Lords Sitting of 18 July 1889

Preamble
THE EARL OF MORLEY sat Speaker.
THE EDUCATION CODE.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I desire to ask the Lord President of the Council whether the Education Code has been abandoned or only suspended?
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I think your Lordships will see that this is a case in which suspension was impossible. The Code could only be continued or abandoned. It has been withdrawn; but the subject will, of course, receive the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I can only express my great regret at the information, more particularly after the complete manner in which the Lord President on various occasions in your Lordships' House defended the provisions of the Code.

  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
  LORD BALFOUR, in moving the suspension of the Standing Order in order to enable this Bill to be read a second time, said that the Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on the 17th May, and was read a second time shortly afterwards. The reference to the Commons Committee had not taken place for more than a month. One Order was opposed, but after negotiations that opposition had been withdrawn, and the whole of the Orders were now
  654
  going through Parliament as unopposed Orders.
  Moved,
  "That the Order made on the 5th day of March last, 'that no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a second time after Friday, the 28th day of June next,' be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2*;"
  Agreed to.
  Bill read 2* accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

THE STANDING ORDERS AND PRO- VISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
A Special Report from the Standing Committee for Bills relating to General Purposes, referring to a number of Local Government Provisional Order Bills, was ordered to be considered.
LORD BALFOUR, in moving to discharge the Order of Reference to the Standing Committee, explained that that Committee reported that they had not proceeded to consider the Bills in question because they found themselves in such a position that that course would be, if not useless, exceedingly difficult. Provisional Order Bills dealt with matters which were to a large extent matters of agreement between private individuals and Government Departments. If any Committee of the House were to take them into consideration with a view to upsetting the arrangements that had been arrived at, that would almost necessarily involve the attendance of the parties by counsel or otherwise. The Standing Committees of the House were not appointed for that purpose, and it was obviously unsuitable to refer Bills of this kind to those Committees.
Moved,
"That the Order of Friday last committing the said Bills to the Standing Committee for General Bills he discharged."—(The Lord Balfour.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: In the absence of my noble Friend Earl Carnarvon, the Chairman of the Standing Committee for General Bills, I may be allowed to state that the view which the Committee took was substantially that which has been stated by the noble Lord, that these Bills, as a rule, are not Bills which should be considered by a Standing Committee. At the same time, it was felt that there might be some Bills of this class which involved questions of public policy, and which it might be desirable to refer, and, therefore, we thought it should be left open to the House to make such a reference in special cases, although, as a general rule, these Provisional Order Bills ought to go to a Committee of the Whole House.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I do not wish to oppose the Motion, but I wish again to point out that one of the special reasons that was given for the appointment of these Standing Committees was that they should consider these Provisional Order Bills. It was stated by the noble Marquess the Prime Minister that the Bills were passed through the House without any examination, and when I called attention to the matter when these Bills were before the House on Friday, he again stated that all Provisional Order Bills ought to go before the Standing Committees. I understand from what has fallen from the noble Baron that that is not for the future to be the practice, and it seems to me that, under these circumstances, one of the main reasons for the establishment of the Standing Committees has fallen to the ground.
LORD BALFOUR: With the indulgence of the House, I would like to say that the noble Earl is not quite accurate in his description of the course of procedure in regard to these Bills. I demur to the statement that the Standing Committees were formed for the purpose of assisting these Bills, but I will not pursue that subject further just now. I would point out to the House that it is not correct to say that these Bills pass through Parliament unscrutinized. In the other House of Parliament they are
656
referred to a specially appointed Committee on unopposed Provisional Orders, and in this House they undergo careful scrutiny in the department of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I am perfectly aware that the Bills undergo scrutiny from the officers of the House, and I have no doubt that that is a very careful scrutiny. What I said was that they were not controlled by Parliament, and that seems to be the fact.
THE EARL OF MORLEY: Perhaps I may be allowed to make an explanation. These Bills, as the noble Lord has said, are referred to the officers of my Department, who go through them very carefully, and have caused, and do cause, many amendments to be made in the clauses. I think it is valuable that the Bills should go to some tribunal in the nature of the Standing Committees of this House, but I fear that those Committees are too large to be able to deal with these Bills, which are, after all, very much in the nature of private Bills. In the other House, I have been told (but I am not absolutely certain of this) that these Bills are practically dealt with exactly in the same way as private Bills, and are referred to the Chairman of Ways and Means and to his Unopposed Bills Committee. Though they would not come before me sitting in Committee, but are, I think, as public Bills, rightly committed to the whole House, still it is not accurate to say that they go through no scrutiny at all on the part of the House or its officers. I think that, although it may be useful to refer certain of these Bills to a Standing Committee, those Committees are so constituted that, as a general rule, it would be better not to refer to them Bills of this complicated character. I would also venture to suggest that in cases where Bills are referred to the Standing Committees ample notice should be given of the intention of noble Lords to move Amendments.
LORD HERSCHELL: I would suggest that it is worthy of consideration whether the same practice should not be followed here as in the other House—that is to say, that Bills of this character should go before a Committee for Unopposed Bills, subject to this—that if the Chairman of the Committee on Unopposed Bills wishes to call attention

657
to any matter of principle involved in a particular Bill he should refer the Bill to the Standing Committees.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I quite agree that it would be useful to have, as an aid to the Standing Committees, a small Committee similar to that which is known in the other House as the Unopposed Bill Committee.
Motion agreed to, and the Bills in question committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
Moved, to resolve that Bills for confirming Provisional Orders should pursue the course hitherto adopted, unless their reference to the Standing Committee be ordered for some special reasons; after notice given (The Lord Balfour); agreed to.
MARRIAGES (BASUTOLAND, &c.) BILL (No. 155.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD KNUTSFORD, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, explained that it was a Bill to confirm the validity of certain marriages contracted in Basutoland and Bechuanaland before they became British territory.
  Bill read 2* (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

WINDWARD ISLANDS APPEAL COURT BILL. (No. 156).

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I may very briefly explain the object of this Bill. The Act which established the Court of Appeal for the Windward Islands provided that a quorum of that Court should consist of three of the Chief Justices, exclusive of the Judge whose decision was appealed from. It is now thought advisable to amalgamate the offices of two of the Chief Justices, and the quorum indicated by the Act could not therefore be formed, and this Bill is to enable Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to reconstitute the Court of Appeal.
  Bill read 2* (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

HERRING FISHERY (SCOTLAND) BILL (No. 149.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Before your Lordships read this Bill a third time, I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to call attention to the fifth clause. Your Lordships have heard a good deal of Sunday closing on land. This is practically a Sunday Closing Bill as regards the waters on the West Coast of Scotland. Now, legislation of this kind is in itself objectionable, and certain to lead to evasion of the law. My noble Friend the Marquess of Lothian the other day gave reasons in support of this clause, but I think they were wholly insufficient. The first reason which my noble Friend gave was that there was a similar law in the time of George III. In the few remarks I have to make, I wish to carefully guard myself against the supposition that I yield to any Member of your Lordships' House, or to any member of the Presbyterian body in Scotland, in respect for the Sabbath, and in the desire that it should be decently observed. So much so that I have never yet voted for the opening of Museums on Sundays simply for fear that it would be the thin end of the wedge, and that in course of time the working man would lose his day of rest. But, my Lords, that is no reason why we should have legislation of this kind, which would tell so cruelly upon the fishing population. Fishermen lead a very hard life, and gain a very hard and uncertain living. Their calling is doubly precarious. It is precarious as regards the weather. You may have Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, days on which, owing to boisterous weather, it is impossible for them to set or shoot their nets. And then there is the uncertainty of the run of the fish. Again, you may have no fish on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, and on Saturday the whole sea may be teeming and

  659
  glistening with silvery life, with human food, and wealth for the fishermen, and yet, if this clause passes, they cannot stretch out their hands and take it, they will not be allowed to set or shoot their nets between Saturday and Monday, and will thus be barred from gathering what kind Providence has sent them. I think that is a mistake. If fish came like manna, if they came every day in the week regularly, with a double portion on Saturday, then I could understand it; but unfortunately they do not, and I think this legislation is wrong in principle, it is unjust to the fishermen, and must lead to evasion of the law. So much, my Lords, for the principle of this legislation. Now, my noble Friend, as I have said, gave two reasons for this clause. One was that this was a provision existing already, or one which had existed in the time of George III. I am bound to say that in these days it is extremely refreshing to hear such a Conservative doctrine from a Conservative Treasury Bench; but I think my noble Friend goes a little too far in citing as a precedent the restrictive Sabbatarian legislation of the date of George III. In this he greatly out-Herod's my Conservatism. If my noble Friend is going on this tack I should like to know if he is prepared to revive all the arbitrary Acts of Parliament with reference to Sunday, some of which are dead letters. In the old days a person was liable to be sent to prison if he did not attend the service of the Church on Sunday mornings. I have seen in the town of Peebles the steeple in which those were confined who failed to attend the services in the church itself. But these Acts are obsolete, and I maintain it is unwise to endeavour to revive them, because, my Lords, there is plenty of Sabbatarian feeling still left to push these principles to the lengths of persecution. Witness the Sabbatarian outcry with which the recent opening of the Botanical Gardens at Edinburgh has been met. I would then appeal from my noble Friend, the Sabbatarian Secretary of State for Scotland, to my noble Friend on his right, Lord Balfour, who is a distinguished lay representative member of the General Assembly and a shining light in that Assembly. I would ask him to say whether he approves of the proposals of his fellow-countryman, the
  660
  Sabbatarian Secretary of State for Scotland, or whether he does not think that catching fish under the circumstances; to which I have referred on Sunday is neither a sin nor a crime. I feel confident he would give them, in such case, absolution and plenary indulgence. The* other argument of my noble Friend was that the fishermen themselves wished for this legislation. I would call my noble Friend's attention to the bearing of that argument. If a Minister is to grant a thing which possibly may be wrong merely because the people wish it—that goes very far. There is no limit to the carrying out of this argument. It was equally applicable to the demand of the trades unions for eight hours; of the Protectionists for Protection; of the Irish for Home Rule. I would ask my noble Friend, How will he do with the crofters? Is he prepared to give the land of the owner to the crofters because they wish it? I am sure that my noble Friend, when he sees the bearing of this argument, will be sorry that he put it forward. I object, then, in the interest of the fishermen, and on public grounds, to this anachronous penal Sabbatarian legislation, that is certain to lead to evasion of the law? It is retrograde legislation altogether, and would tend to bring the law into contempt. For these reasons, my Lords, I venture to ask your Lordships to strike out of the Bill those provisions which prevent fishing on the Sabbath.
  Amendment moved in Clause 5, page 2, line 14, leave out from ("October") to the second ("on") in line 16.—(The Earl of Weymss).
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I cannot regret that the noble Lord has taken the course he has, because he has upon a very small matter taken occasion to give your Lordships a discourse upon the subject of the breaking of the Sabbath. He has stated what his own views are upon the question—namely, that he is very anxious that the-Sabbath should be kept; and he has also given me a name which I do not know that I deserve—namely, that of the Sabbatarian Secretary for Scotland. He has also appealed to my noble Friend on my right for support in the views which he has advanced. But, my Lords, although I have no objection to the epithet which the noble Lord has

  661
  applied to me, I am perfectly satisfied that before I have finished I can prove to the noble Lord that Sabbatarianism has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the question. The noble Lord has referred to the reasons which I gave upon the occasion of the Second Reading. I must just remind the noble Earl that I had no notice then of his objections, and when the noble Lord got up and stated his intention of moving the omission of Clause 5 I expressed my regret that the noble Earl intended to take that course, and gave two reasons which occurred to me at the moment. Those are the two reasons which I would now, with your Lordships' permission, like to say a few words upon. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment, if your Lordships were to give effect to it, would simply be that on Saturday evening for two or three hours, and on Monday morning for two or three hours, there would be additional power to fish. The Act to which I referred on the previous occasion was an Act which was passed in 1815, in the reign of George III., and that Act is still in force. If the noble Earl wishes to make an alteration in the law, let him bring in a Bill to alter the law; but that certainly is the law actually in force all over Scotland at this moment. It is unlawful in any part of Scotland to cast herring nets between the hours of midnight on Saturday and midnight on Sunday. The consequence is that the only effect of this clause (which applies to a very small part of Scotland) would be to say that from Saturday night to Monday morning there shall be no fishing for herring. The reason for this enactment is this—that any fish caught on Saturday night it is impossible to sell on the Sunday, unless the noble Lord would also like to give permission to sell as well as catch fish on the Sunday, and the fish would be absolutely worthless, because they could not fee sold till Monday morning. On Monday morning, of course, for two or three hours after midnight on Sunday fish might be caught; but the reason why this clause was introduced into the Bill is because it was found that this longer close time has a very beneficial effect on that part of the coast of Scotland, and is desirable in the interests of the fishermen themselves, as the herring are very easily frightened fish. That, I think, is a
  662
  quite sufficient reason for the enactment by itself. With regard to the second reason which I gave to the noble Lord, that the fishermen themselves wished for this legislation, the noble Lord has gone into heroics upon that, but I simply meant to say that the fishermen themselves are so well aware of the advantages of having an enactment to prevent fishing during two or three hours on Saturday night, and two or three hours on Monday morning, that they themselves greatly desire it, and are perfectly willing to accept the clause in their own interests. My Lords, I think I need say no more. I have tried to point out to the noble Earl that this is not a Sunday question at all. It is simply a provision in the interests of the fishermen themselves in that part of Scotland. I would like to say one word more, and that is, that if this had been a Sabbatarian question the noble Earl might have given me credit for thinking that if I did accept the principle I would accept it for the whole of Scotland, and not apply the Sabbatarian principle merely to one small part of Scotland that I did not think it necessary to apply to the whole. Under these circumstances, I hope your Lordships will not consent to the Amendment of the noble Lord.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, as my noble Friend has publicly stated the grounds upon which he put these words in the clause, and as it appears that the real object is to have a close time for fish, I do not like to trouble your Lordships by standing in the way, and with your Lordships' leave I will withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Bill read 3*, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COURT OF SESSION AND BILL CHAM- BERS (SCOTLAND) CLERKS BILL. (No. 162.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I do not think I need trouble your Lordships by going into the details of this Bill to which I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading. The Bill is to

  663
  make provision for the Sessions Court in Scotland, and I think the title is quite sufficient to show your Lordships the general nature of the Bill. Its object is to regulate the number and duties of the clerks in the Court of Session and Bill Chamber.
  Bill read 2* (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

TRUST FUNDS INVESTMENT BILL. (No. 153.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Your Lordships may remember that last year a Bill to diminish the liability of trustees was introduced, and a clause was inserted in that Bill when it was before your Lordships' House enlarging the power of trustees with regard to the investment of trust funds. The matter came before the House of Commons somewhat late in the Session, and in view of some difference of opinion on the subject which might have imperilled the passing of the Bill, that clause was struck out of the Bill. The Bill which is now before your Lordships is an enactment substantially of the clause which passed your Lordships' House last year. There are one or two slight alterations to which I might call your Lordships' attention. The Bill of last year authorized the investment, amongst other things, in the preference shares of railways which for the previous 10 years had paid dividends on their ordinary stock. As the Bill now stands they must have paid a dividend of not less than 3 per cent on their stock. I think that is the only alteration of importance in the clause of last year, with one exception. In the clause which passed your Lordships' House last year a provision was inserted placing certain Colonial stocks in the same position as the other securities authorized by the clause. An endeavour was made to provide an automatic test which should distinguish between those Colonial stocks which should not be regarded as trustee investments, and those (and undoubtedly there are some) Colonial stocks which are investments quite as sound as any to be found in this kingdom. When the matter came before the Committee of the House of Commons
  664
  to whom this Bill was referred, there was some difference of opinion upon the subject of Colonial trust investments, and a Resolution was passed by that Committee that it was inexpedient to enter, with reference to that Bill, into the question of having any investments in Colonial stock. Consequently, so such provision is to be found in the Bill before your Lordships, and I feel very strongly that, whatever one's own doubts upon the subject may be, it would be very inexpedient to attempt to introduce such a provision into the Bill which is now before your Lordships' House. I think it is to be regretted that Colonial stocks are altogether to be excluded from this Bill, not merely because some of those stocks are perfectly safe and sound investments for trust funds, but because there is a feeling on the part of the Colonies that they ought not to be excluded from investments of this nature; and if you add to the list of those trust investments Indian stocks and other securities mentioned in this Bill, it is not right that all Colonial stocks should be treated as though they were not proper funds in which trust moneys should be invested. I understand that that matter has been pressed upon Her Majesty's Government by those who represent the Colonies in this country, and that the matter is under consideration, and that it will be the subject of inquiry, and I hope that the result of that inquiry may be to secure some understanding as to the conditions upon which, or the legislation subject to which, Colonial stocks might be put into the list of trust investments. I hope there will be no difficulty in arriving at such a result, and, seeing that the matter is thus under consideration, I think it would be inexpedient to delay this measure at all, or to run any risk with regard to it by pressing the matter at the present stage. I shall await with interest the result of the inquiry which I understand is now taking place upon the subject, and I may probably upon some future occasion trouble your Lordships further in the matter.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: I have to express concurrence in the greater part of what the noble Lord has said. As he knows, I am personally desirous that trustees should have power to invest in these Colonial stocks, upon sufficient security being given as to their stability,

  665
  but I think it would be unfortunate if any step were now taken which might delay the passing of this useful measure. My noble Friend, is perfectly correct in stating that this matter has been again pressed upon the attention of Her Majesty's Government, but after the Resolution which was passed by the Grand Committee of the House of Commons upon this very clause intimating that they thought full inquiry ought to be made before the clause was passed, or before it was brought up again for consideration, Her Majesty's Government have decided that it will be the best course to have that full inquiry which the Committee of the House of Commons desired made by a Departmental Committee. That Departmental Committee will be soon appointed, and I hope that the result may prove satisfactory, and that there may be some means found of enabling trustees to invest in these securities.
  Bill read 2* (according to order).
  LORD HERSCHELL: Under ordinary circumstances, I should move to refer this Bill to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c, but inasmuch as, with the trifling exception to which I have alluded, it is substantially identical with a clause which has already passed your Lordships' House, I think it is unnecessary to take that course, and under those circumstances I will move to commit the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY BILL (No. 144).

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HENNIKER: As the result of representations with regard to the unsatisfactory accommodation given to our national portraits at Bethnal Green, the Office of Works submitted to the Treasury on the 30th April last a proposal to build a new Museum either on a site to the north-east of the National Gallery, or on a site to be acquired at South Kensington from the Exhibition Commissioners. Immediately after this proposal had been made an offer was
  666
  made by a gentleman to build a National Portrait Gallery at his own expense, if the Government would procure a site within one mile and a half of St. James's. The site provided by the Bill which I now bring before your Lordships is on the north and east of the National Gallery. It has been approved by the donor, and it has been approved by the trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, and the trustees of the National Gallery have concurred in agreeing to the site being taken, on the understanding that a space should be taken from the St. George's Barracks at some future time for any extension that may be necessary. The greater portion of the land given as a site is vested in the Commissioners of Works, under the National Gallery Enlargement Acts of 1866 and 1867, which were passed for the purpose of extending the National Gallery. But further statutory authority is required to appropriate this land for the present purposes, and therefore this Bill is brought in. The Bill provides for the re-transfer to the Commissioners of Works of a piece of land on the west of the site, of which I have spoken, which was conveyed to the Crown in 1885, or rather to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests on the part of the Crown, in exchange for a small piece of land taken from the Barrack yard of St. George's, which has been used for the late extension of the National Gallery. The proposed site, I may tell your Lordships, has been pronounced by the eminent architect who has prepared the sketch plans for the donor, Mr. Euan Christian, as quite sufficient for any National Portrait Gallery, but Mr. Christian thinks that it would be a very great advantage that a plot of ground on the north of Hemmings Row which is now vacant should be kept an open space. Not only does he think that it would secure a better light for the rooms, but he also thinks that if you had that open space it would secure better protection against fire. This plot of ground belongs to the London County Council. The Office of Works are in correspondence with the Council, and in correspondence with the Treasury, with a view to keeping this land as an open space. I think I need say nothing more in commending this Bill to your Lordships.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGE: My Lords, I think it would be difficult to say too

  667
  much in appreciation of the munificence of the gentleman whoever he be who has come forward and offered to build a National Portrait Gallery at his own expense, and thereby has extricated the trustees of the National Portrait Gallery from a somewhat difficult if not a hopeless position. My noble Friend says that the trustees have approved of the site, but on the distinct understanding that, whenever at some future day the trustees require more accommodation for their pictures, both the National Gallery trustees and the National Portrait Gallery trustees should be able to appropriate part of the barrack yard for any extensions that may be required, and that if necessary the barracks should be given up. I hope that under no circumstances it will be necessary to take such a course. I believe that the parade ground if built upon will be amply sufficient for the extension of both Galleries, and the barracks will always be a useful place in which to put a company or two of Guards in case of any serious disturbance. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to another point which my noble Friend has lightly touched upon, and that is the question of this vacant space north of Hemmings Row. I do not know whether people generally are aware of the great importance of this ground north of Hemmings Row being kept as an open space. It is obvious that if the County Council sell this land (for which they hope to get £7,000) at auction, as it appears they intend to do, there will be no security whatever against the erection of enormously high buildings, which will mar the effect of the present and any future National Gallery, and may be such unsightly buildings as your Lordships may see from Rotten Row by Albert Gate. I understand that it is the intention of the London County Council to recoup themselves by this £7,000 for the expenses of carrying out the Charing Cross improvement. I see that my noble Friend, the Chairman of the London County Council (Lord Rosebery) is in his place, and perhaps he will state, from the point of view of the London County Council, how the matter now stands. I would like to read to your Lordships the architect's opinion as to the importance of this open space being preserved. Mr. Euan Christian says:—
  668
  "One point, in my judgment, of primary importance, and indeed of real necessity, if the gallery is to be built on this site, is the maintenance of the open space northwards which its occupation by buildings would effectually destroy. The security of this open space is vital to the scheme."
  That being so, it is quite possible that this anonymous donor might cry off and say, "If you are going to have high buildings there, I will not build the Gallery." Under these circumstances, it is very desirable that without delay some sort of arrangement should be come to between the County Council and Her Majesty's Government. I understand that what the County Council say is that they will have nothing to do with this question, which is an Imperial question. I do not know what line the Government have taken or intend to take, but whether it is a Municipal or whether it is an Imperial question, it is highly necessary that something should be done. If the London County Council, as representing the ratepayers, choose to say, "We will not give a sou towards the buying of this ground," it will then be for the Government to consider, and it will be a very serious question, whether, after all, they should hesitate to spend this dreadful sum of £7,000 in buying this open space. Considering they have not given a sou towards this undertaking, considering that at no expense they will have a National Portrait Gallery built, it would be monstrous, I think, if either the Government or the London County Council allowed these high buildings to be built and the light shut out from the National Portrait Gallery. I do rot know whether my noble Friend the Chairman of the London County Council will enlighten us at all upon the position which the London County Council take up. Perhaps it would be possible for the London County Council and the Government to divide the purchase money for this open space between them; but, at any rate, matters cannot remain as they are, because, in face of the strong opinion which I have quoted of the architect, it is quite on the cards that, unless this comparatively small matter is properly dealt with, the anonymous donor might cry off altogether and withdraw his munificent offer.
  LORD LAMINGTON: I quite concur in the view of the noble Lord who has just sat down. This generous and

  669
  patriotic offer having been made, it seems to me inconceivable that for the small sum of £7,000 this plot of ground which is clearly necessary should not be acquired. Athough it is not more than a fourth of an acre, it is a long piece of land, and any buildings erected upon it will block the whole light of the Gallery. I hardly agree with my noble Friend that this is at all a matter for the County Council. It is for the Imperial Government, and I think it will be very little short of a scandal if the Government, having had given them a magnificent building of this kind, should for the sake of a few thousand pounds see the whole undertaking spoiled by the erection of high buildings in immediate proximity to the Gallery.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: It may perhaps be convenient, as the London County Council has been referred to by the noble Lords who have spoken, that I should state exactly the way in which this matter stands. The piece of land in question is valued at, I think, about £7,000, and it is part of the assets of the London County Council, for which they are responsible to the ratepayers of London. The London County Council, whatever their deficiencies may be, are certainly not averse to the acquisition or the maintenance of open spaces wherever it can be proved that that is to the interest of London and of the rate payers. But they are not entitled to look to any interests beyond those, and, indeed, in my opinion, they would be culpable if they did. It is perfectly clear, as I believe, that it is necessary for this building, both outwardly and inwardly, that this piece of land should not be built upon; but that is not a matter which concerns the London County Council. It is an Imperial matter. If there is an Imperial building in this country, it is that building in which you propose to keep the portraits of all those, whether in the United Kingdom or in the Colonies, who have rendered service to the Empire. What business it is to the ratepayers of London to maintain or to bring light into a building of that description I, for one, cannot possibly conceive. Some time ago the Council passed a resolution that this land should be dealt with as the other assets are dealt with—namely, it should be put up for sale. Shortly afterwards we received a letter from the right hon.
  670
  Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, asking what our intentions were—a very courteous letter—and intimating, with the habitual politeness of the right hon. Gentleman, that it was possible that we might wish to contribute this open space, in consideration of the national character of the work, without payment. I do not think that that was actually put in black and white, but the insinuation was a delicate one, and one which we were not so blind as not to appreciate. Upon that we took the only course which was open to us. We sent back to the First Commissioner the resolution which had been passed by the Council, and said that, as far as we could, we should be willing to meet the wishes of Her Majesty's Government in not putting up the land to public auction, but dealing with it as a matter of private negotiation. Since then a conversation has taken place with those members of the Council who are most directly interested in the matter, and I have some hope that a favourable result may be arrived at. But I would point out most clearly to the House—and I think the House is, on the whole, with me in this contention—that if that land is built over it will be due to the laches, not of the London County Council, but of Her Majesty's Government. And I must further add, not as a member of the London County Council, but as an individual who has filled the position of First Commissioner of Works, and who has always had the building of this gallery very nearly at heart, that I do think that Her Majesty's Government will not be making an undue, an unlicensed, or an extravagant contribution if, to the £100,000 which have been contributed by a private individual, they string up their courage to find these £7,000 to purchase this piece of land.
  Bill read 2* (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

TELEGRAPHS (ISLE OF MAN) BILL. (No. 113).

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I need trouble your Lordships with only a few observations. The Telegraph

  671
  Acts are already applied to the Isle of Man with one exception, namely, the Act of 1878, but various difficulties have been found in the working of those Telegraph Acts, because the phraseology of the Acts is not suited to the executive and judicial machinery of the Isle of Man. This Bill is really an interpretation Bill, in that it applies the phraseology of the Telegraph Acts so as to suit that executive and official machinery; and by another clause it applies the Telegraph Act of 1878 to the island. There is really nothing else in the Bill than those provisions, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
  Bill read 2* (according to Order), and committed to the Standing Committee for General Bills on Tuesday next.

CANADA (ONTARIO BOUNDARY) BILL. (No. 151.)
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3* to-morrow.
BILLS OF SALE BILL. (No. 150.)
Read 3* (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL.(No. 127.)
Read 3* (according to Order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
TRUST COMPANIES BILL. (No. 10.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD HOBHOUSE: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who happens to be absent, has prepared a number of Amendments to this Bill. I have gone carefully through the Bill with reference to these Amendments, and I think it would save your Lordships' and the public time if you would allow me to put them en bloc.
  Various Amendments agreed to.
  LORD HOBHOUSE: Then, my Lords, upon Clause 26 I ask your Lordships to insert the words—
  "Upon the application of persons interested in the property held by a trust company as trustee, executor, administrator, or any other fiduciary capacity as mentioned in the Act."
  My Lords, the reason for the Amend-
  672
  ment is this: as Clause 26 stood before the House when in Committee, it was stated that it was intended to give to the Board of Trade power to appoint inspectors on the application of any person interested in the trust funds held by the company, and we look upon that as a very valuable safeguard in the administration of these companies. When moving his Amendment, the noble and learned Lord Herschell desired to substitute the four sections of the Companies' Act, 1862, applicable to this matter for the reference to it in the clause of the Bill, but I think he never intended to deprive the Board of Trade of the power of acting upon the application of a person interested in the trust fund; but there seems to have been some misapprehension as to the verbal addition which was then made to the written Amendment. The result was that there has been an entire omission of power to the Board of Trade to act upon the application of persons interested. I desire now to restore that power, and I think everybody will agree that it is requisite.
  LORD BALFOUR: There is no doubt, my Lords, that an omission has by some misapprehension been made, and I entirely accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill read 3*, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE PARLIAMENT STREET IMPROVE- MENTS.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I rise to put a question to Her Majesty's Government respecting the company who have undertaken the Parliament Street improvements. These improvements, my Lords, are being carried out by a private company. When the Bill passed relating to the company, it was distinctly understood that the whole of Parliament Street was to be taken down in the autumn of 1887. Two years have since elapsed, and in three years the whole thing will be at an end. This way of conducting public works is very unworthy of a great city, and as there appears to be no hope held out of this work ever being done at all, I want to ask Her Majesty's Government what they intend to do in the matter. I think, my Lords, it is not too much to say that

  673
  this is a very unworthy way of carrying out public improvements in the Metropolis. Do the Government never intend to make use of the land they have at their disposal, and which belongs to them? I have to ask whether it is intended that anything shall be done to carry out the improvements.
  LORD HENNIKER: My Lords, in reply to the question which the noble Lord has put, I must decline on the present occasion to discuss the question whether these improvements ought to be made by a private company. A Bill was passed two years ago for this purpose, and I have stated over and over again that Parliament imposed upon the company the condition that £500,000 should be subscribed for the ordinary stock before they could pull down a house, and that that has been really the cause of the delay. The company is a private company, and the Act, I believe, is a private Act, and therefore I think the question of the noble Lord is hardly one which the representative of the Office of Works can properly be called upon to answer. The only connection of the Office of Works with the company at the present stage is in regard to some of the land with which the company propose to deal which is Government property. Beyond what has passed with respect to this land and the negotiations which have been going on with regard to it between the company and the Office of Works, the Office of Works really know nothing officially. It is not necessary for me to remind your lordships that, as long as the company keep within their powers, neither the Office of Works nor any one else has any right to interfere with them. In fact, the Office of Works can have no responsibility for the company, nor any official knowledge of its proceedings. However, my Lords, having said so much, as I find some noble Lords take an interest in the matter, I have endeavoured to obtain information, and by the kindness of the promoters of the company, I can give some information to the House. It was given to me by Mr. Edward Easton, a gentleman whom I have known for many years. Mr. Easton writes on July 18th in regard to the position of the company as follows:—
  "In answer to your inquiry, I have to say, on behalf of the promoters of the Parliament
  674
  Street Improvement Act, that the arrangements for complying with the Act, which stipulates that £500,000 of share capital shall be subscribed before commencing the works, have not yet been completed, but that the matter has now been carried so far that it is expected the necessary certificate of the Board of Trade that the capital has been subscribed will be obtained within a month from this time."
  That, my Lords, is the present position of the company, as far as I know.

WESTMINSTER HALL AND CONSTITU- TION HILL.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government the question of which I have given Notice, I have to apologize to your Lordships for again obtruding myself upon your notice. I ask your indulgence the more as, in bringing this subject forward, I am acting on behalf of friends of mine in another place who have taken great interest in this question, and who are anxious to move in another place that the objectionable structures in Westminster Hall to which my questions refer shall be removed; but the period of the Session and the business in another place are such that it is impossible for them now to bring the subject forward. I have therefore been asked to do so in your Lordships' House. Now, my Lords, besides this question of the structures themselves, I hold that there is a very grave question involved as to the management of public building and the constitution of the Department of Her Majesty's Office of Works. In regard to what has been done in Westminster Hall opinions possibly may differ. I can only say as regards myself that I dislike these structures. I hold that they in themselves are unsightly, and that they destroy the breadth, simplicity, and grandeur of that noble Hall. I have read somewhere that
  "He never really loved,
  Who loved not at first sight."
  I think there is much truth in that. But if one can love at first sight one can hate also. But I had heard nothing of what was going on, and knew nothing about it. There was a hoarding round the structures which had concealed the whole thing from the public, and when I first beheld the staircases I own that, to use a common term, I was "flabbergasted" at what I saw, and there being nobody else near to whom I could

  675
  express my feelings, I could not resist saying to the policeman as I went through St. Stephen's Hall, "I don't think the Fenians could have done worse." The policeman replied, "Well, my Lord, I don't think they could." That, my Lords, was my first impression upon seeing these staircases. But I ask you not to be guided by my opinion, for there is a general concensus of opinion in this matter. "With the exception of Mr. Shaw Lefevre and the Minister of Works, there is not, I believe, a member of the other House who has a word to say in favour of what has been done in Westminster Hall. Mr. John Ellis brought the subject forward, and moved a reduction of the vote. He objected to the rooms, said that the arrangement was bad and inconvenient, that they were badly lighted, and were more like elongated passages than rooms; that on the ground floor there were only a few cellars, that there was a ridiculous arrangement for members' carriages and horses, and that the declivity made it difficult to take horses there. He objected also to access to the rooms by these steps, and said that there was no foundation for the suggestion that they had previously existed. Mr. Ellis said that Mr. Shaw Lefevre had intended that there should be a model, but it was not made that; all the work was boarded off as if some "deed of darkness" was going on behind it, and was being concealed, and members could not see what was going on; but "now the structures could be seen in all their hideous deformity," and "they entirely spoilt the vista down the hall." Mr. Cavendish Bentinck described the staircases as unsightly and an obstruction, and added that the large erection was a copy of the pulpit used by Mr. Spurgeon. Mr. Causton hoped it was not too late to have these ugly staircases removed. Mr. H. Gardner said that the staircase in the interior was nothing less than hideous; and Dr. Farquharson that the stairs were in themselves not beautiful, and that they marred the majestic simplicity of the whole interior. Mr. Labouchere said, with regard to the staircase, that there was a pretty general opinion in the House that it ought to be taken away, and he therefore hoped the Chief Commissioner would have it removed. In short, my
  676
  Lords, there is such a consensus of opinion on the subject in another place that if a Motion had been made for the removal of these structures, I believe it would have been carried. There has been another opinion expressed on this matter which I should like to quote—the opinion of a noble Lord, a Member of your Lordships' House, who is a great authority on architecture, and especially Gothic architecture. I mean Lord Grimthorpe. I was in hopes that he would have been here, but as he is absent I will read to your Lordships a letter he has written to me. He says:—
  "8th July, 1889.
  "Dear Wemyss,—Bentinck asks me to write to you about the Westminster Hall 'spoilation' (as a Doncaster Alderman called the Municipal Reform Act), as I cannot come back from St. Albans merely to make a speech which will not be reported, and on which nothing can be voted. The view I expressed all along in the Times four years ago was that the right thing to do was to keep the six old doors into the courts, and rebuild proper large rooms in the style of the hall in their places. Their floors were at the proper level, a few steps above the street. They would not have been passage rooms like the new ones. But one large new one might have been made where the present great north-west room is—the only really handsome one. But Pearson and Lefevre could not be content with such a simple plan as that, and would have two stories, of which the lower one is half a cellar, and unfit for civilised use. They stuck up a model of one low storey only to show a bad contrast with their two, and of course it looked too low. Another consequence is that the windows of the new rooms are all so low and mean, as modern architects make everything look. As for the staircases, I see new faults every time I look at them. They are in every way incongruous with the simple and grand style of the hall, and, still worse specimens of the said capacity of architects for frittering away everything into little bits. There is one famous model of a staircase, with a door under it (not that there ought to be any here) in Beverley Minster, which you may see in Hickman's 'Architecture'—simple and perfect, and not exhibiting sham ends of steps sticking through the wall, as this one does in the middle of the hall. As for the 'dreadful figures,' Plunket's good answer to Sir G. Campbell has given them a reputation which they certainly do not deserve for their own merits. They want dynamiting, and if half-a-dozen 'eminent architects' were put on the stairs beforehand it would benefit the nation. That is the substance of all that occurs to me to say, except, by the bye, to remark on that hideous north-west turret, with its little windows divided into 'littler' bits, in the fashion, which architects delight in for pulpits—to hide the preacher's dirty shoes, I suppose,
  Yours very truly,
  GRIMTHORPE."
  Now, my Lords, I think I have at least shown to your Lordships that there is unquestionably a concensus of opinion against what has been done in Westminster Hall, and I urge that these structures should be removed. But it is not only what has been done, but the way in which it has been done, showing how the office of Works has proceeded in this matter to which my question points to the fact that although there was a model of the outer portion with the buttresses, no model of the staircases inside the Hall was shown. Furthermore, I have been informed by those that are concerned that a design showing the elevation was never shown. Though the ground plan was shown to the Committee there was nothing at all—so far as I can see—professing to represent the structure. Surely the inner part of the Hall—which is more precious thantheoutside—shouldhavebeen treated with the same care, and a model should have been provided to invite expressions of opinion, as was done with regard to the outside. Instead of that, the whole thing was shut off by a hoarding, so that what was going on could not be seen. But besides these new objectionable staircases we have to complain of the removal of the iron work on one side of the broad steps at the end of the Hall and the substitution of a solid wall and terrace, which looks strong enough to form a platform for carrying a 45-ton gun. It has entirely destroyed the symmetry of the hall. Then, further, there is this point: on the right hand side of the Hall, where these changes have been made, the stonework, from some cause or other, had decayed—I have heard it attributed to the mephitic air which came out of the Divorce Court. This has been refaced. I wonder why the impaired surface could not have been chiselled off, leaving it practically new stone. But no; for some reason or other it has been refaced with stone, but with small instead of large stones, as on the other side. Now, I ask if the Hall required refacing why should not the refacing or renewing have been carried out so as to make one side identical with the other? But such are the fads and caprices of architects in these days that one side of the Hall has been left in its original state with a wall composed of large blocks of stone,
  678
  and on the other they have put in new stones, wholly differing in size and in colour from the others. A word now as to the outside. A model of the proposed buttresses, &c. &c, was put up, actual size, and we were thus enabled to judge of the general effect of the proposed alterations; but we find that a buttress-has been stuck against one side of one of the Towers at the end of the Hall, which entirely destroys that portion of Sir C. Barry's work, so little respect do architects pay to each others' buildings. Really this is one of the most monstrous, things that was ever done in architecture, and I cannot help thinking that, if the model had shown this, it would have been seen at once that the buttress ought to be removed. So much for Westminster Hall. But, my Lords, my question also refers to a totally different subject, although the principle upon which I am bringing it before your Lordships is very much the same. My question also refers to the subject of the arch on Constitution Hill. I venture to ask whether any steps are being taken to remove from London the reproach of having a triumphal arch standing as that arch does. I defy any architect to point out any arch, railway, or otherwise, which has one leg shorter than its fellow, as this arch has; for being built upon a slope, one side is 12, or 18 inches higher than the other. I hope then, as. Constitution Hill is about to be opened, and roadways are to be made on each side, of the arch, that it will be under pinned and levelled. These are points to which it is necessary to call attention, because I am anxious not only to call attention to the things which are done, but to the system under which they are done. I should have thought that on a question such as this, affecting a great historic hall in which your Lordships have certainly not less, interest than those sitting in another place, there would have been a Joint Committee of both Houses appointed who should have had the plans before, them. Now, my Lords, if any of us look back, as I am afraid I can for a good many years, what do we find with, regard to the appointments which have been made to the office which has the management of public works? Is it the case that the man appointed to fill the high post of First Commissioner of Works is usually selected from the fact

  679
  of his having given his mind to these subjects, from his knowledge of landscape gardening, or of architecture? Nothing of the kind; the office is always one of political convenience, and as regards the influence of the holder, he is seldom or never in the Cabinet, and hence he does not exercise the influence which he ought. Looking back for well on for 50 years, I do not know of any single holder of that office whom any noble Lord in private life, if he were building a house of his own, would have consulted as to what he ought to do—except one. I shall not name him, so that every surviving holder for the last 40 or 50 years may imagine that that one is himself. Now, my Lords, there is something radically wrong in the system which produces such hideous structures, and renders it possible for any First Commissioner of Works without the knowledge of the public to evolve out of his inner consciousness such structures as these, to which I have called attention. Really, my Lords, it should not be in the power of any First Commissioner, even if he were a man who has given his whole life and attention to such, matters, to deal with our public buildings is the way in which Westminster Hall has been dealt with. Something more is wanted. Take the case of a late Commissioner, Mr. Ayrton. When he came to office he boasted that he had no training of any sort for it, and that he had no taste for architecture or anything of the kind. And yet he proprio motu, without anyone's knowledge, cut down 40 of the old trees in Kensington Gardens, divided the main walk, and thus destroyed the whole plan of the garden. Now, all this shows the necessity of some changes in the constitution of the Office of Works. I once had the honour of being a member of a Royal Commission which recommended that there should be a Committee of Advice attached to the Office of Works. Something of the kind I think, my Lords, is certainly wanted—it might be a Standing Committee of Advice of both Houses—thus assuredly many mistakes might be prevented, and it would not be necessary in future for any one to trouble your Lordships as I have had to do on the present occasion. I have to apologise for having taken up so much of your Lordships' time, and I beg to ask
  680
  the noble Lord who represents in this House the Office of Works: "Whether the designs for the staircases recently erected in Westminster Hall were ever submitted to any Committee of either House of Parliament, or to any other body, for consideration and approval; whether previous to the commencement of the work any models of the proposed structures—full sized or other—were made and exhibited to Parliament and the public; and whether, seeing the dissatisfaction that has been publicly expressed regarding these staircases, the Government will cause them to be removed, and devise some means of access to the new rooms more in keeping with the original character of the Hall; also whether, inasmuch as the approaches to Constitution Hill from Hyde Park Corner are about to be altered, the Government will cause them to be so formed as to admit of the levelling of the base of the arch at the entrance to the drive, which, since its removal to its present site, enjoys the unique privilege among similar structures of having one side considerably shorter than the other consequent upon its being built upon a slope."
  LORD DORSHESTER: My Lords, I only desire to add a few words. I must endorse in the most emphatic manner the remarks of the noble Earl as to the necessity of having a Committee to consider these architectural works, and that they should not be foisted on the nation—seeing they were to endure for years—without some justification and consideration. It should be an impossibility for such an occurrence to happen in connection with one of the proudest monuments in the world as the erection of these hideous structures. Some of your Lordships may remember the outcry which was made when Sir Charles Barry put up the staircase at the end of Westminster Hall, but that was a sheer necessity, and another outcry occurred with regard to the Courts of Justice. My Lords, I venture to say these few words in addition to what has fallen from my noble Friend as to the necessity for having a properly authorised body to consider these works, and that such things should not be allowed to go on without protest. It was my privilege to serve on a Committee with regard to the removal of the Wellington Monument. The late First Commissioner

  681
  promised me that five plane trees which stood in front of Lord Rothschild's house should not be cut down without notice, but those trees were cut down and replaced by small ones, such as the nurserymen could put in. That the right hon. Gentleman, who had, perhaps, taken his ideas from the West of Ireland, where there are very few trees, should pledge himself that the trees should not be cut down, and then that they should be cut down and replaced by broomsticks within two years, is a public scandal. But, my Lords, that is not the question now; the question is whether these particular works which have been designed and approved without being submitted for an expression of public opinion, or to some authority such as has been suggested, should be allowed to remain.
  LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I can only express a hope that the discussion will induce the Government seriously to consider the question of the reform of the Office of Works. The only Board that ever did anything for the Metropolis was the Metropolitan Board of Works, and now it is gone, I do not know what is to be expected from the County Council.
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I desire to express entire concurrence with what has been said as to the vandalism of cutting down those trees which were opposite to Lord Rothschild's house. It is not only that what might have been a very great improvement to the communication of the Metropolis has been very much spoiled as a matter of beauty, but that the inconvenience owing to the utter want of practical knowledge on the subject of Metropolitan communition (and I speak having years ago been a member of a Committee on Metropolitan Communication) has caused a constant block at the meeting of Hamilton Place and Piccadilly. All the traffic from Hamilton Place went either from the south or west, that is, either went to or from Grosvenor Place or to or from Knightsbridge, practically none to or from the east; and the object should have been to provide for a separate continuous communication along Piccadilly. I remember protesting against the undue narrowing of the new extension of the roadway between Hamilton Place and Park Lane. I did so before the railings had been fixed,
  682
  and when a slight extension of some 18 feet would have afforded great facilities for the traffic, which, in the graphic words of a policeman there to me, would disentangle itself in the wide space opposite Lord Rothschild's. The answer given was—"It has not been sufficiently tried, and therefore it is premature to express any opinion"; but no time was lost in going to the great expense of fixing the rails in the wrong direction. The opening of Constitution Hill will, I hope, a little relieve the traffic, but the main defect is the want of one line of continuous traffic along Piccadilly. The vandalism of cutting down the handsome trees affording welcome shade was only equalled by the want of practical good sense in the arrangement of the details of the new communication. With regard to the staircases, I concur in every word that has been said as to their ugliness and their marring the character of Westminster Hall. To what do they lead? I do not know whether your Lordships have taken the trouble to examine them, but they lead to a set of perfectly useless rooms opening into each other with no separate passage outside. Although I am bound to say that the architect has certainly shown great taste in some of his ecclesiastical works, he in this case evidently considered first what would look well, in his opinion, from outside, and he cut up the space within afterwards; but it never occurred to him that the first object should have been to arrange a convenient and rational plan. The result is that when it was laid out a large mass of building has been added to Westminster Hall, which is, as regards the tower, perfectly hideous, and is also perfectly useless from the want of common sense in the arrangement of the interior, large as that is. I entirely agree that it is most unsatisfactory that we should have the buildings of the Metropolis at the mercy of chance political agencies. In the course of fifty years—and my memory goes back, I am sorry to say, for fifty years or more—we have had, as my noble Friend truly said, very few heads of the Departments of Woods and Forests, or of Works who had had any previous training at all, or who had anything to do with the laying out of grounds or the arrangement of buildings till they suddenly found themselves for political

  683
  reasons put into an cilice of this sort, and naturally they were under the practical ascendency of some permanent officials whose zeal is more remarkable than their taste or practical skill.
  LORD HENNIKER: I regret, my Lords, that in the course of this conversation, a general attack seems to have been made upon the Office of Works. As far as I am concerned, I am much too humble an individual to venture to discuss matters of taste with my noble Friend, or to venture to give an opinion upon the internal arrangements of the Hall, but I will, as shortly as possible, answer the questions which my noble Friend has put upon the Paper. He asks me, first of all, whether the designs for the staircases recently erected in Westminster Hall were ever submitted to any Committee. In answer to that question, I have to tell your Lordships that the arrangement of the staircases at Westminster Hall was submitted to the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and the plans were approved by that Select Committee. If your Lordships will look at the Blue Book which has been published by that Committee, you will rind that the staircases are set forth in the plans marked No. 5a, No. 6a, and No. 8. The only difference between the staircases approved of by the Committee and the staircases erected is this, that they do not project quite so far into Westminster Hall as they were originally intended to do. The next question my noble Friend asks is whether models were made of these staircases. Of course, I am quite ready to admit that it is a very good thing indeed on all occasions when possible to have models of important buildings. But my noble Friend must remember that to have models entails a great deal of expense and trouble, and in this matter of the staircases it was not thought necessary to incur that expense and trouble. My noble Friend has made a general attack upon all the plans of Westminster Hall; but I would remind him that those plans were approved of by the Select Committee. I am perfectly well aware that, although he made a general attack upon those plans, the chief cause of objection, both in the House of Commons and elsewhere, has been all along with regard to these four staircases. Therefore,
  684
  with your Lordships' permission, I will just say a few words upon this subject. I would venture to remind your Lordships that it is not at all a new departure having these staircases at Westminster. The four staircases existed from the earliest times in Westminster Hall. Henry III. put up two flights of stairs, and two more were erected at a later period to give access to the rooms which, have now been re-erected under the buttresses. All the staircases that are put up in Westminster Hall now are shown on the old plans that are in existence. Notably they will be found in a plan which had the Committee's, approval, No. 18. To show that this is not a new departure there is this curious fact. Henry III. cut a doorway at the head of a very large flight of stairs. Mr. Pearson designed a doorway exactly in the same place, not knowing that a, doorway was extant, and when he went in and began to put up his doorway he found the old one which had been built up a great many years ago by an architect called Searle. He has now opened this doorway built by Henry III., a doorway from one of the staircases, and it now fills its original purpose. I think this shows that at all events these repairs, or whatever you call them, at Westminster Hall were intended as reproductions, and not as a new departure. I must repeat once more that all these plans were approved by the Select Committee. My noble Friend has quoted the opinion of Lord Grimthorpe in a very characteristic letter, but I must remind the noble Lord that opinion with regard to these staircases is not all on one side. There is a great deal of division upon this subject, and I think as the noble Lord quoted several opinions against these staircases, I may be heard also to quote one or two names which I think deserve attention. Mr. Shaw Lefevre, when he was First Commissioner of Works, had several letters from leading architects. Mr. Euan Christian, then the architect, was at first very much against these staircases, but after he had seen them he changed his mind. Another name which I think will command respect, is that of Mr. Waterhouse, who strongly approved of the staircases. Professor Brooks also approves of them, and also Mr. Bloomfield. These are only a few names out of many who approve of the staircases.

  685
  I think I have shown your Lordships that opinion is divided, and that it is not, us the noble Lord seemed to suggest, all on one side. Finally, my Lords, I would say, that on the grounds that these repairs have been done according to plans approved by the Committee, and that Mr. Pearson's plan restores as nearly as possible the old approach to the rooms, and forms—I think I may say—the best means practicable of access to these rooms, the First Commissioner of Works has decided that he will not remove these staircases. I have only one more question to answer, and that is with regard to the arch at Constitution Hill. The fact that one side of the arch appears higher than the other has not escaped the notice of the First Commissioner of Works. It is intended at once to level the front of the Constitution Hill side of the arch by the workmen of the Office of Works, and we have a promise from the Vestry of St. George's, Hanover Square, that they will level the other side in the same manner.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I must say that I think the very discussion that has been raised by my noble Friends, who are chiefly responsible for the taste of this House, does illustrate in a very striking manner the unadvisability of accepting their general suggestions. Now, I do not pretend to know whether these staircases are in consonance with Westminster Hall, whether they are good or whether they are bad; but this I do know—that they were arrived at very much by the process which my noble Friends would recommend as an alternate to the present method of procedure. The First Commissioner of Works did not act on his own responsibility, he acted on the advice of the Select Committee of the House of Commons. That, as I understand, is very much what my noble Friend on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) desires to carry out Complaint is made of the unaided responsibility and power of the First Commissioner; and my noble Friend wants him to be assisted by a Council of taste as I understand, whereas it is this very method of procedure which has brought about the state of things of which he complains. I do not know how this Council of taste is to be constituted, but
  686
  I do not suppose it will be much better than a Committee of the House of Commons. The House of Commons is, as we all know, composed of 670 of the most intelligent men in the country. A Committee of taste chosen from the House of Commons would therefore imply all that is most desirable from that point of view. But, my Lords, suppose you went outside the House of Commons for a Council to take off responsibility from the First Commissioner of Works. I do not say that the present is an ideal method, but I venture to say this, that it shines in comparison with this suggested alternative. The ordinary First Commissioner is supposed to be a man of business, not unversed in public affairs, who will take a commonsense view of the situation, and get the opinion of experts as far as he can. He is at full liberty to consult with every architect, every man of taste, every ingenious person whom he can call to mind, or who is willing to make spontaneously suggestions to him. Now let us take the alternative. The alternative is to establish a Council on the model, I suppose, of the Council of India. Well, opinion is not unanimous in praise of that Council, and, indeed, I believe Her Majesty's Government are at this moment in process of endeavouring to reduce it. This Council would, I presume, be composed of men of taste. Now, we have heard Lord Grimthorpe's letter to-day. I venture to ask what would be the position of a First Commissioner in whose Council Lord Grimthorpe happened to play a not unimportant part? They say that councils of war never fight. I venture to think that this Council of taste would do nothing else. There would be Lord Grimthorpe, there would be my noble Friends who chiefly inhabit the Cross Benches, and who always speak in these Debates, and there would finally be the dozen architects whom Lord Grimthorpe is so anxious to blow up on the very steps of Westminster Hall which my noble Friend is so ready to condemn. The Office of Works is at present a peaceful abode, and has a chance of doing good work; but I venture to say that if the recommendation of my noble Friend were adopted, it would become a hotbed of turbulent contention from which no plan would ever issue, because it would be absolutely impossible

  687
  for the Council of taste ever to come to a conclusion.
  THE EARL OF WEMTSS: I would, with your Lordships' permission, say a few words further. I repeat that the designs of these staircases were not shown. There were plans shown, but the designs were not shown. The only thing in the shape of a design that was shown was the plan of the staircase at the end of the hall, but no design whatever was shown to the Committee of what is the main subject of offence—namely, the staircases in the centre of the Hall. As to the argument that it is simply restoring the Hall to its original position, I will point out to your Lordships plan No. 22, in the Report of the Committee for 1884–85. Your Lordships will see that there is, no doubt, a doorway, and that doorway is in the centre of the Hall, but this one is not, which is a material difference. Again, there are steps, but what are the steps? There are two steps, certainly, but not a double flight of steps, or anything of that kind. Again, the old doorway in the Hall had a Gothic ornamentation round it. Therefore, it is trifling with your Lordships to say that this is simply a restoration of what existed before. I have no doubt my noble Friend can get architects to back up that statement. There are trades unions in architecture as in everything else, and one architect, as a rule, will back up another in questions of this kind. As regards models, I am surprised to hear my noble Friend say that they are costly. Any man who is building his own house would take good care that he had models of almost everything, small and large, before he went on with the building. My noble Friend says that the present constitution of the Office of Works is perfect. I cannot conceive its being worse. Judge them by their works; judge them by the Kensington Gardens. In spite of all that has been said, I still think that the present system is faulty, and that something in the nature of a Council of advice should be constituted.

THE DEBATE ON THE MAR PEER- AGE—"HANSARD'S PARLIAMEN- TARY DEBATES."

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN, in rising to call attention to the report
  688
  in Hansard's Debates of a speech delivered by the Earl of Mar in this House on Monday, 1st July, in which report occur references to the conduct of certain noble Lords, Members of this House, which references were not contained in the speech as originally delivered, said: My Lords, perhaps it is scarcely necessary that I should do so, but I think it would be well that I should state, before I make any further remarks upon this subject, that I am speaking entirely in my private capacity as a Member of your Lordships' House. My Lords, the matter upon which I have ventured to address your Lordships is one of considerable delicacy, and I felt some hesitation before I placed it upon the Notice Paper. It is a matter of delicacy, because it must more or less bring into question the action of a Member of your Lordships' House; but I feel that the course that has been pursued by the noble Lord to whom the notice refers has been so very inconvenient, so very prejudicial to the reputation of your Lordships' House, and—quite unintentionally no doubt—tends to act with such extreme unfairness and injustice upon certain Members of the House, that I thought I should not be fulfilling my duty if I did not bring the matter under your Lordships' consideration. In any remarks which I may have to make, I wish the noble Earl, the Earl of Mar, who I see is present, clearly to understand that I shall make them in no spirit of hostility whatever to him, and I do not wish to impute to him any intention of acting unjustly or unfairly to any Members of the House in any course which he has thought it right to pursue, I may just shortly bring to your Lordships' recollection what happened in the course of the Debate on the 1st July. On that occasion there was a Debate in the House on the question of the Mar Peerage, and the noble Earl, the Earl of Mar, in support of the Resolution of the Earl of Galloway, made a speech. In that speech, to which I listened very attentively throughout, I say with the utmost confidence there was no reference whatever to my name. Not only was there no reference to my name, but there was no reference to the names of the noble Lords who appear in the report of the speech. My astonishment was considerable when two or three days after the 1st

  689
  of July my attention was called to a report in the Times, in which my name and the names of the other noble Lords occurred as having been mentioned in the noble Lord's speech. Perhaps your Lordships may ask why it was that immediately on this coming to my notice I did not, when the Debate was fresh in your Lordships' recollection, and when the matter could have been more easily discussed and dealt with, at once place a notice on the Paper of the House; but, acting under advice, I thought it was better to defer taking any notice of the circumstance until the semi-official Report had been published in Hansard's Parliamentary Debates. There was another reason why I thought it was desirable not to take too hurried action in the matter. As we all know, there may every now and then be certain mistakes and inaccuracies arising from speeches being sent to the Reporters' Gallery before they are delivered in the House, and there may be certain sentences in those speeches which are either left out or inserted by mistake, and the deliverer of the speech may not have had an opportunity of correcting the mistake before it appeared in the papers the next morning. But of course if that had been the case the noble Lord would have had the opportunity of expunging anything which he was aware had not fallen from him before the report actually appeared in Hansard's Debates, because the report of the speech to which I am alluding bears an asterisk, which shows that it came under the personal review of the noble Lord himself. I have already stated to your Lordships that there was no mention made of my name by the noble Earl in the speech he made. Yet in the corrected speech of the noble Lord I find these two passages—
  "Now, my Lords, to-day we are opposed chiefly by the few Scotch Peers, who, from the beginning, opposed even the rectification of the injustice that Lord Kellie was to hold the Earldom of Mar limited to males, and vote in right of my Earldom that has been acknowledged to be traced through seven ladies. Those Peers, notably Lord Lothian, Lord Elphinstone, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the late Duke of Buccleuch, tried to prevent the protests made against Lord Kellie assuming a title the House had not given him being received; and if they could have stopped the protests, and could have carried out their endeavours, they would to this day have prevented justice being done to me, and allowed
  690
  Lord Kellie to continue to vote under the old Earldom."
  And again—
  "Those who have supported Lord Kellie's supposed rights with regard to an Earldom of Mar since 1875—notably, those noble Lords—Lothian, Lord Elphinstone, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the Duke of Buccleuch, with the Earl of Selborne, whose action I shall briefly recapitulate directly—should have the courage of their opinions, and be the first to promote investigation into such an attack on the decision of the Committee of Privileges."
  Those are the words that appear in Hansard. Now, I think I need scarcely assure the noble Earl that I am perfectly willing to stand any amount of criticism from him. He may accuse me of anything he likes in your Lordships' House; he may accuse me of not having the courage of my opinions; he may accuse me, perhaps, of having unfairly stood in the way of his getting what he thinks to be justice in the case of the Mar Peerage. He may do that in the House or out of the House; but what I do object to is that the noble Lord should make these accusations not in the House, but should make them appear as if they had been made in the House when it is perfectly clear that they were not, and, therefore, make it appear that they were submitted to without any remark whatever, and that I should sit in this House and hear insinuations as to my motives and conduct without any protest whatever, and by implication that I accepted those imputations without any comment or denial. Now, as I said before, I do not in the least care about the noble Lord's imputations: he may make any imputations he may like against me, foolish or otherwise, in the exercise of his judgment, but I do say this, that they should be made when I am present, and when I should have an opportunity of contradicting them, or else that they should be made in such a manner that it may be generally understood that I was not present when they were made. My Lords, I think there is another reason, but not a personal reason, why I should venture to bring this matter before the House. I think it is very derogatory to the Official Debates, as reported in Hansard, that this kind of alterations and this kind of amendments of speeches should be allowed to proceed. We all look to Hansard's Debates as a book of reference, corrected by noble Lords themselves in

  691
  very many instances, and we ought to be perfectly certain that the speeches as they are reported are those delivered in the House. I do not know how far it may be carried, but in this instance I think your Lordships will admit that I am perfectly justified in bringing the matter before the House. Of course the difficulty about this question is, and I have felt it very strongly, the difficulty of proving a negative; but I have consulted with two of the noble Lords who are mentioned in conjunction with me, and I have asked many noble Lords who were present during the Debate, and no single one of them is able to say that the words in Hansard were used by the noble Earl. There is one thing which makes me absolutely certain that those words were not used, and that is that the noble Earl has ventured to introduce the name of the late Duke of Buccleuch in connection with this Mar Peerage case. Now, all who had the privilege of knowing the late Duke of Buccleuch know that he was absolutely incapable of taking any line of conduct except that which he thought absolutely right and just. I do protest most earnestly against the memory of a man who has gone being attacked in this way, not in the House, but by the noble Lord when correcting a report of his speech. I do not wish to pursue the subject any further. I have spoken, my Lords, simply as a private Member of your Lordships' House, and I hope your Lordships will not think that I have gone too far in calling attention to the matter. I leave it to your Lordships to say whether you think that the mere fact of having drawn attention to it is sufficient, or whether you think that any further notice should be taken of it. For myself, I am perfectly satisfied of the fact that I have done my duty in calling attention to it, feeling perfectly certain that the noble Earl will, after this, be more cautious and more careful in the corrections he may make of any speech he may address to your Lordships in the future.
  THE EARL OF MAR: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Marquess for calling attention to this matter, for I am anxious not to transgress any rules of this House, written or unwritten, though I venture to think that I have scarcely done so. I am sorry if any slight irregularity in the report of my speech should have occurred
  692
  through misadventence on my part. I must explain that, in consequence of the Earl of Selborne having opposed Lord Galloway's Motion in a speech of very considerable length, introducing many assertions which I felt bound to answer and refute, the Debate lasted to a late hour, and it is possible, of course, that in my speech, the time being very short, I omitted to say very fully every word of the particular observations which Lord Lothian complains that I left out, though I certainly expressed the substance of them, and I meant to say the whole of them. Messrs. Hansard, as is customary, after the Debate, asked me for my notes, and a few days afterwards I received from them a printed proof for my revision. Now, my Lords, after the somewhat long Speech which it was my duty to make to your Lordships, I found it naturally rather difficult, as all your Lordships I venture to say find on similar occasions, to recall every word said, and I am sure many noble Lords present will admit that it frequently happens that on revising proofs of speeches you may revise them to rather a fuller extent, by way of explanation, than the words actually used. On the other hand, as in the case of my speech on the 1st instant, the printed reports omit some passages that are said. That is but natural considering the difficulties under which Messrs. Hansard labour in this House in consequence of their representative being placed where he cannot hear every word spoken. I understand that Messrs. Hansard have addressed a letter to the Marquess of Lothian on the subject of their reports in general, and in allusion to the Debate on the Mar Peerage they say—
  "Whether the revised speeches accurately represented the utterances in the House could only be tested by a comparison with the notes of a competent shorthand writer placed in a position to hear everything."
  Now, in justification of these remarks which the noble Marquess says I did not completely state to the House—and I have been rather severely taken to task for those remarks appearing in print—it is my duty to make an explanation, which I will do in as brief terms as possible. Those noble Lords, Lord Lothian, Lord Elphinstone, Lord Balfour, and the late Duke of Buccleuch (I am bound to mention his Grace's

  693
  name in the matter, but I must say that it is a fact known to many Members of this House that his Grace was seriously misled as to my position, and he committed himself to several actions in regard to the Mar Peerage which he otherwise would not hare done; that is my excuse for introducing the name of the late Duke of Buccleuch)—these Peers I have named were almost the only peers who took action against me in the——
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: I rise to order. I think the noble Lord is rather travelling outside the point. What I understood the noble Marquess below me to complain of was that in the corrected version of the speech which the noble Earl behind me delivered on the occasion of Lord Galloway's Motion he had not then, in his speech in the House, mentioned the names of certain noble Lords whose names afterwards appeared in the corrected version in Hansard, and it is to that that I understood the noble Marquess drew attention in order to ask the noble Earl behind me whether he could explain how it is that there appeared in Hansard the names of noble Lords who had not been mentioned whilst he was speaking in the House. Now, I think it would be irregular for the noble Lord to go into, and to travel back upon, the old controversy, and to enter into an argument as to the position taken up by any noble Lord in the matter.
  THE EARL OF MAR: My Lords, it is very possible that I did not mention the names of these noble Lords who are alluded to, individually, but I am perfectly sure that in this House I referred in very full terms to the action of these noble Lords, with certain others, who were opposed to me. I still think that I must trust to the indulgence of the House to allow me to explain in a very few words the answer I make to these charges. ["No, no!"] I am in your Lordships' hands. I would like to say one thing with your Lordships' permission. It is but due to the noble Lords—Lord Lothian, Lord Elphinstone, and Lord Balfour—to state that they were good enough, two or three years ago, to express gratification at the recognition of my rights, and in consequence of that it was a great surprise to many noble Lords.—["Order, order!"]
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I rise to order. I think that after what the noble Duke has said, the House is entirely of opinion that the noble Earl should confine himself to the point which has been raised, which is rather a serious one, whether this report in Hansard was made to show something which did not take place in the House. He ought not to go beyond that.
  THE EARL OF MAR: The statement in Hansard is very full indeed, and—I will fall back upon what I just said—if I left out anything inadvertently, as very often happens when speeches are made in this House, I explained the substance of it, and the greater part of my speech was to explain in very full terms what had been done by these who had acted in opposition to my rights, and in support of Lord Kellie in his assumption of the title. That is really the substance of my speech in support of the Earl of Galloway's Motion for the rectification of the whole matter. My Lords, I still venture to think that I am entitled to the indulgence of your Lordships' House to give me an opportunity of explaining; but if that is denied me, of course I am in the hands of the House. I must again thank the noble Marquess for calling attention to the matter, because, as far as I am concerned, the more the matter is aired the better in the cause of truth and justice. And, my Lords, it is but right that I should say, it is but due to myself and to my heirs and to all these after me to say, that the unprecedented and grievous wrong under which I have suffered for so many years should be rectified by, if necessary, even an unprecedented remedy.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: My Lords, in saying what I have to say about this matter, I wish to deal with it in the most impersonal way. I feel that there is a certain difficulty in noticing the particular irregularity that has taken place on account of the very anomalous position in which our system of reporting stands. If our reporting was official, as it is in the French Chamber, the matter would have been brought to the notice of the House the very next day, and would have been corrected by order of the House. We still retain the

  695
  fiction that there is no report at all, and there is, therefore, some difficulty in expressing our condemnation of reports the existence of which we affect not to believe in. But passing that anomaly by, I must say that this is the first time I ever heard of such a mode of dealing with the reports as that which the noble Earl behind me has thought fit to take. My impression is that the whole world knew that when any noble Lord had to make a correction of a report sent to him, it has always been held a matter of duty not to insert anything which the speaker did not say. In Committees it has happened more than once that witnesses having got their evidence to correct have inserted a large amount of matter which they did not give in their evidence, and whenever that circumstance has been brought to the notice of the Committee, the intruded matter has always been struck out. I can only repeat that I have never heard of a similar thing being done in either House of Parliament before. I did not think it right to remain silent lest it should be thought that the matter was of slight moment, or that we were not concerned to prevent the repetition of such a proceeding in future. I wish to state my opinion that it is against the unwritten custom and law of Parliament; and I earnestly hope that no noble Peer may take such a course again.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.