenting their objections to the measure. I think the Bill should have been preceded by some inquiry, and I would advise the noble Marquess, if a Second Reading be granted, not to proceed with the Bill this Session.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, I desire to say a few words, but only a few words, on a Bill of this character. As far as I can understand it, it is a very useful measure. The existence of these ancient servitudes in Scotland has been a very great inconvenience, and at the end of the 17th century an order was passed with regard to the commonties which permitted their division. This Bill refers not to commonties proper, but to something very analagous to them. Throughout a great part of the country these rights have been sold, but in other parts they are undoubtedly a very great inconvenience. It appears to me that this Bill proceeds very much on the lines of our old law on the subject. I did not know that there was enough importance in some of these matters to make it worth while to deal with them. Reference is made to rights of shooting and other rights existing to a small extent in some parts of Scotland, and I was not aware it would be worth while to introduce them into a Bill of this kind; but I am told that in other parts of Scotland there are great numbers of them. I think it is much too late in the Session to proceed with a Bill of this character.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I have listened with much interest to the remarks made by the noble Marquess in support of this Bill. There is no doubt that, as the noble Marquess has said, very great inconvenience is felt in many parts of the Highlands, and in other parts of Scotland, from the existence of these servitudes; but I cannot help thinking that the noble Marquess has scarcely realised the importance of the measure which he presents for your Lordships' consideration. The Bill goes into details in these matters, and in many cases it would materially alter the position of the ownership of laud. I believe it to be perfectly true that the questions dealt with by this Bill are confined chiefly to the Highlands; but this Bill applies not only to the Highlands, but to the whole of Scotland; and although in the Lowlands it will probably have but little effect, yet, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, the purposes of the Bill might give rise to grave inconvenience. Although I admit the inconvenience to the proprietors of the land, I think the noble Marquess has not quite
  500
  realized what the effect of such a measure would be if these practically compulsory powers under the Bill were taken advantage of by the owners of lands over which these rights existed. I come now to the clauses of the Bill, which are the practical clauses— namely, 3 and 4. Clause 3 deals with the question of feal and divot, which the noble Marquess proposes may be taken on compensation by a money payment; and Clause 4, which deals with rights of pasturage, which may be compensated for either by a money payment, or by the giving absolute right of ownership over a part of the land, in exchange for the exercise of limited rights over the whole of it. Take the case of the right of feal and divot. Divot, I may explain to some of your Lordships, is the right of, as it were, skinning the surface of the land and cutting peats horizontally; and feal is that of cutting peats perpendicularly. The value of the right would have to be decided by the Courts or by arbitration. If the proprietor were to apply to the Sheriff to get the value of turbary rights decided by arbitration, the owner of the land must pay the amount fixed; but the owner of the servitude might not be able to get peats elsewhere, which might occasion him the greatest inconvenience. Then there is the right of pasturage; the same considerations would apply to that. In many cases where there are rights of pasturage over an extensive tract the owner of the servitude might have only a small number of sheep upon it. But if he were to get, say, five acres by way of compensation, that could not possibly repay him for the rights he would lose over a large number of acres. The noble Marquess has pointed out cases which I think show what are the object he has in view where there are rights of servitude over a large tract equally divided between two farmers or landlords. There advantage might be gained, and there would be but little difficulty. But there are many other cases in which that right of pasturage is not at all equally divided, where a very large number of cattle or sheep are turned on by one man in respect of his right of servitude, while some one else might have only a small number of sheep or cattle upon the pasturage. If the small holder were to lose the right he possesses he might only get instead of the right of pasturage over a large number of acres a small money payment,

  501
  which could not possibly compensate him for the extent of pasturage which he had under his right of servitude. Those are objections which arise where compulsory power is given by the measure to deal with rights of servitude; but, at the same time, I am very far from saying that the question is not one which is worthy of careful consideration. No doubt it is a very great inconvenience to the proprietors of servient land not to be able to deal with it under existing rights; hut I do not think at this late period of "the Session it is possible for the Government to undertake to deal with this question or to consider it with a view to legislation. I will, therefore, appeal to the noble Marquess at once to withdraw this Bill, and, as has been well suggested by the noble Lords who have spoken, to have it circulated throughout Scotland, with a view to eliciting opinions from those concerned, obtaining further information as to how far it would assist those to whom it would apply, and whom it is desired to benefit. I will say no more on the present occasion, except that I hope the noble Lord will not press his Motion, but that he will leave the matter now, as some of your Lordships have expressed your views upon it, to be dealt with on some future occasion.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: My Lords, I only wish to say, in answer to what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord, that I quite admit the difficulties he has pointed out as regards small tenement feuars in the South of Scotland; but the Bill is framed in this way—that the Sheriff could refuse to entertain an application if he found the parties in respect of such rights were materially injured. Then with regard to the compulsory powers, the only proposition is that the owner or any persons interested may proceed in the matter. As with regard to the commonties, any person interested in the servitude may go before the Sheriff, and it then becomes a question for the Sheriff whether or not he will proceed in the matter; so that really my Lords, there is nothing compulsory in carrying the measure through in this form. But, my Lords, I quite admit that at this period of the Session it is almost hopeless to expect your Lordships to proceed further with the measure. As I understand, if the Bill
  502
  be allowed to pass the Second Reading, and withdrawn now, I should be at liberty to reintroduce it next year—I think that was the suggestion.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am afraid I cannot assent to that. I must decline to accept the noble Marquess' proposal, because if adopted he will see at once that it would be pledging the Government to the principle of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: I can assure your Lordships I do not wish to prejudice anybody at all. However, as the noble Lord does not assent to the proposal, I will simply withdraw the Bill.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN BILL. (No. 101.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill, and I hope your Lordships will accord it this favour. I do not suppose that at this late period of the Session the Bill is likely to pass into law; but I do hope it may go into Committee, so that I may have for the measure the advantage of the advice and criticism which may be afforded in the form of Amendments upon its provisions. The object of the Bill is to prevent parents or other guardians from recovering their children after they have consented to their adoption, unless they can satisfy the Justices that their claim is legitimately made for the benefit of the children, it is a common occurrence for children who have been placed in orphanages or adopted to be subsequently removed by their parents for the sole purpose of deriving pecuniary advantage. It is very injurious, of course, to the interests of the children that they should be removed where the parents or natural guardians are not fitted, either morally or pecuniarily, to have the care of them. It may be thought that in introducing this Bill to your Lordships' House I have the intention of applying it to such cases as that which recently occurred

  503
  at Dr. Barnardo's institution which has attracted considerable attention; but I introduced the Bill without any knowledge of the case which occurred in connexion with that institution. In fact, the Bill was framed long before that case was heard of. It originated more than a year ago, when Petitions were sent to me as Chairman of the Parliamentary Social Reform Committee from persons throughout the country who were interested in institutions which took care of destitute children, and who felt the necessity of some law which would enable them to do justice to children and turn them out useful members of society. The attention of Magistrates has long been directed to the abuses to which I refer. My Lords, the subject of this Bill has had the great advantage of having been twice considered by this Committee, and I have had the advice of several Members of both Houses who are interested in the work of rescuing destitute children; and, therefore, I may say with confidence that the greatest care has been taken to avoid all dangers which might have made it impracticable. Of course, we know there must be certain dangers in a Bill of this sort; but if any loopholes have been left in it, or if anything in it may be considered to be wrong, I hope that in Committee those errors may be rectified. It was stated when this Bill was first brought forward that it would lead to proselytism, and clauses have been introduced in order to prevent that, and providing that regard shall be had to the religion of the parents, and all the circumstances which it would be necessary for the Magistrates to know before they could make any order in the matter. Now, my Lords, the attention of Magistrates and persons in a public position has long been directed to the abuses to which I am now calling your Lordships' attention. The authors of these abuses are men and women living, as a general rule, outside the pale of civilization—that is to say, they look upon a child not as a treasure to cherish, not as a hope for the future, but simply as a chattel out of which they can draw the greatest possible pecuniary advantage. When we know that the parents take these children and drag them into every sort of evil and crime for the purpose of getting money to spend in drink, I
  504
  think your Lordships will agree there is some need for legislation of this kind. Children are brought up by this class-of parents in hostility to all law, and to-all notions of morality, are they ultimately form a band of dangerous characters—a band which is increasing in number, and becoming a social danger in our large cities. From this population we may say spring murderers, thieves, and the dangerous classes of society. Benevolent individuals have done their best to rescue these children; but although parents are very willing in the early ages of their children to allow them to be taken into homes, or to be adopted, as soon as they reach an age when the children can be of service to them, and can earn money, they go to the benevolent individuals or homes and claim their children. Now, my Lords, this is a thing which has not been unnoticed in other countries. Other countries have experienced the same difficulty in this matter, and in many place a stringent laws have been passed to prevent people taking their children from, persons who have adopted them or from orphanages, where they are being properly brought up, in order that they may drive them into a life of crime. In asking your Lordships to read this Bill a second time, I am not asking you, to give your consent to any new principle, for it is a principle which has been adopted by many of the most enlightened and civilized countries in the world. In America there are several States which have passed laws relating to this subject. In Illinois there is a most stringent law with regard to it. la the State of New York a law was passed, in the year 1884 giving powers to benevolent institutions to request the parents of any child placed in them to-sign a document putting the child entirely in their hands, and after that document is signed the parents lose all right to it. Of course, my Lords, I do not ask that that should be done in this country, or that any such result should, be obtained except in a Court of Law or before Justices of the Peace. In France only this year a law has been, passed on the subject, a very stringent law, much more stringent than any that I am asking you to adopt. The French Government has taken the question up and passed a Bill by which certain classes of malefac-

  505
  tors are placed outside the right to exercise or claim any power over their children. In fact, the children are made wards of the State; and they are boarded out, a vote of several millions of francs being taken for the purpose of supporting them. I do not think anything of that kind would be done by either your Lordships' House or by the other House of Parliament; but I do ask your Lordships to say that, with the consent of all parties interested, children may be legally adopted as the Justices at Petty Sessions may consider best, having regard to the religious opinions of the parents, and having regard also to the interests of the children. If the child is over 14 then the consent of the child itself must be given; and in the case of an institution there will be no-power of availing themselves of this Act unless they are incorporated under the Companies' Acts of 1862 and 1867; and if the Justices see any cause, on the application of any individual, to alter their decision they may do so at any time. My Lords, it is said that this Bill will enable parents to sell their children or to get rid of them. I do not see that that is a just criticism, because they can do that at this moment if they choose. I deny that this Bill would enable parents to sell their children, or make it less difficult for parents to do so. On the contrary, it would act as a deterrent on parents; and for this reason—that whereas at present they place their children in homes, knowing that they can get them out at a time when they are capable of earning money, they would not under this Bill be able to do that, and consequently they would be less ready to get rid of their children, knowing that they would not be able, unless they could show good cause, to get them from the homes where they were being taken care of in order to make money by them. And now with regard to the children working, and their parents making them work. As a matter of fact, the great majority of parents who claim their children in these cases do not get them back for the purpose of putting them to work in the ordinary sense in which going to work is understood. They get them really for criminal purposes: the boys are claimed in order that they may be taught to steal, and the girls for still
  506
  more evil purposes. I can give your Lordships a few instances of actual facts which have occurred within a very short period. In a home for children, quite close to my own house, several instances of that kind have occurred, one of them within the last few days. A little girl was sent into the home, probably only for the purpose of getting her clothing renewed, her clothes being in so filthy a condition that they had to be burned, for hardly had she been supplied with the new clothes before her parents came and said they wanted the child back. In another case, the mother, who had only just come out of prison, claimed her child back because, as she openly avowed, since the child had been taken from her for the purpose of being placed in the home, she found she could not get as much money as when she was dragging the poor infant about the streets with her. Upon making inquiries into the matter, I may mention that I was told that 9d. a day is given for a girl child to drag about the streets, and 6d. for a boy. In another case a girl of 10 was sent for by her father to prevent her going to service, as he said it would pay him better (mind you, she was only 10 years of age) to send her on the streets! Another very bad case was that of a girl, who was telegraphed for, the telegram saying that her mother was dying; but when the girl arrived home she found the whole story was false, and the first question asked of her was whether she had brought her box in order that they might pawn her clothes. A friend of mine on being told there was no demand for such a measure, said he would ask the question of the first two men he met; The first person interrogated was a working man who said—"Why that is the very law we have wanted for a long time; I have refused to allow my wife to adopt a child because I knew it would be taken away from us again whenever it suited the parents." The next spoken to was a middle-class man, and he again told a similar story. His wife's sister dying and leaving a child, and the father being a drunkard, they were exceedingly anxious to adopt the child; but they felt it would be useless to do so if they had to give it up again whenever the drunkard might choose to demand it. In October of last year, a case came before

  507
  Sir James Hannen where, after a child had been adopted and clothed, the parents claimed it, and refused to make any allowance to the working people who had adopted it, although they had incurred expense amounting to £12. Sir James Hannen felt the injustice of the case so much that he gave the foster-parents a sovereign out of his own pocket. In that case the mother had been confined in a lunatic asylum, and foster parents for the child were advertized for, and some working people in the North took it on the understanding that they were to have it permanently. They had maintained the child about 18 months, and had got very fond of it, when the mother came out of the lunatic asylum and claimed it. Of course, they had to give the child up without even being able to get paid for the clothes they had provided for it. There is no doubt in my mind that there are a large number of people in this country who are very desirous to obtain children, having no children of their own, and who would be glad to adopt children if only they felt they had a legal claim upon them when they had adopted them.
  "A dreary place would be this earth
  Were there no little people on it;
  The song of life would lose its mirth
  Were there no children to begin it."
  Many childless men and women are feeling the force of the truth of these lines, and would gladly adopt children if they dared. I know that the Bill has no chance of passing this Session, but I ask that it may be sent before a Committee of your lordships' House. It might then come back in a shape which would make it acceptable to those who now might be inclined to oppose it. In conclusion, to my opponents I would say—
  "If a better system's thine Impart it frankly, or make use of mine"
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª."—(The Earl of Meath.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord has very frankly admitted that he has no chance of having his Bill passed into law this Session, and the only effect therefore of your Lordships, giving a Second Beading to it would be to affirm the principle of it, in order that it may stand to some extent hereafter on that affirmation that it embodies a right and a wise principle.
  508
  My Lords, it seems to me, I confess, that there is hardly a single section of this Bill, or a principle of it, so far as I can find a principle at all, to which I should not be entirely opposed. At the same time, I do not in the smallest degree deny that the motives which actuate the noble Lord are of the most praiseworthy character, and that there is to some extent an evil to be remedied. I think, however, he somewhat exaggerates the evil, and, thinking there is a great evil to be remedied, he not unnaturally strives to remedy it by doing what people frequently do, in trying to legislate for particularly hard cases they strike at a much wider principle. The Bill seeks, in dealing with this particular hardship, to alter the whole law of England with reference to the right of parental control. Now, that is one of the cardinal principles of our law, and the notion in connection with such a Bill as this of getting rid of that principle of our law would raise a very serious question indeed. No such change ever should be attempted upon the lines that this Bill is drawn upon; but if attempted at all it must go far wider and deeper, and treat the whole question of the right of parental control as one subject, not striving to pick out particular parts of the right of parental control and dealing with them. I have said that I have some difficulty in ascertaining the principle of this Bill. The only principle I can find in the Bill is that the principle of adoption should be imported into the law of this country, and that the right of parental control should be taken away in certain circumstances. Neither in the one aspect of it nor the other should I assent to a Bill of this sort; but when I come to consider the particular mode in which that principle is sought to be carried out, and the circumstances under which that principle is sought to be established, it is quite clear that the persons who drew this Bill found they were met at every turn by qualifications and restrictions that finally took away the original vigour and force of what they proposed to enact. When a child is adopted, instead of having all the rights of adoption, the framers declared that "nothing hereinafter contained shall confer on the adopted child any incident of blood relationship, right of succession, &c." Why not? If it was a real adoption

  509
  why take away that? Again, suppose a child was thrown on the parish, one would have thought in reason and logic that the foster-parent, as he is called in the Bill, would have to pay for it, but he is not to do so. Why not? It has become his child. The object was that the parents were not to be freed from responsibility if the foster-parent was not able to support the child. It is quite clear what has happened. The difficulties which would arise here occurred to the framers of this Bill, because they found that to have carried that out would have destroyed the earlier sections. The authority over the child, and the obligations of the father and mother towards it, would absolutely cease. That is absolutely contradicted by the other sections, because one of the objects contemplated is to provide for the child's maintenance. Then to meet the difficulties that occurred to them the framers of this Bill have introduced provisions which effectually destroy the earlier sections. The whole Bill is ill-considered. The 13th section is the nucleus of the Bill, because it provides that an orphanage, home, or charitable institution may be the foster-parent; and questions as to the child's religious education or control might arise between that institution and the original parent, whom the public feeling of this country would recognize as the person entitled to have a voice in the matter as against some proselytizing Society that had the child in its custody. I do not find the words which the noble Lord has referred to about the religious creed of the child or parents being regarded, because that is one of the points of amendment which he contemplates. But supposing the father and mother change their religion and desire, for example, that instead of being educated in the Protestant faith the child should be brought up as a Roman Catholic—what criterion are the Justices to adopt? Are they to enter into the question whether it would be better for the child to be educated in the one religion or the other? All that is left at large, and it is just the sort of question that would cause a great amount of controversy. Controversies between parents and perhaps proselytizing orphanages or asylums are among the most mischievous things there can be. It seems to me that this Bill is open to every possible
  510
  objection in point of construction, and it is open to the gravest objection as altering the whole principle of the law as between parent and child. The Bill, as I have said, is ill-considered according to the theory of its own construction, and is almost incapable of being worked, but besides that, it introduces a most serious innovation on the foundation principles of the law of England with reference to parent and child; and I hope the noble Lord will not render it necessary for me to move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months. I may mention that the evil, which I admit exists, is being considered in connection with the Poor Law Commission; and there is a Bill under the consideration of the Government for the purpose of preventing children deserted by their parents being taken away from the care of the Guardians if it can be shown that the parents, by reason of their bad character, are not persons fit to be entrusted with the guardianship of the children. One word more with regard to the adoption under Clause 14. A child not over 14 might be handed over contrary to its own wishes, and somebody else might be made its foster parent. I hope your Lordships will not encourage a Bill of this kind.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord has alluded to the Report of a Commission over which I had the honour to preside last Session, I must express my great satisfaction at learning that the Government intend to deal with that particular portion of the Report. It was clearly shown to us that this evil existed; that a certain number of children came under the care of the Guardians, were then placed out in an asylum, where they remained for years perhaps under proper control, when suddenly the parents (very often vicious parents), finding that something could be made by withdrawing the children from the institution, or the persons with whom they had been boarding out, took them away. That is a great hardship upon the children, and an injury to them, and it seems to me a very proper subject for legislation, though it would require to be very guarded. With regard to the Bill itself, I must say I entirely agree with what has been said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I cannot see that it is ne-

  511
  cessary to make such an extensive alteration in the law of this country, and I think if a change were made it should not be made in the manner contemplated by this Bill. There is one clause— namely, the 11th—on which I should greatly support the argument of the noble Lord. By the 11th clause the order made can be rescinded, so that after the foster parents have adopted the child, and have maintained it as their child for it may be years, an application may be made by the parents to rescind the order. Consider what may follow. Exactly the same thing may arise in that case which has given rise to so much controversy in other cases. The parents may have changed their minds on the subject of religion, or they may be instigated by other persons to bring the matter before the Justices of the Peace. Then arises the question, is a Justice of the Peace a proper person to decide difficult questions of that kind? I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord that the objects which the noble Lord has in view are excellent; but I do not think it is desirable that we should give our consent to the Second Reading of this Bill, looking at the general nature of it and the period of the Session, thereby committing ourselves to a principle which goes far beyond what the necessities of the case demand. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will feel induced not to press the Motion.
  LORD FITZGERALD: My Lords, I would also ask the noble Lord to withdraw this Bill. I am sure his motives are most praiseworthy, but my objections to the Bills are founded on principle. Adoption is wholly unknown to the law of England. I could understand the introduction of a law of adoption such as exists in India, under which the person adopted becomes the child of the foster parents for all purposes, so that even if children are afterwards born to the foster parents the adopted child shares in the inheritance equally with such other children. There is sense in that arrangement, and some degree of justice, although it frequently leads to the greatest difficulties, quarrels, and litigation. I must not be taken as recommending to my noble friend the Hindu law of Adoption. For many years of my life I had to administer laws which gave rise to questions similar to those
  512
  which would grow out of the alterations of the law proposed by this Bill. Questions between religious litigants give rise to difficulties such as would have to be dealt with under the 13th section of the Bill. My colleagues and I came to the conclusion that there was nothing like adhering to and enforcing parental authority. The law of England generally is that parents cannot divest themselves of parental rights or of the obligation to look after their children. The noble Earl spoke of traffic in children and how desirable it would be to put a stop to it. The direct and necessary tendency of this Bill would be to create that very traffic which the noble Lord seeks to destroy. Whilst in the case of a child who had parents certain questions would be asked and the Magistrate would exercise his judgment upon the facts, in the case of the unfortunate child who had no parents there would be no inquiry at all, and the child would, be handed over as a matter of course to the foster parent, or the person assuming the position, as, for instance, one of those institutions which would spring into existence on all sides if this Bill were passed. In practice, when I had to administer laws somewhat cognate, where the child was of sufficient age and intelligence, I always ascertained by careful and anxious inquiry what the wishes of the child were, and I am thankful to say that in that way I think succeeded in maintaining the law for the benefit of the children. I consider this Bill fraught with danger contrary to the laws and institutions of this country; and that it ought not to be readily adopted. Especially your Lordships ought not at this period of the Session to agree to the Second Reading, with no object but to get what must necessarily be an imperfect examination of the details in Committee. I think the noble Earl had much better withdraw the Bill, and, if he should think fit, introduce it again freed from its many defects and founded on a sounder basis than at present.
  LORD DENMAN: This Bill was down for a Second Reading on July 8th, and opposed by a noble and learned Lord, who would oppose it if referred to a Grand Committee. I hope that it will be read a second time. If it be referred to the Committee on Law, it must afterwards be re-committed to the Whole House; and if it is re-committed

  513
  to a Committee of the Whole House, I do not believe it could be sent back to the Committee on Laws. I can see there is a struggle to give that Committee power over all Bills. The Bill is an experiment, and I have very great doubts of its success. As an old Member of this House, I say the sooner you get out of the present system of referring Bills to many Grand Committees, and return to a more suitable one, the more you will be honoured by the country and the world.
  LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I will not detain you with more than a few words. I regret the course which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has thought it necessary to take with regard to this Bill, which I consider a very useful one; but I presume, after his speech, that Lord Meath will not press the Bill further at this time. Referring to the Bill which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has stated is under the consideration of the Government, I hope it will prove a useful measure, by enabling the managers to retain control of the children after leaving the Poor Law Schools. It would be a great help to the managers of those schools. I would ask, with regard to certain private schools which are under Government inspection, whether they could not be put upon the same footing as the Poor Law Schools? Many of them have been at work for a long time, and have contrived to keep numbers of children out of the Poor Law Schools. We think it a pity to brand a child perpetually as having been a Poor Law scholar, and it would be a matter for regret if the operation of such a Bill as this should be to send children to those schools. In one country where these questions have been made the subject of legislation, there is a very useful law that no parent should resume the right to a child where it has been left for a certain number of years to be supported by a public institution without refunding the cost of the child's education. The way that works is, that a parent thinks twice before he becomes liable to pay a sum of £20, or it may be £60. Many children are, therefore, left under the charge of foster parents, or in an institution without interference, until they are able to take care of themselves. I hope the Government will be able to add some clauses to the Bill which the
  514
  noble and learned Lord has mentioned with reference to the Poor Law Schools, in order to provide that those schools only are to be used which are thoroughly efficient, and that they will have regard, to the interests of the public any measure which may be introduced on, the subject.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I only desire to explain, what I said was that the matter is under the consideration of the Government in the form of a Bill. I do not give any pledge in regard to the particular form the Bill will take. I think it would be irregular for me to do so, either for myself or for the Government.
  LORD NAPIER OF MAGDALA: My Lords, it is impossible not to be struck with the very great number of children' apparently in need of protection; and it seems only reasonable that where parents are unable to bring up their children properly, they should be enabled to place them in the care of others who are able to support them. I trust the noble Lord will not be discouraged in his benevolent intentions.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that the Government acknowledge there is an evil to remedy, and I am also pleased to know that they have some intention, at all events, of considering whether they can diminish that evil in one particular line. But that line in regard to Poor Law Unions is only a small line, and I hope the Government will not forget the claims of other institutions. It appears to me that the suggestion of the noble, Lord Kinnaird, is worth consideration, and I hope your Lordships will think this matter over, and kindly give any assistance that you may think necessary by way of amendment.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

CANADA (ONTARIO BOUNDARY) BILL (No. 151.)

  SECOND BEADING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I have only to say that part of the

  515
  boundary has been settled by a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, part has been settled by an old Proclamation of 1791, and part by agreement. The boundaries are now set out in an Address from the Legislature of Canada which is scheduled to this Bill, to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading.
  Read 2ª (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  BILLS OF SALE BILL (No. 150).
  House in Committee (according to order; Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3ª on Thursday next.
WESTERN AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION BILL (No. 125.)

  THIRD BEADING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this Bill with regard to handing over the Crown lands in the northern portion of the territory of the colony to a small population of 40,000 inhabitants. I should like to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies whether the Bill follows the lines of former legislation for the Colonies? At the same time, I believe there is no previous instance of handing over such an enormous territory, as is now proposed to be handed over, to the responsible Government of the colony. I protest against such a large tract of territory being so handed over.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I shall not venture to trouble your Lordships with a re-statement of the arguments which I adduced yesterday, but I will shortly answer the noble Earl's question. With regard to the question whether a precedent exists, I may inform the noble Earl that in Queensland we handed over an equally large area to a population of only 28,000, whereas the population of Western Australia is over 40,000. I may also point out that, under the system of representative Government, the people of Western Australia have practically had the control of these lands for many years, and that, as I have already shown, their
  516
  policy has been in favour of immigration. There is no reason to doubt that that policy will be continued, and that, as in the case of Queensland and the other Australian Colonies, after Responsible Government had been granted to them, immigration will steadily increase. As regards the land which is to remain under the control of the Colonial Government, I may remark that by far the largest part of it is unfitted for agriculture; and it will be remembered that all the land in the northern part of the colony is to remain under Crown management and control
  THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I must say that I also protest against the handing over of this enormous territory to 40,000 people. If we hand over all the Crown lands to our Colonies the result will be that the Colonists will say, "We do not want any more people to come here; we want the land for ourselves." Let me ask your Lordships to consider what you are going to do in this matter. A Committee has been appointed in the other House for the purpose of considering colonial questions, and yet your Lordships are going to hand over this enormous tract of country at once to a small population no larger than that of a country town. I do hope, my Lords, some action will be taken to stop it.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Lord has said there is a precedent for this. I do not think he has quite correctly understood what has taken place in the other colonies. I would point out to him that the population of New South Wales is at least 1,000,000, the population of Victoria is 1,000,000, and the population of New Zealand 600,000. In New Zealand the Government had for a longtime encouraged immigration, and had paid the cost out of the public funds, because there was nothing they were so anxious for as to increase the white population. A colony in its infancy will always be found to be most anxious to obtain as many immigrants as possible; but when they have a million or so of white inhabitants you will find they no longer desire to receive the labouring class of immigrants. I would ask the noble Lord whether he thinks any Minister or Government in this country would ever undertake to advise Parliament to send emigrants to a colony whether the colonists desired it or not?

  517
  I venture to say that no Government would be so insane.
  THE EARL OR FEVERSHAM: That, I think, is an argument against handing over so large a territory at once.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: To interfere with the colonists in this matter is practically telling them that they cannot colonize their own lands. It will always be found that the colonists on the spot can best assist immigration and promote the colonization of lands adjoining those already colonized. Even large tracts of country are better managed and dealt with by colonists on the spot. If it is desired to send out emigrants, that can best be done with the assistance of the colonists themselves, and when they have obtained a large population you will find they will colonize the adjoining lands themselves.
  Bill read 3ª (according to order); an Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE STATION-MASTER AT BANGALORE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY,in putting the question which stood in the Notices, to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the gallant conduct of Mr. Smaller, the station-master at Bangalore, in rescuing a Hindoo woman from being run over by a train has received any recognition from the Madras Government, said: I have only to add that the newspapers had stated that the woman was only 11 yards from the engine when she fell off the platform, and that there was much more risk in this case than there would be in jumping into a river.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount Cross): I have pleasure in stating that the Government of Madras have passed the following Resolution on the case referred to—
  "His Excellency the Governor in Council views with high approbation the signal bravery displayed by Mr. Smaller, who by his prompt and courageous act saved life at the imminent risk of his own. His Excellency in Council is pleased to sanction the grant to that official of a reward of 200 rupees, the highest amount which it is in the power of Government to sanction."
  I have only to add that in this commendation and award I heartily and entirely concur.

  PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL (No. 127.)
  Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3ª on Thursday next.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE BILL (No. 125.)
  "Reported from the Standing Committee for General Bills, with Amendments; the Report thereof received; Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 162.)
  ADVERTISEMENT RATING BILL (No. 124.)
  Reported from the Standing Committee for General Bills, with Amendments; the Report thereof received; Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 163.)
  AUDIT (ARMY AND NAVY ACCOUNTS) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed. (No. 164.)
  WINCHESTER BURGESSES (DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL) BILL. (No. 137.)
  Reported from the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c. without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.
  BRIBERY (PUBLIC BODIES) PREVENTION BILL— NOW BRIBERY (PUBLIC BODIES AND OFFICERS UNDER THE CROWN) PREVENTION BILL. (No. 90.)
  Reported from the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c, with Amendments: the Report thereof received; Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House; and to be printed as amended. (No. 165.)
  MASTER AND SERVANT BILL. (No. 111.)
  Reported from the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  COUNTY COURT APPEALS (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 104.)
  Reported from the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c-,

  519
  with amendments: the Report there of received; Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House; and to be printed as amended. (No. 166.)
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.