Lords Sitting of 11 August 1890

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: The Amendment which I wish to move will have the effect of restoring the Bill to the form in which it was originally put forward by the London County Council, and as it was passed by the House of Commons in regard to that part of the Bill which proposes that the maximum height of houses should be 70 feet and one storey in the roof. The Select Committee have increased that height to 90 feet and two storeys in the roof. That will be the height allowed if the Bill, as altered by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House, is permitted to stand. That is an addition of 35 feet, for with the additional storey it will raise the height of buildings to 105 feet or more, and there is also an allowance for architectural adornments. There is the less reason for giving this general permission to build houses upwards of 100 feet high, since another provision, which is a very good one, has been added by the Select Committee, which allows of new houses being built up to the height of existing houses in streets such as Victoria Street, Westminster, where there are several gaps still remaining in the buildings along the street. The clause, moreover, allows a greater height where the consent of the County Council has been obtained. The Bill also provides a very good tribunal in the shape of surveyors and architects. In all new streets which are constantly being made in the outskirts of London the sanitary scale of the height of houses not exceeding the width of the street is already made obligatory by statute, but considerable doubts have been expressed whether this power possessed by the County Council might not over-ride the Statute, and permit houses of a height of over 100 feet even in new streets. No provision has been made for narrow streets existing in London, such as may be found at the back of
  450
  Victoria Street, where houses of great height would be excessively prejudicial to health, and would shut out both light and air from the neighbouring houses. Even buildings 70 feet high will do that in narrow streets, but to allow houses to be built to a height of over 100 feet would be far worse. The additional storey in the roof, that is the two storeys instead of one granted by the Select Committee, would add to the un-healthiness of these houses, and also to the danger from fire. Your Lordships are, no doubt, aware in regard to the unhealthiness of these houses, that from the character of the outer walls they are like ovens in summer and very cold in winter, but that point was not gone into. Neither did the Select Committee take any evidence as to the danger from fire and the means of meeting that danger. If they had done so, I believe they would have been told that it was proposed to place cisterns in the roofs of these houses accompanied by hydrants, which it is supposed might be easily set to work; but whether such appliances will be effective or not depends upon having persons at hand who would understand how to use the hydrants, and having sufficient presence of mind to use them. Houses of this size would also require to be provided with other means of meeting danger; such precautions as balconies passing from one part of the building to the other, and fire-proof galleries inside. The excuse given for asking for this increased height of 30 feet or more is the cost of the ground in certain parts of London, but it would be very inconsistent to make sacrifices to procure open spaces to provide air in the Metropolis, and at the same time to impede light and air by such monstrous buildings, excluding the access of any light and air except perpendicularly. This enormous height is not required for artisans' dwellings. Artisans' dwellings could not without too much increase of rent be provided with lifts and persons to work them. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who have a large amount of property in London, who are very competent judges on the subject, and who were appealed to on the subject before this Bill of the London County Council was brought in, had agreed to the 70 feet maximum limit, and they would not stir or raise their little finger

  451
  to obtain any increase of that height. But if your Lordships should think the 70 feet too low a limit, and that there is some reason for raising it, I would still urge that an increase of 35 feet is too much, especially when even in exceptional cases that limit cannot be exceeded without application to the County Council. So that if your Lordships should think that, as a compromise, 80 feet would be better than 70, I would accept that, and move for the insertion of 80 feet.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "90," and insert "70."—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  LORD HOUGHTON: I hope your Lordships will not agree to the Amendment which has been moved by my noble Friend. This question of the height of houses came before the Select Committee upon which I had the honour of sitting, and received very careful consideration; in fact, I believe we devoted more than a day to the consideration of this one clause. I do not understand that my noble Friend brings forward this matter exactly as representing the London County Council. There are other noble Lords who are in the habit of speaking for the London County Council; and as they are not present, I think it is only fair to assume that the County Council are prepared to bow to the decision of the Select Committee. I do not understand that my noble Friend does more than take an amateur interest in the beauty of London. He takes an entirely different line to that which was taken by the County Council before the Select Committee. It was stated by the County Council, with great frankness, that their only object in introducing this clause was to prevent the erection of monstrous buildings, of which, perhaps, the best known example now is the large residential mansions at Queen Anne's Gate. But the noble Lord seems to want to confer upon them general powers over buildings in London, and, in fact, to constitute them a kind of Committee of Taste for London, an office which they themselves expressly disclaim. Perhaps I might call to your Lordships' attention, as it is rather difficult to judge from a single building, the figures of the heights of some well-known buildings in London. The Queen Anne's Mansion
  452
  building is 145 feet high to the top of the wall. That has a flat roof, and therefore the question of extra stories does not arise. But to come to buildings which I think your Lordships will all agree are not exceedingly high placed in the position in which they are, I may mention that the public building which includes the Foreign Office and other public offices is 89 feet high, and I do not think anybody will say that is an excessive height for a building fronting an open space. Then the buildings in Northumberland Avenue greatly exceed the proposed height, and so do a good many new buildings in Piccadilly, to which I think no particular exception has been taken. I am bound to say the instance which guided us most in our decision was Grosvenor Place. The houses there are 82 feet high, and they have in some places three stories in the roof. I cannot think that houses of that height can be looked upon as monstrosities, although in certain places they might very possibly be found to be too high. Then there is the case of the building known as Albert Mansions at Albert Gate. The history of that building is very well known. It was originally intended to build it to an extreme height, but the First Commissioner of Works, Mr. Plunket, with great adroitness was able to check that by threatening to build a wall between it and the Park, and to carry the wall up to the height of the building. As the building stands it is over 100 feet. I think your Lordships will agree it is far from being un-ornamental, and as a matter of fact it has been, I should say, generally much admired. On the Committee it was our unanimous opinion that the London County Council ought to have powers to check the excessive height of buildings, but that it should not be continually called upon to revise plans or to decrease the elevations of buildings of which the height is more a matter of taste than I may say of symmetry. Because I must remind your Lordships there is a very great extent of frontage in London. There is especially the river frontage, and the whole of the frontage on the parks, as well as the frontage in the larger squares. In those positions very high buildings may be very properly allowed, and I think your Lordships will all agree that

  453
  up to quite a recent time the buildings in London had been too low for any ornamental effect. I should also remind your Lordships that this is really a new power. As my noble Friend said, at present there is a power for dealing with new streets, but there is no power whatever of interfering with the heights of buildings in other localities. It seemed to us that, this being a new power, it ought to be used with great caution, and we did not wish to confer upon the Council a power of using it indiscriminately. Your Lordships will remember that in one of the other Bills dealing with property in London which we have had before us, dealing with St. Pancras, it seemed to a great many of your Lordships that we had hardly been tender enough of the rights of property. In this instance my noble Friend seems to think that we have treated the rights of property with too great deference. But I do not believe your Lordships will be of that opinion, and I cannot help thinking that at this period of the Session your Lordships will not interfere in the manner suggested by my noble Friend. I must appeal to your Lordships not to overturn the decision of the Committee, which was arrived at after very careful deliberation and after hearing a great deal of evidence.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: There was a time when I used to glory in the Hankey Buildings. I used to point to them as showing what complete liberty we enjoyed in this Metropolis and in this country. But now we are fast losing our liberty and have got Hankey Buildings. I think, then, if a check can be put upon the erection of such buildings, it is certainly desirable. A 90 feet limit did certainly appear rather high, but from what has fallen from my noble Friend now, when he says that the buildings in Grosvenor Place are more than that, 90 feet does not seem an unreasonable height. But I think it depends very much upon the width of the street and where the buildings are erected. A building which on the bank of the river or fronting upon a broad street might reasonably be 90 feet in height would be utterly unreasonable and would produce utter darkness in a very narrow street. I should like to know from my noble Friend who has just spoken whether powers are taken
  454
  to regulate buildings according to the width of the street, for if no such powers are given the result may be somewhat serious.
  LORD HOUGHTON: I may say at once, in reply to my noble Friend, that there was no clause of that kind in the Bill as it was originally brought before us. I understood that it was not found possible to draw a clause which would give the County Council the power of dealing with houses in narrow streets, though I am bound to say I quite agree with my noble Friend on the Cross Benches that if such power could be conferred as is given in the case of new streets it would be extremely desirable.
  On Question, "That the word 'ninety' stand part of the Bill," disagreed to.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Before this Bill passes there is one clause to which I wish to direct your Lordships' attention. It is Clause 26, which exempts members of the London County Council from service on juries. This has been done in a sort of surreptitious manner, as there is no such provision in the Act which constituted the County Council, and no such provision was contained in the Act of 1855, which constituted the Metropolitan Board of Works. Usually the present London County Council are supposed to be the successors of the Metropolitan Board of Works in regard to their powers and duties, and I am at a loss to know on what principle an exemption is to be allowed in the case of members of that Council, which did not exist in regard to the duties of the members of the late Metropolitan Board. If the County Councillors are to be thus exempted why should not Vestrymen have the same exemption, and I speak as a Vestryman myself? Vestries comprise many tradesmen, and all tradesmen are anxious to attend to their own business and not to serve on juries. They have a great deal of hard work to do on committees as well as the ordinary vestry work, and why should not they be exempted. Why also should not County Councillors in the country be exempted? When once you open such a door as this, you cannot tell how far the matter will go, and I therefore have to move that Clause 26, exempting members of the County Council from service on juries, be struck out of the Bill.
  Amendment moved, "To omit Clause 26."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I think it is very unusual to make so very large an alteration in a Bill on Third Reading without notice given. I do not know why my noble Friend did not take the point he now urges at an earlier stage.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I was not aware of it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think this is a considerable invasion of our ordinary rule.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: I would point out to my noble Friend that the question was fully discussed in another place, and that it certainly is an unusual course, on Motion that the Bill do pass, that so important an Amendment should be moved without any notice having been given of it.
  On Question, "That Clause 26 stand part of the Bill," agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  ALDERSHOT ROADS BILL.—(No. 219.)
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

  THE ANGLO-FRENCH AGREEMENT.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before proceeding with the other public business on the Paper, I have merely to say a word or two with reference to the Agreement which I have laid on the Table. I am sorry we have lost even the scanty attendance of those Members of the Opposition whose presence we previously enjoyed; but I do not think that the attendance in the House, though it is not large, is insufficient for the consideration of the few remarks I have to make upon this Agreement, the importance of which has, I think, been a good deal overrated. The Paper which I have laid on the Table consists of an Agreement which has been signed by the French Ambassador and myself with respect to three matters in which we are concerned in Africa. The first point with which it deals is the question of the Agreement of 1862, which was entered into between
  456
  France and England, and which was subsequently assented to by Germany. The meaning of that Agreement was open to considerable contest. The French Government were of opinion that it gave them a veto upon the establishment of any protectorate over Zanzibar. That was not the opinion of the German Government or of ourselves; but as the terms of the Agreement seemed to lend themselves to an ambiguity of interpretation in consequence of their departure from the form it has been usual to employ in dealing with questions of protectorate, we thought it desirable to ask the French Government to modify the form of this Agreement, and that they have consented to do. It so happened that while our position was, owing to the difference of construction put upon this Instrument, to some extent ambiguous in Zanzibar, the position of the French Government was also ambiguous with respect to the island of Madagascar. Many years ago, in the time of Lord Malmesbury, a verbal agreement had been made by the two Governments not to establish any protectorate in Madagascar. The result of the operations which took place a few years ago in Madagascar was that, to all intents and purposes, a protectorate was established, and in 1886 the French Government concluded an Agreement with the Queen of Madagascar, under which, while the Queen of Madagascar retained to herself entire independence with respect to the internal government of the country, the management of all the foreign relations of the island was passed over to the French Resident. This Agreement between France and Madagascar has never up to this time been recognised by this country; that is to say, that neither we nor, I think, any other countries have accepted exequaturs from the French Resident. The result has been some impediment to the conduct of diplomatic business. By the Paper which I have now laid on the Table we have agreed to recognise the Madagascar Treaty of 1886, or, at least, to recognise the protectorate to which the Madagascar Government consented by that Instrument, and to accept the exequaturs of Consuls and Ministers through the medium of the French Resident. I need not say that these two acts regularising the positions of the two Governments in Zanzibar and

  457
  Madagascar will not have much practical effect one way or the other. Practically, our influence in Zanzibar would have remained the same if the Treaty of 1862 had not been modified, and practically the position of the French in Madagascar would have been unchanged if the Treaty of 1886 had not been recognised by us. But the result of the mutual exchange of the declarations which have taken place is to put the situation of both Governments on a more regular footing. We have taken the opportunity on both sides, not only to reserve all rights and privileges which subjects of either country might have in either island, but also to give the most explicit guarantee to missionaries and missions, and to the freedom of religious practice and religious teaching. Besides this question affecting the two islands, we have dealt with another matter in which we were both interested. The country to the south of the Mediterranean possessions of France is, of course, open to the action of the French Government, and according to the modern doctrine of Hinterland the French Government would have a certain claim upon it; certainly, so far as I know, no other person has any claim. On the other hand, at the other end of the Continent the British Niger Company, which acts under a Royal Charter, has established a very flourishing dominion over a very fertile land, and its commercial enterprise is advancing with considerable rapidity. It has established relations with the native Potentates of that country, and the Treaties which it has concluded give to it rights extending much further inland—that is to say, much further north—than the actual range of its commercial operations. It was obvious that if this process went on the two Powers would meet—the French Government and the Royal Niger Company—and, indeed, there was nothing to prevent the French Government from advancing as far as it liked to the south at the present moment. There was no Treaty or international right in its way, but it seemed to us very desirable that some effort should be made to draw a line separating the two spheres of activity. It is consequently provided that a line should be drawn from a place called Say, which is at present the ultimate point of the influence of the Niger Company, on
  458
  the River Niger, to another place northwest of Lake Tchad called Barruwa. But as the Niger Company has made Treaties with the great Empire of Sokoto, it is expressly provided that the line shall be drawn so as to place not only Sokoto but all that fairly belongs to it within the zone of the Niger Company. That, of course, will necessitate the line being deflected somewhat to the north. In this arrangement I think the Niger Company has benefited considerably, for although it has made Treaties with Sokoto, it has made none with the Empire of Bornu, which lies along the western shore of Tchad, and that country was open to the operations of anyone who could persuade the Sultan of Bornu to enter into arrangements with him. It is therefore of advantage that a line should be drawn which gives the considerably larger part of the western shore of Lake Tchad to the Niger Company. I will not dwell upon the respective advantages of places which are utterly unknown not only to your Lordships, but to the rest of the white human race; I will only say that the noble Lord the Chairman of the Niger Company, with whom I have been in constant communication, expresses himself well content with the arrangement to which we have coMR. I think that it is a desirable arrangement as far as it has gone, but it will not escape your Lordships that it is a very inchoate arrangement, as we have only agreed on the two points from which the line is to start, and it will remain for a Commission to settle what the intermediate locus of the line will be, it being guided under the Instrument by no other consideration than this—that whatever fairly belongs to the Empire of Sokoto is to go to the zone of the British Niger Company. In conclusion, I have only to say that what we have done concerns solely the territory to the south of the French possessions on the Mediterranean. We have exchanged Notes by which both Powers recognise that nothing that we have done is intended to affect, or does, in fact, affect, any rights which the Sultan of Turkey may have with reference to the regions lying south of his Tripoli dominions. In addition, it has been agreed that a Commission is to consider the relations of the two countries in

  459
  other parts of the Niger, and to delimitate their respective spheres of influence. But with respect to that part of the subject we have come to no conclusion, but have left it entirely to the Commission. The Commission has, I believe, been named, and I have no doubt that it will work in the autumn, but of course the consent of both sides of the Commission is necessary to any determination to which we may come, and it is possible that the negotiations may take some time. I have nothing else to say; but I thought it necessary to say these few words, in order to remove some misconception which seems to have existed as to the character of our transactions with respect to the Algerian Hinterland. Anyone who looks at the map and merely measures the degrees will perhaps be of opinion that France has laid claim to a very considerable stretch of country. But it is necessary to judge land not merely by its extent but also by its value. This land is what agriculturists would call "very light" land; that is to say, it is the desert of Sahara, and, therefore, of course, the value of that part which France has asserted her dominion over is to that extent diminished. I believe, however, that the Agreement is a very fair one, and that both parties will find their profit in it. It certainly asserts dominion over countries which neither party has explored, and into which I suspect that many years, and possibly some generations, may pass away before either French or English civilization penetrates.

  HOP INDUSTRY, TOWN HOLDINGS, INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL.
  Message to the House of Commons for copy of the Reports, &c., from the Select Commitees.
  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Standing Orders considered and amended, and to be printed as amended. (No. 266.)
PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION EX PENSES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 249).

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): This Bill has for its object to provide for the payment of clerks of Unions and collectors of poor rate in Ireland in respect of the additional duties imposed upon them by the change in the Parliamentary Franchise made in 1884, which duties are very onerous and important. At that time no provision was made for any payment to the poor rates collectors or clerks of Unions, and they were left without any remuneration for the work they had to do under the Parliamentary Franchise Act, although some Boards of Guardians have been in the habit of paying clerks of Unions for it. This Bill is for the purpose of making proper provision for payment to these officials. It has passed the other House without opposition, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

TRAMWAYS ORDER IN COUNCIL (IRE LAND) (SOUTH CLARE RAILWAYS) BILL.—(No. 251).

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, this is a Bill introduced by the Government as regards the Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1860. Its object is simply to confirm an Order made by the Lord Lieutenant in Council authorising the construction of the tramway mentioned in the Order, and I move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS ACT, 1889.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD(who, by consent of the House, was heard sitting) in asking Her Majesty's Government (1) when a landlord becomes liable under the 5th and 6th sections of the Public Works Loans Act, 1889, for such a portion of a loan made to a tenant as may be found at the time of the determination of the tenancy to be equivalent to the improved value of the land resulting from the outlay of the loan,—(a.) From what date does the

  461
  rentcharge become due by the landlord? (b.) For what period is it made payable? (c.) At what rate of interest is it calculated? (2.) Whether they will lay on the Table of the House the rules made by the Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland under Section 6 of the Act in question? said: My Lords, before I put to the noble Lord the question which I have on the Paper, I should like to say a few words in explanation of the reason of it. Considerable interest is felt in this matter, because much uncertainty exists in connection with these loans. Certain points in the Public Works Loans Act are open to considerable doubt as to their precise force and meaning, and it is very desirable that some information should be given upon them. The Act was passed last year, and in it were two clauses which altogether altered the law in Ireland with regard to public loans. Up to that time, if a tenant had obtained a loan, he alone was liable. In fact, the question was tried over and over again from 1860 to 1884. In 1860 the Master of the Rolls in Ireland decided that the tenant alone was liable, and not the owner of the fee. In 1884 the Court of Appeal decided again in the same way; but in this Act the clauses I refer to make the landlord—the owner in fee—liable for a loan contracted without his consent, and probably against his wish, by his tenant, provided that the tenancy had become determined and the owner in fee had come into possession. That was the proposition when the Bill first came into another place, but it was felt to be a little too strong, and the clause was watered down, so that now it runs that the owner in fee is only liable for such amount of money as would represent the actual improvement to the holding. In the first place, I will mention to my noble Friend that in Ireland I hear at this moment the Board of Works are making application for the arrears of rent or rent-charge due upon tenants' holdings that have determined. And as in this Bill it says "on the determination of the holding," surely the owners in fee are not liable to anything before the determination of the holding. I think the Board of Works in Ireland are rather of that opinion themselves, because a form of
  462
  letter has come before me which is very curiously worded, in which the Board of Works ask the owner of the fee whether he considers himself liable, the writer stating, "I shall be glad to hear whether you dispute the liability." That is a very curious way of wording their demand, and I think they must really mean that they believe they have no right to make such a claim, and therefore one of the questions which I put to my noble Friend is, when this rent-charge really becomes payable and from what time it is meant to run. I believe there is a question as to whether tenants are included in this Act. It was stated, I believe, at the time the Act was passed that the tenants' loans were not included, but on reading the Act I should say that they were. Now, I am told that any tenants could get loans up to the time of the passing of the Act of 1881 if they had leases of 40 years to run; but if the tenants are included it would be a great question what the interest is to be. I believe it was stated originally when the Act was brought forward that the tenants' interest was not to be reduced, but apparently it will be reduced; and I wish to put this question—it is under the fifth and sixth sections of the Act—from what time does the rent-charge become due with regard to the land, and when it begins to run? This Act says it begins to run from the determination of the tenancy; therefore, surely the arrears cannot be collected. Then I want to know at what period it becomes payable after it becomes due, and at what rate the interest is to be calculated, because the Act reduces the rate of interest from 6 to 5 per cent. and from 5 to 4 per cent. Therefore, I ask whether the interest now to be paid by the owner in fee is to be reduced at the same rate that it would have been reduced if he had contracted the loan himself. Then the last question I ask my noble Friend is whether he will lay upon the Table the Rules made by the Commissioners of Valuations with regard to this point under Section 6 of the Act? I hope my noble Friend will be able to answer these questions satisfactorily, because there is a good deal of feeling and uncertainty as to these matters in Ireland at the present time.
  EARL CADOGAN: I am not surprised at the feeling of uncertainty which the noble Marquess has described, for it certainly is not clear what is the exact interpretation to be placed on those sections of the Act to which he has referred. With regard to the question which the noble Marquess has asked upon sub-sections (a) and (b) on the Notice Paper, I have to say that they are questions which can only be answered by the interpretation of the law, which I am afraid it would not be competent or desirable for me to give in the shape of an answer in Parliament. I have, however, communicated with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I will endeavour to obtain a legal opinion on the subject and give the noble Marquess an answer as soon as possible. With reference to subsection (c) of the question, the answer to that is that the interest is calculated at the same rate as before.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: That is, calculated at the same rate as the interest provided under the Bill, because it was higher before?
  EARL CADOGAN: The interest under the Bill is calculated at the same rate as before.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: Then the interest to be calculated is at the rate under this Act of 1889?
  EARL CADOGAN: At the same rate as before the determination of the tenancy. Then with regard to Section 2, I have only to say that there would be no objection to lay on the Table of the House the Rules made by the Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland, and if the noble Marquess moves for them they will be granted.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: Then I beg leave to move now for those Rules.
  "Rules made by the Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland under Section 6 of the Act:" Ordered to be laid before the House—(The Lord Tyrone [M. Waterford]),
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: I would ask whether the noble Lord thinks he will be able to give me an answer to the Questions (a) and (b) before Parliament rises?
  EARL CADOGAN: I neither know when Parliament will rise, nor when the
  464
  lawyers will come to a decision. It was stated the other night that they do not always agree, but I will do my best to give my noble Friend the information he desires as soon as possible.

LOCAL TAXATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) DUTIES BILL.—(No. 261.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (The Earl of JERSEY): This is a measure dealing with the distribution of any Customs and Excise Duties, and it will be received with considerable satisfaction by the County Councils. As I do not suppose it will give rise to any prolonged discussion in this House, I think a very few words only will be necessary to explain its provisions. In the first place, it provides that a sum of £300,000 shall be allotted for the purpose of police superannuation in England, of which £150,000 will be handed over to the Metropolitan Police, and the remainder to the County Police Forces; and that the residue shall, for the present, be distributed between the County and the County Borough Funds, and carried to the Exchequer contribution accounts of the different Councils. It gives power to these Councils to use this residue, or any portion of it, for the purpose of technical education in their respective districts. A Council may either contribute directly, or else it may give sums of money towards that object to Town Councils or Urban Authorities for them to deal with. These contributions will be in addition to, or over and above, any sum which, under the Technical Education Act of 1889, the different Town Councils and similar Authorities are authorised to levy by rate. In Wales the County Councils will be able, if they choose, to use their portion of the sum for the purpose of intermediate and technical education. This measure also deals with the Scotch and Irish grants in aid; but I do not think I need say anything further with regard to them. I beg leave to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

POLICE BILL.—(No. 262.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, this Bill applies to England, excluding the City of London, and to Wales, but not to Scotland or Ireland. The matter has been before Parliament for the last 13 years, and since the Committee which at that period sat under the Presidency of Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson, Bills have, in 1880 and 1885, been brought in by various Members, but they have been successfully resisted by those who objected to any further charge on the local rates. The matter has been before the present Government for a considerable time, but it was delayed—intentionally delayed—until the Local Government Act of 1888 had passed. By that Act a new Financial Authority was created, and it was thought well to hear what that new authority had to say on the question before legislation was proceeded with. The Bill may be briefly divided into three parts, and I will briefly describe its provisions without wearying your Lordships with any figures or statistics whatever, but as it is a matter which, owing to many circumstances, has excited much interest, if any noble Lord desires further particulars I shall be happy to give them. The first part deals with pensions as of right; the second with pensions according to scale up to 25 years' service; and the third with pensions after 25 years' service, subject to age limit, if any. The new scale was a slight rise on the old metropolitan scale over the 25 years' service, and in the Metropolis it is not proposed to impose the limit of life service. The scale of ordinary pensions in the country is left to be fixed by each Police Authority within the limits of a maximum and a minimum laid down in the Bill. The duties and conditions of service in the various police forces differ so much that an amount of variation seems necessary. One uniform scale would not suit all police forces, but the scheme of the Bill is that there shall no longer be differences in the same district. Thus, although the ordinary scale of pensions may be different in the various rural and urban districts, there will no longer be differences between one man and another in the same district. After
  466
  25 years' service the constable is entitled without medical certificate to retire on pension. There are also provisions made for special pensions for men who are partially or wholly disabled from earning their livelihood by injuries received in the execution of their duty, either accidentally or not accidentally, and there is likewise provision made for gratuities to constables who have not earned a pension, and for allowances and gratuities to the widows and children of constables who die whilst in the service, or within 12 months after retiring on pension. Now, I will say just a few words about the Metropolitan Force. They have additional advantages on the old scale. The amount of their ordinary and special pensions will be substantially the same as at present, but as I have already said they will be as of right, and the forfeiture or refusal of a pension, even for misconduct, may be questioned by an appeal to a Court of Law. This will carry a right to 31–50ths of their pay after 25 years' service, without medical certificate and without question of age. If a constable has contributed by his own default to the inefficiency which compels him to retire, his pension may not be reduced by more than one-half, and gratuities may be given to the widows and children of constables who die from natural causes whilst serving in the Force. That, I think, is a general summary of this very important measure. It is founded largely on Mr. Fowler's Bill, and has been thoroughly discussed for several days before a Select Committee of the other House. I beg to move the Second Reading.
  Bill read 2a (according to order) and committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 263.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN): I find some difficulty in asking your Lordships' attention to this Bill, because the state of the Benches on the other side of the House is not such as to induce one to give a very long explanation of any Bill which may be brought

  467
  before your Lordships. At the same time, I am gratified to see that both the Members of your Lordships' House present, one on the Cross and the other on the Opposition Benches, are interested in Scotland. Your Lordships have just given your assent to a Bill providing for police superannuation in England, and the Bill to which I have now to ask your assent is a similar measure for Scotland. I should explain that although in England and other parts of the United Kingdom there have been schemes for the superannuation of police no such system has been in existence in Scotland, with the exception of one small instance in the borough of Greenock. It is true that the County Police Act, 1857, and the Borough Police Act, 1862, did give powers to the Commissioners of Supply and to the Police Authorities to make certain provisions for constables worn out in their service, but no proper scheme of superannuation has ever been in existence in Scotland up to this moment. Last year, under the Bills of 1857 and 1862, a sum of £4,000 was expended in Scotland in gratuities and in making provision for superannuating constables. This question has interested the people in Scotland for some time, and on more than one occasion Bills have been introduced into Parliament by private Members, but no Act has been passed dealing with this question. However, as long ago as 1868 a Committee of your Lordships' House was appointed to consider this question, and they after having done so reported to this effect: that in the Army and Navy, in the Police Services in England and Ireland, and in the Civil Service, a system of pensions exists; that a long and regular course of instruction and training are necessary for making efficient constables, and that, as in the absence of any pension system for Scotland, men frequently retire from the Service to follow other occupations, the Committee are of opinion that a well-considered scheme of pensions and gratuities would tend to prevent men leaving the Police Service, and would conduce to its efficiency. That Committee reported in 1868, but up to this time, as I have stated, nothing has been done. Under the provisions of the Local Taxation Bill, to which your Lordships have
  468
  just given a Second Reading (although my noble Friend Lord Jersey did not refer to the point), a sum of £40,000 is provided for the purpose of police superannuation in Scotland. That sum of £40,000 is to be contributed from the Exchequer, and it is in consequence of that provision that this Bill has been introduced by Government. It was introduced into the other House of Parliament, but the Bill as introduced by Her Majesty's Government is not quite the measure to which I have now to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading. It was referred in the House of Commons to a Committee, which took evidence upon the administrative and financial provisions in the Bill. The evidence upon that point was almost entirely given by Mr. Finlaison of the National Debt Commission, to whom I take this opportunity of making the fullest recognition of the valuable services he has rendered in connection with this Bill. The result of that evidence was, that the Committee came to the conclusion that if such arrangements were carried out with impartiality and prudence no charge would fall on the local rates for about 27 years, and even after that time there are provisions in the Bill which would probably prevent them arising. Now, the provisions in this measure are not exactly the same as those in the Bill which your Lordships just now heard detailed in the English Bill. The circumstances of Scotland are somewhat different, and therefore the Committee of the House of Commons which sat to consider the matter made some alterations, but they will not, I think, require any very lengthened explanation. In he first place, to establish a pension fund there will be deductions made from the rate of pay of the police to the amount of 2½ per cent.; the fines imposed on constables by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction; proceeds from sale of constables' worn clothing; sums received for services rendered by constables for payment; and sums received for pedlars' certificates. Then there will be contributions from the Exchequer, according to the charges of the previous year. Careful provision has been made as to the allocation of these sums for the investment of the fund, and for the use of the interest as

  469
  income. I think the calculations have gone to show that with good management at the end of the 27 years such an amount of capital will have accumulated that sufficient provision will be made for meeting all liabilities. It will then be in the power of the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the accumulation of a sufficient fund, to submit to Parliament Provisional Orders for the discontinuance of investments, if it appears to the Police Authority that the pension fund is sufficient to meet the annual charges. I think I had better now state the nature of the superannuation arrangements under this Bill. I do not propose to go into the details as to the subsidiary arrangements; but the principal proposals are these: that every constable and sergeant who has completed 25 years of approved service, and who is not less than 55, is entitled to a pension without medical certificate. In the case of superior officers the age limit is 60 years. That is the main provision of the Bill. There are other provisions with regard to gratuities or pensions to officers who may have received injuries accidental or non-accidental in discharge of their duties, and there are also provisions made for the benefit of the widows and children of officers who may have died within a very short time after they have become entitled to a pension, or who may have lost their lives or received serious injuries in the performance of their duties. But as all those provisions are detailed in the Bill, I do not think it is necessary for me to trouble your Lordships with them. The scale of pensions and gratuities is contained in the schedule. It is sufficient, I think, to state that the ordinary pension which a constable who becomes entitled will receive is 20–60ths of his annual pay, that is if he has completed 20 years' approved service; if he has completed 21 years, but less than 28, he will get in addition to the 20–60th, 1–60th of his annual pay for every year of approved service above 20 years, and if he has completed 28 years' service he will receive a pension equal to 28–60ths of his annual pay, and an addition of 2–60th for each year above 28 of approved service, so that the pension of a constable will never exceed two-thirds of his annual pay. The provisions with regard to
  470
  Scotland are not quite so favourable as those with regard to the Police Force in England in the Bill which your Lordships have just assented to. In England and Wales there have been schemes in operation for this purpose in different parts of the country, that is providing for superannuation in the various Police Forces in the country, but, as I have said, in Scotland there has been no such provision or scheme. This Bill will therefore confer a new benefit upon the Police Force in Scotland. It is a proposal which I have long desired to see carried out, because it will place the Police Force in Scotland upon a more equal footing in this matter with the Police Forces in the other parts of the United Kingdom. I think it is desirable that this benefit should be conferred on a very deserving class of public servants, so long as it can be done without an undue charge upon the rates; and I believe under this Bill this can be carried into effect. I need not trouble your Lordships with any further remarks, and I move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 260.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: This Bill is an amalgamation of two Bills which were brought into the other House of Parliament, and has been carefully considered by a Committee of that House. It has long been felt desirable that there should be a general law passed including the various police and sanitary provisions. The majority of the clauses in this Bill are those inserted in many local Acts which have been passed by Parliament. I do not think there is anything in the Bill to give rise to controversy, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.—(No. 248.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: This is a Bill which will require very few words. It is really to enable the London County Council to borrow money with which to carry out the various works they have been authorised by Parliament to execute. The Bill is an annual one, and the figures mentioned in the amounts to be borrowed have been approved by the Treasury. The other provisions with regard to the Sinking Funds, &c., are upon the lines of the former Bills, and I hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this one.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  RESERVE FORCES BILL.—(No. 250.)
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a to-morrow.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. to be considered in order to their being dispensed with for the remainder of the Session.

  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to, with consequential Amendments; The said consequential Amendments to be considered to-morrow; and to be printed. (No. 267.)
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Five o'clock.