Lords Sitting of 8 July 1890

THE MILITARY AND POLICE DISTURBANCES.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLE: As there have been some rather uncertain and conflicting reports regarding the Metropolitan Police and also regarding an incident at Wellington Barracks—although the two matters do not seem to be in connection—I have given private notice to the noble Marquess that I would ask him whether he can state how these matters stand? Of course, I do not ask the question with the slightest intention of embarrassing the Government; but I think an authentic statement, particularly if, as I believe it may be, of a reassuring character, will be satisfactory to the House and to the public.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I have seen the Chief Commissioner of Police, and I gather from him that the disturbance last night has been somewhat exaggerated in the reports which have appeared in the morning papers, and, even according to those reports, was not of a very aggravated character; but it is undoubtedly true that there has been a certain disaffection in a small and limited section of the police, and that it was at Bow Street and in its neighbourhood especially that the influence of that section was felt. Under the circumstances, and as a crowd of a not very reputable character assembled in that locality, the Assistant Commissioner thought' it desirable to send for a squadron of the Life Guards. Their appearance was quite sufficient to restore order, and, as far as it is possible to judge, there is no reason for apprehending that order will be disturbed again. If it is, of course there is ample preparation for any such contingency. With respect to the other matter, I speak with more hesitation, in the first place because it is a military matter, on which a civilian must necessarily speak with
  1042
  much doubt, and, also, because it is the subject of investigation by a Court of Inquiry. Therefore, it would be undesirable for me to express an opinion when evidence is being received and sifted, and the result of that evidence will, no doubt, be before the public before long. Though any breach of military discipline is very much to be deplored, and ought to be visited with proper punishment, still, I think that it would be absurd to lend any importance to what has taken place. It is an accidental want of discipline in a particular part of Her Majesty's Army, and I have no doubt that it will be very speedily remedied, and that discipline will be restored.

  SETTLED LAND BILL.—(No. 99.)
  Reported from the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c, with amendments; The Report thereof received; Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 185.)

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 14) BILL.
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Aberdeen, Dundee, Glasgow, Kelvinside, and Moss Side and Stretford—Was presented by the Lord Balfour.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): I ask your Lordships to suspend the Sessional Order of the 10th March last, in order to enable the First Reading to be taken of a Bill to confirm certain Electric Lighting Provisional Orders. The circumstances are so very special that I have no hesitation whatever in asking this indulgence from the House, and I believe, when I put a few if facts before you, which I will do as shortly as I can, the permission will be given unanimously. Under the Electric Lighting Act of 1882 there was a Schedule which stated, as regards Scotland, both in urban and in rural communities, what public body was to be the Local Authority for the purpose of giving assent under the Electric Lighting Acts; but the draftsman of

  1043
  that Schedule had evidently not been made aware of all the peculiar provisions of the different private Acts affecting the various Scottish burghs, and when this came to be considered for the purpose of getting the assent of the Local Authorities, it became evident that the Act of 1882 and those Private Acts were not consistent with one another. In fact, a very great deal of confusion had arisen, and it became necessary, early in the present Session, to introduce a Bill for the sole purpose of amending the Schedule of that Act. A very great deal of correspondence and negotiation was necessary in order to adjust that Schedule to the requirements of all the different urban and rural communities in Scotland, and it took a considerable time to carry it out. Until that Bill had received the Royal Assent it was technically impossible for the Board of Trade to proceed with the confirmation of those Electric Lighting Acts. That Bill received the Royal Assent on Friday last, and, therefore, I have taken the very earliest opportunity possible of introducing a Bill to confirm the Electric Lighting Orders for the towns mentioned, which Electric Lighting Orders have been adjusted very carefully between the Board of Trade and the different persons concerned, upon the faith and in the belief that the Bill I have mentioned would pass Parliament. With regard to the Kelvinside Electric Lighting Order, which is also confirmed by this Bill, there is the additional difficulty that Glasgow was asking in the present Session of Parliament for a large extension of boundaries, which would have included Kelvinside, and until Parliament had passed judgment upon that Bill, which it has now done, it was impossible for us to say who would be the Local Authority for the purpose of carrying out the Electric Lighting Acts. One of these Electric Lighting Orders refers to a place which is not in Scotland, that is, the Moss Side Order, and that one had to be postponed because there was procedure before the Local Government Board as to another application by the Corporation of the City of Manchester for extending the City boundaries, and if that permission had been given the City Corporation would have become the Local Authority. The Local Government Board have refused that application, and
  1044
  we think the Electric Lighting Order should now be granted. So far as I know, there will be no substantial objection to any of these Orders, and I have every ground for hoping that before the time for dealing with the matter in Committee arrives the opposition will be got rid of. Of course, the only way to test that is to read the Bill a first and second time, and see whether anybody petitions against them. My Lords, if this indulgence is not given, the result will be that the Cities of Aberdeen, Dundee, and Glasgow will be prevented from having electric lighting during the present year, and the matter will have to stand over for another year. Under all the circumstances, I hope the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will see no objection to the suspension of the Sessional Order, in order to enable this Bill confirming the Provisional Orders I have mentioned.
  Moved—
  "That the Sessional Order of the 10th March last, 'That no Bill originating in this House confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall he read a first time after Friday, the 16th day of May next,' be dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill he now read 1a."—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: I have very little to say upon this matter. The circumstances, as detailed by the noble Lord opposite, are so very particular that I shall not think of offering any opposition to the Motion he has made.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 1a accordingly, to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

  ORCHARDS RATING EXEMPTION BILL.—(No. 149.)
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  SUPERANNUATION (WAR DEPARTMENT) BILL.—(No. 118.)
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
INTESTATE ESTATES BILL.—(No. 148.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *LORD BRAMWELL: I think the proposal in this Bill which I ask your Lordships to read a second time is a right one. It applies to the case of a man dying without issue, child, grandchild, or other descendent, intestate, and leaving a widow, and to no other case. If he leaves a will of course the Bill has no: application, if he leaves a descendant the Bill has no application, and if he does not leave a widow the Bill does not come into operation. Your Lordships know, I dare say, that at present in such a case as the Bill applies to the widow has half the personal estate, and the next-of-kin, however remote they may be, have the other half of the personal estate. In reference to real property the widow is also entitled to dower, unless the conveyance has been to her husband, and the dower is: barred, as it usually is; but practically, I should say that people who die worth no more than this Bill supposes very seldom leave any real property. Substantially, the result is that the widow has half the personalty and the next-of-kin, however remote they may be, get the other half. Of course, the next-of-kin may be the father or the mother of the intestate, but I suppose that is comparatively a rare case, because parents generally die before those of their children as have attained such an age as to leave a widow. Practically, therefore, I believe the Bill will very rarely come into operation except in cases where the competition is between the widow and the collaterals. Now the Bill proposes that in such a case as I have supposed the widow should have a minimum interest in the intestate's property to the amount of £500, which would make some sort of a provision for her. That is the substance of the proposal that is now before your Lordships. If the man dies worth more than £500 up to £1,000, why then his widow gets the £500 only, and the residue is divisible amongst the next of kin. If he dies worth more than £1,000 then the intention of the Bill is that it should not apply that she should have half of the entire sum whatever it
  1046
  may be. Now this is a small matter, I confess, and I cannot see that there is any particular principle in it beyond this, that it is reasonable that the widow should be preferred practically to collaterals. If I am asked why £500 should be named I cannot give any particular reason for it. It might be that £1,000 would be better; it might be that £600 would be better; it might be that £400 would be better; I cannot say. But those who have brought forward the Bill (and your Lordships know, I suppose, that it has passed the Second Reading in the House of Commons) have thought that £500 is a reasonable amount to put in the Bill. I think so too. I do not think it is giving the widow too much, and I do not think it is taking anything unreasonable away from those who would otherwise get the property. I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Bramwell.)
  *LORD MORRIS: Before the Bill is read a second time, as I see it applies to Ireland, where it would make an enormous difference as regards the present state of the law, I should like to say a few words. In Ireland the peasantry and small farmers make some sort of division of their property when in extremis, which is carried out, generally speaking, with a good deal of strictness by their relatives, though it may not be very legal. They are fond of obeying the exhortations and directions of the death-bed. This Bill would have a large effect in Ireland, because £500 there would be a large estate among the class of persons to whom it would apply, and it would lead, in my opinion, not only to a good deal of difference in the state of the law but very often to riots and possibly to murders. We know from what has occurred in Ireland the tenacity with which they hold by their land; and if a man dies and leaves a young widow, and she becomes under this Bill the holder of his land, which might be personal property, and under £500 in value, if she marries and carries off that property to her second husband, the father and mother, brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, as the case might be, of that man would look upon that personal property

  1047
  as really their own, and according to modern legislation they would, be very right in looking at it from that point of view, and, in my opinion, that might lead to roost disastrous results. At all events, I do not think it is a matter that ought to be hurriedly run through.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

BOILER EXPLOSIONS ACT, 1882, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 164.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *LORD SUDELEY: I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill. Its object is very simple, that is to say, to slightly amend the Act of 1882. Under Clause 2 it gives a certain larger power to the Board of Trade, but I understand that Department has no objection to undertake that additional duty. In Clause 4 of the Act of 1882 the Board of Trade, who undertook the duty, were not to undertake it in respect of the Coal Mines Regulation Act and the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act, which were worked under the Home Office; but the arrangement under the Board of Trade has worked so well that the working of those two other Acts has also been placed under them as far as boiler explosions are concerned. Then, under Clause 3 there is an alteration made as to what passed under the Act of 1882. Under the Act of 1882 if a boiler explosion occurred at sea it would have been necessary to make the report to the Board of Trade within 24 hours after the explosion. It is perfectly clear that could not be done in every case, because often it is some weeks before a ship arrives in harbour. This provision is, therefore, to extend the time, by stating "or as soon afterwards as possible." With those alterations in the Bill I beg to move the Second Reading.
  Moved,"That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Sudeley.)
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not rise to offer any objection to the Second Reading, but only to point out that, though the exemption with regard
  1048
  to steamships in the Act of 1882 is repealed, there is no direct enactment, that I can see in regard to the notices which are necessary to be given under certain circumstances. I hope the noble Lord will himself, or by consultation with the promoters of the Bill, consent to put in an Amendment for giving the statutory notice required. There is one other matter of rather more importance, which I hope will receive his attention and consideration. A recent case has occurred which had reference to an explosion on board a small steamboat engaged in fishing, which has shown the Board of Trade that there is no statutory power to compel the owner or his servants to give evidence in such case. We get notice of the explosion, but we get no real information as to how and why it occurred. It seems to the Board of Trade that this would be a favourable opportunity for endeavouring to get further power to ensure that those who knew what occurred should state what really did occur for the information of the Board of Trade and give evidence upon the subject. I do not desire to press for an answer now, but I hope the point will be considered by the promoters of the Bill, because it is one which is not without importance.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think the Bill might go before the Committee of the whole House but for what the noble Lord opposite has said, that it requires inquiry and investigation.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It is a very simple matter, and I should not object to its being dealt with in Committee of the whole House if your Lordships will agree to it.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1867, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 169.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD REAY: My Lords, the object of this Bill is simply to enable the authorities in burghs to provide hospitals within a convenient distance of the

  1049
  burghs, outside the limits of those burghs, but in close proximity. I understand there is no objection to the Bill, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Reay.)
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN): There is no objection to the Bill of which the noble Lord opposite has moved the Second Reading. On the contrary, I think it is a very useful one. One thing, however, I think it is desirable to point out to the noble Lord, and that is that under the Bill it might appear that the powers given might be exercised in a rather arbitrary manner, but, as the whole Bill comes under the 89th section of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, all the provisions of that section are still continued in force; and under that clause it would, except by agreement, be impossible for the Local Authority to take any site beyond the burgh unless by a Provisional Order. As your Lordships are well aware, before obtaining a Provisional Order it is necessary to advertise the matter, and the Provisional Order must at last be sanctioned by both Houses, of Parliament. Under those circumstances I think there is no danger of the powers under this Bill being exercised in an arbitrary manner. I am, therefore, very happy to assent to the Bill proposed by the noble Lord.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.

IRELAND—OUTRAGES IN TIPPERARY.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to ask for a statement of the outrages which have occurred in or near the town of Tipperary, and of the circumstances; also whether it is true that an explosive was placed recently at the door of an ironmonger named Duggan, who had paid his rent to Mr. Smith-Barry; and whether Duggan has since written a letter giving in his adherence to the National League?
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): The notice of the noble Earl's question has appeared on the Paper for so short a time that I have been unable to obtain for him detailed information with regard to many of the outrages referred to. I am able to state, however, that 25 outrages have been reported by the police as having occurred in Tipperary since December, 1889, in connection with what has been known as the Smith-Barry estate dispute. I hold in my hand the particulars with regard to four or five of these outrages, which, with the permission of the House, I will read. The first is the case of a Mr. Rutherford, who was a boycotted shopkeeper in Tipperary, whose servants al L left him. On June 14, 1890, a man named English, who had gone to work for Mr. Rutherford, was assaulted in the street in Tipperary. As he was walking down the street he was struck from behind with a loaded whip, his head being severely cut, and his assailant escaped. In the second case Mrs. Fahey came into the town on June 24, 1890, and purchased an iron pot in the house of Mr. Duggan, a boycotted shopkeeper, and on her way home she was waylaid by a man who took the pot from her by force, saying that the National League had sent him for it, and he warned Mrs. Fahey not to enter Duggan's shop again. In the third case, on June 24th, 1890, a mob collected outside the house of Patrick Clifford, a boycotted news-vendor at Tipperary, and broke the windows with stones, and damage to the value of about £10 was done. Clifford's name appeared on a list of boycotted persons posted over Tipperary in printed notices on June 24. In the fourth case—and this is the case mentioned in the noble Lord's question—on June 28, 1890, an explosive, consisting of a piece of brass piping loaded with gunpowder, was thrown at Duggan's house, and exploded without injuring any person. Duggan was boycotted in Tipperary. As my noble Friend suggests in his question, it is believed that he has since written a letter surrendering himself to the National League. In the fifth case two young girls, servants or work girls to Miss White, a boycotted woman in Tipperary, were attacked in the streets of Tipperary on July 2, by two men, who assaulted them, used abusive language,

  1051
  and threatened them. These men were arrested by the police, and committed to prison in default of bail. Those are five of the latest cases out of the 25 reported by the police. If the noble Lord desires further information on the subject I will endeavour to obtain it, but I am afraid I cannot do more now with the notice I have had.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.