Lords Sitting of 7 August 1890

EDUCATION OF BLIND AND DEAF MUTE CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 123.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with amendments: The said amendments to be considered on Monday next.
PARTNERSHIP BILL.—(No. 153.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with amendments: The said amendments to be considered To-morrow.
LOCAL TAXATION (CUSTOM AND EXCISE) DUTIES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a (The Earl of Jersey); to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next. (No. 261.)
POLICE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a (The Lord De Ramsey); to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next. (No. 262.)
POLICE SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1 (The Lord Ker, M. Lothian); to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next. (No. 263.)
ALDERSHOT ROADS BILL.—(No. 219.)
Read 3a (according to order) with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BANKRUPTCY BILL.—(No. 237.)
Read 3a (according to order), with the amendments; further amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES BILL.—(No. 253.)
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order); Bill reported without further amendment; and to be read 3a to-morrow.
TENANTS COMPENSATION BILL. (No. 254.)
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order); Bill reported without further amendment; and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT (1862) AMENDMENT BILL. —(No. 213.)
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order); Bill reported without further amendment; and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 252.)
House in Committee (according to order.)
Clause 3.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY:My Lords, there are two Bills before the House in relation to Metropolitan buildings. It is rather singular that this, which is a public Bill contains no provision to prevent such monstrosities as the Hankey Buildings and Queen Ann's Mansions. The County Council Bill has a clause to prevent houses being erected above 70 feet in height, but the noble Lord the Chairman of the Select Committee has struck out that limit and has altered it to 90 feet, and two storeys in the roof, so that the height of the building altogether may be raised to 105 feet, as it is impossible to make a story less than 7 feet, and allowing a foot for a floor it gives 15 feet. The County Council Bill is a private Bill, and up to the present time it has not been communicated to the Metropolitan Members, and very few of your Lordships, I imagine, have seen that Bill. The Board of Works do not appear to have taken any part in it. The answer given to Lord Hardinge was that they would be glad to see any efforts which he might make successful, and that anything he attempted to carry out would receive the warm support of the Office of Works. Nothing further has been done in that sense. My Lords, these enormous buildings are not only very unsightly, but entail very great danger, especially danger

71
from fire. I think the noble Lord the Chairman of the Committee took no evidence upon the subject of danger from fire, but if he had it would not, I think, have been of much value, because the precautions against fire in these very high buildings only consist of cisterns in the roof with hydrants to be applied when occasion requires. But it is quite certain that many people would be lost in case of fire in these high buildings, because it would be trusting to a broken reed to expect that suddenly roused people in the middle of the night, perhaps frightened women, would be able to set those hydrants to work. Any of your Lordships who have seen the large hotels in Paris must know how very dangerous they are. Besides, the rooms in the roof would not always be healthy in summer, they would be most unwholesome, and they cannot be properly provided with fires in the winter. The Amendments which I have placed on the Paper I will not press now, as they might come more appropriately upon the County Council Bill, but I think it is for the convenience of the House that this discussion should take place at the present time, for every day the attendance in the House gets smaller. I propose to point out what is regarded as the sanitary scale, that is the height of buildings shall not exceed the width of the street. That is already the Statutory provision with regard to new streets, and in old streets, it should be taken into consideration in any Amendment that might be made as to the height of the houses. If the question of the manner in which old streets have been built is to be gone into, I think Her Majesty's Government will meet the desires of everybody if they will appoint a Select Committee next Session to go into this question of the erection of these very high buildings in the Metropolis. I understand that Baron Hausmann in Paris endeavoured to follow the same sanitary scale, that is to say, the height of the houses not exceeding the width of the street; but in London it is not always possible to follow that out. Here there are some streets fully as narrow as those in Paris, such as Jermyn Street, for instance. That may be done in Paris which cannot be done here in consequence of the dampness of the climate and the narrowness and darkness of
72
the streets. There is one thing upon which I must compliment the Chairman of the Select Committee, and that is the clause which he has permitted to be added in page 36, providing that where, as in some streets already, such as Victoria Street, there are at present gaps, the new houses shall be of the same height as the existing buildings. That is a very good provision, and gets rid of some of the difficulties which many persons have urged against any alteration in height as the provision now stands in the Bill, that is the height of 90 feet. I should like to add, with regard to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who have a large amount of property in the Metropolis, that the Secretary told me the Commissioners would not raise a finger to increase the limit, which had originally been fixed of 70 feet. They are very good judges on the subject. I heard one person say that those who had proposed this knew nothing about their business and were sacrificing property, but I do not think that is the case; on the contrary, by showing themselves moderate they would be more likely to obtain sanction to their proposals without opposition, the same would be the case with Government Offices. I hope some of your Lordships will enter into the discussion, which up to the present has been carried on almost entirely with closed doors. There have been so many other subjects before the public that it has not been discussed in the Press, as so important a matter, I think, should have been, because there can be no doubt that buildings 105 feet in height in the Metropolis will be very dangerous and unhealthy, and especially dangerous from fire. I move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved, after Clause 3, insert as a new clause—
"After the passing of this Act, it shall not be lawful to erect a building higher than what is allowed by the sanitary scale sanctioned by the late Metropolitan Board of Works, namely, the height not to exceed the width of the street, nor to exceed seventy feet where there is an open space in front of the building, without the sanction of the county council, after the application to the county council shall have been duly advertised."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
LORD HERSCHELL:No doubt it is a very interesting subject which the noble Lord has raised for discussion, but it has

73
not really reference to the Bill which is now in Committee, which does not deal with buildings, or the height of buildings. It has great relevance, no doubt, to another Bill which is now before your Lordships' House, which has passed from a Select Committee and come back to your Lordships, and which will have to be considered either to-morrow or on some future occasion. That Bill deals with this specific question of the height of houses. My noble Friend is afraid that when that Bill comes on the number of your Lordships present will be even more limited than to-day, but I am afraid that is hardly a reason for discussing upon this Bill a proposition which really arises on another Bill. We can hardly insert such a clause as he suggests in this Bill when there is another analogous Bill which is coming before your Lordships after it has been dealt with by the Select Committee. I am not without some sympathy with the noble Lord in his desire to prevent these very high buildings being erected in London, but, after all, that seems to me to be a question which cannot properly be discussed on the present occasion.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY:I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 205.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Bill read 3a (according to order).
  LORD THRING:The Amendment which has been proposed in this Bill will, I am sure, commend itself to your Lordships' House. It is merely to provide that where land in the Metropolis or in large towns is devoted expressly by the Trust upon which it is held for an open space, it shall not be built upon by virtue of the provisions of this Act.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 8, page 3, line 21, insert—
  ("Provided that land situated in the metropolis or in any town of over twenty thousand inhabitants which is held on trusts to be pre-
  74
  served as an open space, or on trusts which prohibit building thereon, shall not be granted or conveyed for the purposes of this Act.")—(The Lord Thring.)
  Agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  DIRECTORS LIABILITY BILL.—(No. 242.)
  Amendment reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  CENSUS (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL. (No. 226.)
  Read 3a (according to order), with the amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  MARRIAGES IN BRITISH EMBASSIES, &c. BILL.—(No. 167.)
  Read 3a (according to order), with the amendments; further amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  ROYAL UNITED SERVICE INSTITUTION.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, in rising to inquire the intentions of Her Majesty's Government respecting the future accommodation of the Royal United Service Institution's Museum and Library; and to move for Correspondence between the Council of the Institution and Her Majesty's Government, said: My Lords, the Institution referred to in the Question which I rise to ask, has been, as your Lordships are aware, established for a great number of years, and has received a certain amount of support from the Government. The value of the Institution as regards its monetary position has very greatly increased during the last 50 years. I think they began with stock of the value of £40 or £50; that stock has now increased, and the value of the models, engravings, and many other articles, which are of the utmost value to both the Naval and Military Services, is about £20,000. The books, which, when they first commenced, were very small in number, have now increased to a very large library, which is most valuable for Military and Naval purposes, and that library is valued at £23,000. The subscriptions have doubled. Such of your Lordships as have attended the

  75
  various lectures, which are given during the season about once a week, must be perfectly aware of what immense value those lectures are to both Services. I may say they are attended not only by the most prominent members of both the Military and Naval Services, but that officers from the private fleets as well as engineers of great eminence attend those discussions and render the proceedings of the utmost possible value. If your Lordships have attended, as I have no doubt many have, you must be perfectly aware that some of the most distinguished officers in the Army and Navy take a lively interest and a very prominent part in those discussions; and whilst the scientific character of the Navy, as well as of the Army, is gradually increasing, the discussions of the newest subjects in science which take place there are of the utmost value to both Services. We have had meetings there presided over by the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief, by His Royal Highness the Duke of-Edinburgh, and by the different First Lords of the Admiralty. Last year a deputation waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I should mention, as showing what a precarious position the Institution now stands in, that this most valuable Museum is now crowded into a dark building where there is not room for anybody to examine its contents, or even a small portion of them; and the building itself is so dilapidated that it probably will not last many years longer. Moreover, they are in this precarious position: that the building is Government property; they are under notice to quit; and may be turned out at any moment. Her Majesty's Government have from time to time made, not exactly promises, but have held out very great hopes of assistance, and I was myself present about two years ago when the First Lord of the Admiralty used language which led us to hope that the Government certainly intended to give a new building or to provide facilities for procuring a new one. Since then an address has been presented to His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief on the subject, and a deputation has waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At first the answers given on behalf of the Government were tolerably encouraging, but I am sorry to
  76
  say on the last occasion (I think it was last month) the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the First Lord of the Admiralty, after communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the matter was hung up and that he could afford no hope to the Institution of any immediate assistance being given. Your Lordships are perfectly aware that the Institution and its valuable museum stand upon threatened ground. There are alterations going on in every direction round it, and the building itself is a perfect disgrace to the locality. I do venture to ask that Her Majesty's Government will give their attention to this matter, which is one of the utmost importance to the Military and Naval Services; both Services are interested in it, and the benefit which has been conferred by it I am sure no one who is connected with either of those Services will venture for a moment to deny.
  Moved,
  "That there be laid before this House, Correspondence between the Council of the Royal United Service Institution and Her Majesty's Government respecting the future accommodation of the museum and library of the Institution."—(The Viscount Sidmouth.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Earl BROWNLOW):In the absence of the Prime Minister I have to state that this question has not been at all lost sight of; on the contrary, it is still under consideration, but it is considered that, pending a decision, it would be undesirable to produce the correspondence which has passed on the subject.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH:I withdraw the Motion after what the noble Earl has stated, but I am really rather surprised that the Government should object to produce the correspondence.
  A noble LORD: I believe the correspondence is not yet completed.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

PROPOSED DOCK AT GIBRALTAR.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, in rising to ask for information as to the proposed dock at Gibraltar, said: My Lords, before the close of the Session, I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government the question which stands in my name with reference

  77
  to the proposed dock at Gibraltar. In April last Lord Elphinstone informed the House that the Admiralty were taking the matter in hand, and that they were extremely anxious that the dock should be commenced as soon as possible. As, however, I have been informed that nothing has been done, and seeing that the Session is nearly at an end, I should like to hear definitely from a Member of the Government whether anything has been done in the matter or not.
  EARL BROWNLOW:In answer to the question of the noble Viscount, I have to state that up to the present time no final decision has been arrived at as to the manner in which the construction of the proposed dock at Gibraltar will be carried out. I believe it was stated by Lord Elphinstone on the 24th April, in reply to the noble Viscount, that difficulties had arisen in carrying out the original proposals, and I am informed that since that time the whole matter has been under the consideration of a Departmental Committee. I am further informed that the Committee have now completed their work; but though the inquiry has been concluded, up to the present they have not reported to the Admiralty.

THE ATLANTIC CATTLE TRAFFIC.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE LA WARR, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to take any steps to regulate the Atlantic cattle traffic; and whether the Act of 1878 gives sufficient power to the Privy Council to provide proper accommodation for the transit of cattle; also, to move for a Return of Transatlantic ships which arrived in British ports with live cattle in the years 1888 and 1889, showing the losses sustained by each ship during the voyage, said: I wish to ask your Lordships' attention for a few moments to the condition in which cattle are found to arrive in this country which are brought over from the other side of the Atlantic. I believe a Bill was introduced into the other House of Parliament this Session bearing upon the subject; but it appears that that Bill, like, I am afraid, several other Bills, is about to be dropped for the present. I therefore venture to
  78
  ask for some little information from Her Majesty's Government as to whether any steps have been taken to impose more stringent regulations than now exist with regard to the accommodation for cattle on board these transatlantic ships. I know it has been sometimes mentioned that it would be very desirable that no live cattle should be transported from the other side of the Atlantic owing to the great difficulties attendant upon the traffic; but I do not wish now to enter upon that question. I think, however, it is a matter of the greatest importance to prevent the large amount of suffering and cruelty, besides loss of animals, which now exist, and that some very stringent regulations should be imposed by Her Majesty's Government to prevent these very serious cases of cruelty and loss of cattle. Now, to give your Lordships very shortly an idea of what has been going on, it has been reported that a deputation has waited upon Sir Michael Hicks Beach, consisting of Members of Parliament, on the subject of Mr. Plimsoll's Bill bearing upon this question, and Sir Michael Hicks Beach said, "The loss of animals shipped on some of these transatlantic vessels is horrible." I have a list of ships which arrived in British ports during 1888 and 1889, and I will read to your Lordships the names of some of the ships giving the numbers of animals which were lost:—The Palestine lost 168 out of 344 cattle; the Blenheim lost 128 out of 204; the Rialto lost 314 out of 328; the North Durham lost 281 out of 380. That was in 1888; and in 1889 the Oxford lost 151 out of 187; the Iowa lost 519 out 625; the Lake Superior lost 313 out of 470; and the Manitoba 204 out of 246. By this it appears that the loss of cattle was over two-thirds of the animals shipped. Now, assuming this to be correct as reported, what I would ask your Lordships to do is to authorise the verification by a Parliamentary Return of the particulars here given, which, I conclude, only forms a part of the subject. At the same time I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government whether any steps are proposed to be taken to regulate this traffic for the future, and whether there is not already sufficient power in the Act of 1878, as I believe there is, given to the Privy Council to ensure proper accommodation

  79
  in the transit of cattle. I beg to move for the Return mentioned in my Notice of Motion.
  Moved—
  "That there be laid before this House, Return of Transatlantic ships which arrived in British ports with live cattle in the years 1888 and 1889, showing the losses sustained by each ship during the voyage."—(The Earl De La Warr.)
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (The Earl of JERSEY):There is no doubt whatever that the subject to which the noble Earl has drawn attention is one which must excite our compassion, and I am glad to think that the answer I have to give him will prove satisfactory, at least, I hope so. A Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade and Board of Agriculture has been appointed to consider what further regulations may be necessary for protecting animals from unnecessary suffering during their transit by sea, and I believe it held its first meeting to-day. There is ample power given by the Act of 1878 for, making regulations in regard to the transit of cattle by sea. As regards the Return which is asked for, a similar Motion has been made in the other House of Parliament. The Return has been granted, and has been ordered to be printed, but it has not yet been circulated. It will be issued shortly, and, therefore, I presume the noble Earl will not require to have a duplicate Return made for this House.
  EARL DE LA WARR:Then I withdraw the Motion for the Return.
  Motion (by leave of the House), withdrawn.

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS, in rising to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether County Councils, having in view the economical administration of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, may, under Sub-section 2, of Section 52, consistently with the spirit and intention of the said Act, appoint, by arrangement with the District Committees, medical officers and sanitary inspectors, who shall act as the officers and Inspectors alike of the Council and of the districts, said: I have a question on the Paper which I wish to
  80
  put to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is a question which affects Scotland in particular; but it is a question which affects all your Lordships more or less, as it refers to the administration by County Councils of Local Government as between the County Councils and the District Committees. There are not yet, I believe, District Committees in England, but there is a prospect of there being a District Local Government in the form of District Committees in England at no distant period. Now, my object is, if possible, to ascertain whether the course which I think might be pursued under the Act, is one which is in accordance with the spirit and intention of that Act, and with a view to economy. There is no doubt that popular feeling as to rates is becoming very strong, both as regards rates in the country and rates in towns. This morning I was for a considerable time attending my duties as a Vestryman in St. James', and the question which came up there was the question of rates and their rapid and very great increase. In the parish of St. James's rates have risen to 4s. in £1—that is, a fifth of a man's income. So strong is the feeling that some limit ought to be put to rating, that I have given notice of a question which I shall not put until Parliament meets again. I have merely put it down in order that Her Majesty's Government may take it into consideration. It is to this effect: To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will bring in a Bill for the purpose of fixing the amount of rating by the London County Council, the London School Board, and other Metropolitan Municipal Authorities. So much for the feeling in London. In my own county this is the sort of thing with regard to rates that we have to deal with, and I think nothing gives a worse picture of the position of affairs throughout the agricultural districts than the figures which I have to submit to your Lordships. County Councils may not give us better government, or less expensive government; but I think they have done this, they have forced the members of those Councils to go more narrowly into this question of expenditure and rates than they would have done had not this system of Local Government been established. We have had to do that in my

  81
  county, and I find that this is the state of affairs there. As regards the county in general the valuation, in 1845, was £246,000; in 1880, it was £354,000; and in 1889, it had fallen to £244,000. That is the county valuation in what is generally supposed to be a prosperous county, the County of Haddington. That is, in 1889–90, it is £2,000 less than it was in the year 1845. But how, as to the rates and assessment? Why the assessment which was in the year 1845 £8,000 is £17,000 on the reduced valuation of 1889. Let me take the case of an estate in that county; the rents of that estate are down 25 per cent., while the taxation or rates are up 50 per cent. Now, I think, under those circumstances, it is desirable that this new Local Government Act in Scotland, and everywhere else, should be administered with due regard, of course, to efficiency, but also with the utmost regard to all possible economy. As regards the sanitary provisions under that Act, there is a provision by Sub-section 2 of Section 52 by which, by an arrangement between the District Committees and the County Council, the medical officers of the districts or of the County Councils may be made to do double duty—that the officers of the district shall be officers of the Council. On the other hand, it is possible to appoint a head officer, who may or may not be resident, as a sort of hierarch, with sanitary officers under him. That means the displacement of existing medical officers and Sanitary Inspectors; it means a great deal of heart-burning and a great deal of friction; and I cannot but think that this provision was introduced by the noble Lord into his Bill with a view to the more full, and, at the same time, more economical, administration of the Public Health Acts, without raising questions which are invidious as regards the merits of the different local Medical and Sanitary Authorities, and creating, as I have said, much friction, heart-burning, and jealousy. On the other hand, I have heard it said that such a provision would not be in accordance with the intention of the Act. I ask, why, then, is there such a provision in it? My firm belief is that it is in accordance alike with the spirit and the intention of the Act, and that it will tend, as I
  82
  believe, to the good working of the Act in the different counties of Scotland. There is, moreover, in case of any difficulty arising, an appeal to the Board of Supervision, and, besides that, it would be competent for the County Council to take the opinion of some medical authority upon sanitary matters, if any special occasion arises, as they can now take a legal opinion upon ordinary law and other matters. I think, then, it was intended under this Act that County Councils should, if they think fit, act in the way I have ventured to suggest, and it is with a view of getting this matter cleared up that I now put the question which stands in my name.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY:Before the noble Marquess replies to my noble Friend's question, which I have no doubt in my own mind will be in the affirmative, I should like to allude to the subject under discussion, as it is one of great importance in Scotland, and I do so also as Chairman of the Public Health Committee in my own county. I do not apprehend the very great difficulties which the noble Earl does. I think the matter will depend entirely upon the management of the County Council as between it and the District Committee. In our own case what we have done is this: we have resolved at once, in accordance with the Act, to appoint a head Sanitary Inspector; we have proceeded to appoint a Sanitary Inspector for the County of Aberdeen; we have then suggested to the District Committees that his services should be at their disposal, and that he should have the supervision of the local Sanitary Inspectors. We were, of course, alarmed at the extraordinary volume of expenditure we might have had to rush into if we appointed Sanitary Inspectors all over the districts, and we have approached this question prudently. Hitherto the Public Health Acts in Scotland have been administered at a very low cost indeed. I can tell your Lordships that the Public Health Acts for the whole county of Aberdeen, comprising 87 parishes, have been administered by medical officers and inspectors, at yearly salaries of £267 altogether. There is a medical officer for each parish, and a Sanitary Inspector for each parish, and it is very easy to see that the salaries of those

  83
  men would be about from £3 to £4 only. It was absurd to suppose that you could carry out the provisions of this new Act at that low rate, but we believed that we ought not to rush into expenditure, and therefore we have informed the District Committees that the services of our Sanitary Inspector were at their disposal for the purpose of supervising their local men. Before the noble Marquess replies I would remind the noble Earl that there is a great difficulty in laying down hard and fast rules on the matter, because the districts vary so in size. For instance, there may be a district lying close to a town where the County Sanitary Inspector can easily supervise the District Committee's men, locally in each parish, but if you take the case of some far away district in the Highlands it would be impossible for the County Sanitary Inspector to overtake the whole of the duties over that district. So that we have suggested that the parishes should group their districts, but always bearing in mind that the County Sanitary Inspector should be their head. I do not apprehend that Scottish prudence will very readily lead these bodies into reckless expenditure in this matter. I do not think County Government has been extravagantly managed in the past, and therefore I do not believe that in the future the County Councils are going to be extravagant.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN:I do not think there is any doubt as to the answer which will be given by the noble Marquess, because there is a clause in the Act which states that such an arrangement as the noble Earl proposes may be made between the County Councils and the District Committees. It is evidently the intention of the Act that such arrangements should be made, where possible, for the purpose of economy and good management. But I do not desire to go at any length into the matter, I have only risen because this question of Medical Inspectors has now, for the first time, been mentioned to this House, which is, I think, a most important question with regard to the administration of Local Government in Scotland. At the present time, in the county which I have to deal with, the county of Forfar, it is generally felt that the good management of the County Ad-
  84
  ministration will greatly turn on the manner in which these appointments of medical officers and Sanitary Inspectors are made. We feel that there is a great risk that if we make appointments of medical officers at high salaries, and of Sanitary Inspectors also, we shall find ourselves in this position, that we shall not be able to change our arrangements, we shall not be able to get rid of these Inspectors after we have once appointed them, without the approval of the Board of Supervision, and that naturally makes us careful and cautious as to what we do. The County Council with which I am connected will meet next week to consider this matter, and I wish to say one thing to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Scotland which I think he may, perhaps, deem worthy of attention. It is this: That many of us feel we should be in a much better position to deal with this difficult question if we had some means of consultation or conference with the Board of Supervision in Edinburgh, at which the various Councils were represented. Of course, I do not mean, for a moment, that the Board of Supervision should attempt (and I am sure they would not wish in any way to do so), to force their authority on the County Councils. On the other hand, I am convinced that the County Councils, or, at least, all the sensible County Councils, would be very much obliged to the Central Authority if they would invite a Conference at which all these questions might be considered and discussed. It is obvious, as has already been stated by the noble Marquess the Marquess of Huntley, that these matters must be thoroughly considered and discussed if we are to arrange our local business in an economical and prudent manner, and it is for that purpose that I am sure—I, at all events, as Chairman of a County Council, may say that I should be very much obliged for any suggestions or hints that I may receive as to the manner in which these appointments may best be made for such a county as that which I represent.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN):The noble Earl has asked me a question to which I have great pleasure in replying, but I should like to remind him before I proceed to give my reply

  85
  that he must understand that any opinion which I give is simply an opinion of my own, because it is impossible for me or anyone else to give a legal interpretation of an Act of Parliament. That can only be done by a Judicial Tribunal. I should like to make one more observation before I reply to the noble Earl's question. I have gathered from his speech that there is an impression in his mind that there has been some extravagance on the part of the County Councils, or some tendency on the part of the County Councils to extravagance in the management of the county business. I do not know whether I am mistaken in that or not, but as far as I am concerned, I think the County Councils have entered upon their new duties with every desire to carry them out with efficiency and economy combined. With regard to the question put by the noble Earl, I think the remarks which fell from the noble Marquess opposite have pretty nearly answered that question. Much depends upon what the object of the noble Earl is in asking the question. He refers to Section 52 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act. He states very truly that the County Councils are bound to appoint medical officers and Sanitary Inspectors for the county, but Sub-section 2 modifies that to this extent, that the County Councils, by consent, and by mutual arrangement with the District Committees, may appoint the County Sanitary Inspectors and medical officers as officials for the different districts. I think that sub-section was inserted in the Act with the obvious intention of economy, because it tends rather to discourage, as far as might be desirable, the appointment of separate medical officers, and separate Sanitary Inspectors in every district in the county. Of course, if the county officers are appointed district officers also, no doubt great economy will be effected. But, as far as I gathered from the speech of the noble Earl, his object is to get an opinion from me that it is desirable, and that it would be within the scope and intention of the Act that all the district officers, as such, should be appointed county officers. I am bound to tell him that I do not think that that is within the intention of the
  86
  Act, and I think it is pretty obvious it, cannot be so, because from the clause, if looked at, it is evident the whole object of the arrangement is that the county officials shall supervise and inspect the work of the district officials. If you appoint the latter to be county officials, they would simply be revising and inspecting their own work. Under those circumstances it would not be a very desirable arrangement, even if it were within the scope of the Act that such an arrangement should be carried into effect. I fail to see where the question of economy comes in. Take the case of the county in which the noble Earl is interested. There are 10 medical officers in that county with districts of larger or smaller size. Some of those Inspectors receive £5, and one of them receives not more than 30s. salary. If those officers, are discharged they will be entitled now to some sort of superannuation. Still the amount which would come to them under salaries of that amount would not be very rninous. On the other hand, I think a large saving would be effected to the county if such arrangements under Clause 52 could be carried into effect, and if the county officers were made, where desirable, district officials as well. I am bound to say that I think the wording of the section would give that interpretation which the noble Earl puts upon it, but that as far as the intention of it goes, in reference to the noble Earl's last question, I do not think that is within the intention of the clause. With regard to what fell from the noble Earl opposite (Lord Camperdown) there is but one point which I need refer to, and that is the question of the Conference he suggests between the Chairmen of Committees, or conveners of the different County Councils. I entirely agree with what has fallen from the noble Earl, and I think nothing could be more desirable than that there should be some general idea arrived at in regard to carrying out the work of the County Councils. I think that should be brought about by some such means as he has suggested, and I do not think any difficulty whatever would be raised by the Board of Supervision in carrying out such an idea. All I can say is, that if I can do anything in the matter I shall be most happy to do so. I think

  87
  that answers the question which has been put, and I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with any farther remarks upon this matter.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS:Then, as I gather from the noble Marquess, he admits my interpretation, and that what I have proposed is legal according to the wording of the Act, but that the Act does not really carry out the intentions of its framers.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN:No. What I say is that the language of the section might bear that interpretation, but it is not the intention of the Act that such an interpretation should be put upon it.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS:Then that is exactly what I have said.
  House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter-past Four o'clock.