Lords Sitting of 21 July 1890

THE EARL OF MAYO
Took the Oath.
COLONIAL COURTS OF ADMIRALTY BILL—(No. 44.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment.
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (BOROUGH OF BELFAST) BILL.—(No. 91.)
Commons Amendment to Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be read 2a To-morrow; and Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. to be considered in order to their being dispensed with.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.")

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 15) BILL.
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to the City of London—Was presented by the Lord Balfour.
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I beg to present a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders which have been made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts relating to the City of London; and, in pursuance of the notice which stands in my name on the Paper, I have to ask the House to suspend the Sessional Order of the 10th March last, and to allow the Bill to be read a first time. The circumstances are these: The Brush Electric Engineering Company and another syndicate applied for Provisional Orders, authorising them to supply electricity in the City of London. At first the Local Authority, that body being the Commissioners of Sewers, objected to it, but after a time they agreed to let certain portions of the City be so supplied under an agreement with the parties concerned. The agreement was
310
not one which the Board of Trade Could make the subject of a Provisional Order, and, therefore, all the complicated arrangements which are necessitated in adjusting a Provisional Order had to be gone through. Although the period of the year was somewhat late, the Board of Trade, desiring to carry out the wishes expressed, thought it was their duty to proceed with the Order. It took somewhat longer than was anticipated, but it has been completed, and under all the circumstances, and, as I may say, this will be the last time I shall have to ask your Lordships for indulgence in regard to the Sessional Orders this year, I hope your Lordships will agree to suspend the Sessional Order and to read the Bill a first time.
Moved, "That the Sessional Order of the 10th of March last, 'That no Bill originating in this House confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a first time after Friday, the 16th day of May nex,' be dispensed within respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read la; agreed to; Bill read la accordingly; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners."

PHARMACY ACT (IRELAND) (1875)
  AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 172.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
    THE EARL OF ERNE: The objects of the Bill which I am now asking your Lordships to read a second time, and which I may say has passed the House of Commons practically without opposition, are two-fold: the first is to provide for the registration of chemists and druggists in Ireland, for the purpose of their selling poisons, who were in business before 1889, and for the examination of all persons who shall desire to become such henceforth. The second object is to give those chemists and druggists representation upon the Pharmaceutical Council, which they do not at present possess. The original Pharmacy Act, passed in the year 1875, contemplated two grades; the first grade to pass the higher examination and to be empowered to compound medicines, as well as to sell poisons: the second grade to pass a modified examination, and to be qualified to sell poisons only. But, in consequence of the absence of a restrictive clause in the Act, it was

    311
    found that if the second-class were registered they would be entitled to do all that the first-class could do, that is to say, to compound medicines as well as sell poisons; and, in consequence, the Pharmaceutical Society of that day passed a resolution that, for the present at all events, there should only be one grade. After the passing of that Act nothing practically was done until the year 1888. In that year a Bill was introduced into Parliament by a Member of your Lordships' House, at whose sudden death all those who had the privilege of his friendship were deeply shocked and grieved, and whose loss has been keenly felt by all who are interested in Irish affairs, upon which he was so high an authority. I allude to the late Lord Milltown. He introduced a Bill in that year which passed through this House after having been referred to a Select Committee; but when it went down to the House of Commons it was opposed as being of too restrictive a character, and, after some negotiation, a compromise was effected, but unfortunately the period of the Session at which this compromise was arrived at was so late that the Bill had to be dropped. The Bill which I am now asking your Lordships to read a second time is mainly drawn upon the lines of that compromise. The necessity for this Bill arises from the defective nature of the Act of 1875, under which the Pharmaceutical Council considered they were prevented from registering the second grade, as was contemplated in the Act. In consequence of this condition of things a number of chemists and druggists throughout Ireland are carrying on the sale of poisons at their own peril, and are liable to prosecution; and I believe, in more than one instance, prosecutions are pending against members of that body. It may be said that the pharmaceutical chemists can supply the want which is admittedly felt; but the pharmaceutical chemists are of a superior class, and are only to be found in the large towns, and. it is, of course, of very great importance to the small farmers who are scattered up and down through the country that they should be able to buy their cattle medicines and sheep wash, and things of that kind—and also I may add that the same remark applies to the manufacturers in the North of Ireland in regard to
    312
    their requirements in the way of chemicals for bleaching purposes, which are more or less in the nature of poisons—without having to go to the pharmaceutical chemists in the large towns. I believe that the chief objection which is taken to this Bill is in reference to the provisions for the registration of these chemists and druggists for the sale of poisons without their having to pass an examination. But I venture to suggest that that is really a matter for Committee, and if your Lordships will be good enough to give a Second Reading to this Bill it can there be more minutely considered and better dealt with. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Fermanagh [E. Erne.])
    THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD (who spoke, by leave of the House, sitting): My Lords, as I take great interest in the Bill which has been brought forward by the noble Earl, I would venture to say a few words upon it. It is a much more important Bill than the noble Earl has led your Lordships to suppose. This Bill has really the intention of permitting any man throughout Ireland who chooses to call himself a chemist or druggist to act in that capacity without an examination. There was an Act passed, called the Pharmacy Act, in 1875, by which it was enacted that after that time all persons who wished to carry on the trade of a chemist should pass an examination. Unfortunately that Act was not very carefully drawn, and there was no proper provision made for registering chemists and druggists in practice before 1875. Well, that made it most difficult for the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, who look after such matters, to ascertain (because the onus of proof rested upon them) who were the people who were entitled to carry on this trade without examination. There was another flaw in this Act of Parliament. It provided for an arrangement by which two grades could be created in Ireland, the members of one of which were to be pharmaceutical chemist. I believe the Act was drawn by Sir Michael Hicks Beach in 1875, and he arranged to make it as much like the English Act as

    313
    possible. In England, both classes pass an examination that would entitle them to have the making up of prescriptions; the procedure in Ireland is rather different from that in England. The men who had been in the habit of selling poisons did not seek to be allowed to make up prescriptions, and they did not want to pass an examination, and they wished to continue as before. This Bill now provides that everybody who has been breaking the law since 1875 should be recognised and should be allowed to continue to sell poisons without examination. I can hardly believe that your Lordships will agree to such a proposal as that. The noble' Earl suggested that the Bill might be amended in Committee; and I hope sincerely that it will be, because if there were not a promise of that kind made I should most decidedly move the rejection of the Bill. Perhaps your Lordships can hardly imagine the difficulties which would occur from the recognition of such a state of things as exists at present in Ireland, where such men as grocers, hucksters, dealers, and ironmongers are all selling poisons. A grocer may be serving out pounds of butter having beside it oxalic acid on the same shelf, and another man may be selling baking powder which is lying beside arsenic. These men are all perfectly unqualified, they pass no examination whatever, and this Bill is to legalise them and perpetuate the mischief. What I should propose would be that the Bill should be amended very much in Committee. I may tell your Lordships that the Act of 1875 did legalise and permit such men as these to sell poisons without examination if in practice before 1875, but they had been in the habit of doing it and had some experience. Since 1875 a large number of men have taken up the trade, and are selling poisons indiscriminately all over Ireland. The noble Earl spoke of the desirability of small farmers being able to get poisons for cattle and sheep washes, but in these days, with the existence of the Parcels Post, there is no difficulty in people getting whatever they want from the pharmaceutical chemists in the towns. The noble Earl said that this Bill is virtually the same as the compromise measure of the Earl of Milltown, but I cannot quite agree with him.
    THE EARL OF ERNE: I said as altered in the House of Commons.
    THE MAEQUESS OF WATERFORD: I cannot agree with the noble Earl, because that was in the direction of registration on examination, and the point of this Bill is no examination. One of the main points of that Bill was that examination should be enforced. Therefore on the main point that measure differed materially from this Bill. A general practitioner from Belfast, Mr. Rankin, gave very important evidence before Lord Mi11town's Committee upon this point. He said that if men of this description, hucksters, grocers, and men of that description, were allowed to sell poisons throughout Ireland it would imperil the lives of the public. I think your Lordships will agree with that, that it certainly would imperil the lives of the public. But to my astonishment I find that Mr. Rankin is one of the promoters of this Bill, and the fact is that Mr. Rankin himself has been carrying on the sale of poisons against the law, and was not very long ago brought up before the Magistrates in Belfast and fined £5 for so doing. Hence, I believe, one of the reasons why this Bill has been brought forward is, Mr. Rankin is Secretary of the Druggists, Association in Belfast. I have also seen a paragraph in a paper which is called the British and Colonial Druggists' paper, I forget its exact title, in which it is suggested that the druggists throughout Ireland should begin to make up prescriptions; that is to say, that these men who pass no examination and have no knowledge whatever of the subject should begin to make up prescriptions, in order to cause the Pharmaceutical Society to prosecute them all, and thus, as the Pharmaceutical Society has but a small amount of fund at their disposal, that they should break the Pharmaceutical Society, and by doing so get themselves recognised. That shows the animus with which this Bill is brought forward. I am told that the great misfortune in Ireland is that the police do not prosecute those men who are breaking the law. I believe that in England in the analogous cases of the sale of adulterated foods or anything of that kind the police do prosecute. There was evidence before Lord Milltown's Committee of a case of poisoning which occurred before 1886 being brought before the attention of the police,

    315
    and where the police refused to prosecute. I think it is a very serious matter that this illegal practice should have been going on in Ireland of selling poisons indiscriminately all over the country, and that yet you should have the police taking no notice of it whatever. The Pharmaceutical Society no doubt do prosecute, but the onus of proof rests with that Society, and their funds have only enabled them to bring forward very few cases where they could institute prosecutions. This is a very serious matter, and I think the Irish Government ought to take notice of it. There are certain points which I think ought to be amended in this Bill, but I will not detain your Lordships with them now; I will only express the hope that the noble Earl will agree to the amendment of those points when the Bill comes into Committee.
    LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, my attention was only called to this Bill this morning, but I have received some letters and a telegram of rather an alarming character with regard to its provisions. It comes no doubt from a source from which one would not have expected correspondence of that description. One correspondent alleges that—
    "The Bill would place a premium on illegality by encouraging it at the expense of the law-abiding."
    And I am sure that everyone will agree that is not a good thing for the Government to do in regard to Ireland either at the present or at any other time. Another correspondent writes—
    "It is very hard that political services, such as have been rendered to the Conservative Party by wholesale chemists and druggists, should be rewarded at the expense of the public morality and by danger to the public safety in the manner proposed."
    Those two quotations show, I think, that this Bill will require very careful consideration, the necessity for which has been added to by the details which have been entered into by the noble Marquess who has just spoken.
    THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: I do not rise for the purpose of assisting to raise any controversy upon this Bill, but to emphasise that it is an important measure, affecting Ireland very materially as to the sale of poisons. I do not know but that there would be some difficulty in regard to people selling whatever may
    316
    be required near the large towns, but in the country that is not the case. There there is no difficulty in obtaining them, and therefore it has been thought necessary that this Bill should be brought in for the purpose of licensing this large class of persons, some 2,000 in number, I think, to sell poisons. This Bill has met with some opposition from the Pharmaceutical Society, but that body does not wish that the Bill should not pass. On the contrary, they are anxious that it should become law; but they are also anxious that it should only pass with certain Amendments which they will propose at a fitting time. The Amendments which they propose refer to the number of chemists and druggists who have been practising since 1875 under the old Act, and they think that if those persons are to be registered they should pass a very small examination, in order to prove their fitness to sell these poisons and dangerous drugs. Another Amendment which they wish to be introduced is as to the position of their Council. But these matters will, I hope, be gone into in detail in Committee, and I should venture to hope that the noble Earl who is at the head of Irish affairs in this House might be willing that this Bill should be referred to the Standing Committee, where all the Amendments that may be proposed can be fully gone into. But, whatever may happen, your Lordships will agree with me, I think, that poisons should not be permitted to be sold in Ireland in this way at a wholesale rate. Although my noble and learned Friend seemed to think that the Conservative Party owe something to those who had to do with the selling of poisons, I hope no bad result has taken place from it. At the same time, if poisons are allowed to be sold without restriction wholesale all over the country, great harm might be done, persons might disappear on such occasions, and it would then be rather hard to find out whence the poisons had been derived. Therefore, I think the restrictions which the Pharmaceutical Society desire should be placed on the sale of poisons will receive due consideration when the Bill comes before the Committee.
    LORD MORRIS: I should not have intervened in this discussion had it not been for the suggestion of my noble and learned Friend opposite, that this Bill

    317
    has been promoted for the advantage of persons in the Conservative interest in Belfast, because I have been asked to oppose it on the opposite ground. I have been asked to oppose the Bill on the ground that it has been supported by the Member for Belfast, whorepresents Nationalist views, and from the fact that some of his colleagues who had given notice of opposition had been solicited to withdraw, and did withdraw, their notices of opposition. So that it appears persons have been asked to oppose this Bill, and solicited to do so from a variety of motives. It appears to me that the Bill ought to be allowed to pass the Second Reading, and that in Standing Committee all the modifications that may be necessary in it can be there made.
    THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, I was under the impression that the Bill was for a very technical purpose and of a somewhat dull character; but after the statement of my noble and learned Friend opposite there appeal's to be some fear that if this Debate should be prolonged we should be landed in a discussion more exciting than was to be expected. I rise merely to say that the Bill has received the countenance and support of the Government in the other House. It is the result of a compromise which was effected between certain Members of the other House last Session upon Amendments on the Bill of Lord Milltown. As far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, the Government is prepared on the present occasion also to support it. On the other hand, I am bound to say that the points which have been mentioned by the noble Marquess behind and others certainly seem to render it desirable that the Bill should receive careful consideration in Committee. I should be very glad that the suggestion of the noble Duke should be adopted, and, if it be the wish of the House, that the Bill should be referred to the Standing Committee on General Bills, when the Amendments which have been mentioned by my noble Friend can be carefully taken into consideration.
    THE EARL OF ERNE: I am quite prepared to accede to the suggestion of my noble Friend that this Bill, if your Lordships will consent to read it a second time, should be referred to the Standing Committee on General Bills.
    On Question, agreed to.
    Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to the Standing Committee for General Bills.

SETTLED LAND BILL.—(No. 185.)
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order).
Clause 4.
LORD HERSCHELL: I have to propose an Amendment in this clause which is little more than verbal. It is to meet a doubt which has been raised by my noble and learned Friend Lord Selborne in Standing Committee, whether this clause might not cover, and ought not to cover, arrangements where money has been advanced, and where, therefore, the arrangement made is part of the security.
Moved, to insert in line 15, after "arrangement," the words "not being a security for the payment of money advanced."—(The Lord Herschell)—Agreed to.
Clause 11.
LORD HERSCHELL: I have to move to add at the end of this clause a subsection to define incumbrances, so as to exclude determinable, annual, and other sums, which were clearly not intended to be included in its terms; but before doing so I have an Amendment to move in line 23, after the word "required," to insert the words "and also the amount properly required for payment of the costs of the transaction," That is in cases where mortgages are consolidated and arrangements made for the payment of a lower rate of interest.
Amendment agreed to.
Another Amendment moved, at the end of the clause to insert the following sub-section:—
"Incumbrance in this section does not include any annual sum payable only during a life or lives or during a term of years absolute or determinable.—(The Lord Herschell.)—Agreed to.
Clause 13.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The Amendment of which I have given notice, or the substance of it, was proposed in the Standing Committee on Law by the noble and learned Lord who introduced this Bill. His Amendment

319
did not meet with the full concurrence of the Committee, and I have now to propose an Amendment which I think is a very important addition to that which was proposed by my noble and learned Friend, namely, a proviso limiting the power of tenants for life to raise money under this clause to the amount of half the rental of the estates. I think it should be borne in mind that the Act of 1882, which is generally called, I believe, Lord Cairns' Act, was brought forward very much in connection with the Act which had been passed in the year 1864 for giving powers to limited owners to raise money for the purpose of making permanent improvements upon their estates. Under the; Act of 1864 a great variety of objects could be attained by limited owners, but it did not include, among the permanent improvements provided for, the restoration of the mansion house or residence of the owner of the property. But in the year 1871 an Act was passed to which I should wish to call your Lordships' attention, namely, the Limited Owners Residences Act, which gave the same powers as were given by the Act of 1864 to limited owners to raise money for the re-building of their houses. The Limited Owners Residences Act, 1871, enables a tenant-for-life to re-build the mansion house under the powers of the Improvements of Lands Act, 1864, with which Act it is incorporated, and the Act of 1871 enacts that the re-building of a mansion house is to be deemed to be an improvement within the meaning of the Improvements of Lands Act of 1864. The other improvements within the meaning of that Act are all introduced in the Settled Land Act of 1882; but the provisions of the Act of 1871 were, unfortunately, excluded from the provisions of the Act of 1882. The result is that that improvement which was introduced in the Act of 1871, and incorporated into the Act of 1864 was excluded in 1882, and, therefore, all the benefits which accrued from the Settled Lands Act of 1882 are lost entirely as regards the Act of 1871. I have said that under the Act of 1882 a limited owner can sell his property, or can sell a portion of his land, and expend the proceeds in a variety of ways; he can spend it in irrigation, in draining, in plantation, in the building of cottages,
320
in the building of homesteads, and in building farm-houses. He can do a great many other things; he can build for a good many other people; but there is one thing he cannot do, and that is he cannot build a house for himself. Well, my Lords, the question is, Is it fair, is it just, to have excluded this provision, which was incorporated in the Act of 1871, from the provisions of the Act of 1882; and now that your Lordships have an opportunity of re-enacting and bringing this improvement back again, of incorporating it with the provisions of the Act of 1864, and assimilating it to the other improvements which were included in the Act of 1882, I would humbly suggest that it ought to be taken advantage of. The noble and learned Lord opposite evidently thought that this was an opportunity of doing so, that it was in conformity with the principles of this Bill that this Amendment should be introduced. I have brought it down, I think, to very small dimensions. I am only asking that a limited owner shall be able to raise by the sale of land to the amount of as much as one-half the rental of his property for the purpose of effecting this very important object of permanent improvement. It is said by those who are opposed to this that it will discourage insurance. I must say I do not propose it with any idea of that kind. It is a great deal too small an addition to the powers given to act as a discouragement to insurance, and I propose it not at all to discourage, but as a supplement to, insurance. We know perfectly well when a house is destroyed by fire there is not only the loss of the fabric, but there is the loss of contents. Does the insurance meet that loss? When you come to counting the cost of restoration the insurance very rarely covers the loss, and I think this Amendment would give great assistance to those who, like myself, have had the misfortune to lose their houses, and are still under the obligation to restore them. Those who are connected with the agricultural interest, and who are dependent on the soil, know well that this country has passed through a period of great depression, and I think that every assistance which Parliament can give to relieve both landowners and tenants from the effects of that depression should be given. It is said, and I

321
cordially agree in the statement, that property has its duties as well as its rights. A landowner to perform his duties must reside upon his property. Absenteeism is one of the evils which statesmen and Parliament have had to deal with in regard to Ireland. We do not want absenteeism here; it is an evil which we wish to avoid. In order that a man may reside upon his property he must have a house in which he can live, in order that he may perform those duties which devolve upon him. It is to assist in that object that I now propose this Amendment should be adopted in the name of my noble and learned Friend opposite, which I believe to be just and fair, and one which, I think, on grounds of public policy worthy the Support of your Lordships' House.
Moved, in Clause 13, page 4, line 11, after sub-section (iii.) to insert the following sub-section:—
(iv.)"The re-building of the principal mansion house on the settled land; provided that the sum to be applied under this sub-section shall not exceed one-half of the annual rental of the settled land."—(The Earl of Feversham.)
THE MARQUESS OF BATH: I trust your Lordships will not agree to the Amendment which has been moved by my noble Friend. This matter was considered in the Standing Committee to which the Bill was referred, and the Standing Committee did not think fit to recommend this Amendment to the House. Let me call your Lordships' attention to this point: it is the duty of every wise man to insure his house, and if he does not insure it, it is on him and not on the inheritance that the burden ought to fall Then your Lordships should bear in mind also this: that a property is not improved by increasing the mortgages upon it. The powers of charging estates under Lord Cairns's Act are thought by some to be of doubtful expediency, and they are only justified on the ground that you charge the estate for re-productive work. It is supposed, and I hope the supposition will prove true, that precautions are taken that the money which the tenant for life is empowered to charge upon the inheritance is so laid out that the value and the proceeds of the inheritance will be in future increased. Now, I will ask how the inheritance can be in any way benefited by the building? of a mansion house? Clearly it is the
322
duty of the tenant for life to insure, and it is his duty to re-build, if he chooses to re-build, should his house be burned down. But the increasing of charges upon the inheritance for works that are not in themselves re-productive must end in the ruin of properties, and be of no sort of benefit to the community. I have every sympathy with my noble Friend who has had this very misfortune, having had a house burned down some years ago, which is now in course of rebuilding, but I do not think the laws of the land ought to be altered to suit the convenience of Members of your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF POWIS: This Amendment is somewhat vaguely worded. It says that the sum to be applied under this sub-section "shall not exceed one-half of the annual rental of the settled land." Now, what does the "settled land" mean? Does it mean the estate which surrounds the house, or does it mean any property the owner may possess in half a dozen counties which may be under the same settlement? Does it mean that money may be raised upon, or part of an estate in Devonshire sold to improve a house in Northumberland, or that money may be raised upon property in Derbyshire to improve or re-build a house in Leicestershire? The noble Earl spoke of this power not having been given in the Lands Improvement Act. I think if any money is to be raised on an estate for re-building a mansion-house it ought to be done under similar arrangements to those specified in the Estates Improvement Act, namely, that it should be paid back by instalments within a certain number of years; because clearly the restoration or rebuilding of a house does not add to the improvement of an estate: it is simply putting it in the same position as it was in before, which would be guarded by insurance. And it very often happens that the building of a mansion house, under the direction of a lavish architect, makes the house a burden to the estate which it is not able to bear. I think, therefore, that this clause, if it is to be adopted at all, would have to be limited, and that it should, at all events, be made more distinct that the land that is to be brought in and charged with the rebuilding of the mansion house should be

323
the property upon which the mansion house is situate. I feel disposed to concur with the noble Marquess that it would be better to maintain the decision of the Standing Committee.
LORD NORTON: There seems to be a considerable amount of caprice in the arguments which have been put forward on this subject. I believe that until lately if a man over insured his house and it was burnt down he was in danger of being hung; and now it seems if a man under insures his house it is an argument to be used against him that he ought not to be able to charge his estate for the restoration. I had an experience the other day in having my house burned down, and I had insured it as far as I might safely do without endangering my neck under the law. I have, therefore, to meet the over expense of re-building the house by loan. The noble Marquess says such a charge ought not to be thrown on the estate, but it bears just as much on the estate to make up the sum required for re-building the house by loan, as by the charge possible, if this Bill passed. The noble Marquess says that a Bill should not be passed for the benefit of Members of this House, but it is not at all exclusively for the benefit of Members of this House that this Bill is proposed, but for all people who have houses with settled estates round them which may be burnt down. The noble Earl near me says he does not understand what "settled estate" the Bill means to charge; whether it means if a man has property in half-a-dozen counties he is to be empowered to charge to the amount of half the rent of all his estates for the restoration of his house. I quite understand that what the noble Earl who moves the Amendment means is that the property surrounding the mansion house burnt down should bear the cost up to half the rental. That seems to me to be a very moderate proposition. I do not suppose that any mansion house which is burnt down is insured to such an extent, or can be safely insured to such an extent as that the very moderate sum of half a year's rental of the property adjoining the mansion would not be a fair amount to contribute to such restoration.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I did not mean to intervene in this interesting discussion, but I must say I am rather astonished by what my noble Friend, who has just spoken, has said. I was not aware that it was an offence in law to insure your house to its full value, and until the noble Lord points out the statute to which his statement would seem to have reference, I shall still remain under the impression which I hold that such insurance is a prudent, a proper, and an ordinary thing to effect.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I will only add one sentence. I see no objection to "re-building;" but I confess that "restoration" somewhat frightens me. Restoration is a term which is usually applied in the case of churches and buildings of an ecclesiastical character, and is generally understood to mean the destruction of the ancient character of a building, and in the case of a mansion house I should be very sorry that it should be done at the expense of the estate. I very much doubt whether it would not be better to confine it to rebuilding.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I shall be perfectly willing to accept the suggestion of my noble Friend.
A noble LORD: My noble Friends have attempted to raise a discussion on the principle of the Bill, but even if we could do so I think it would not be expedient upon re-commitment. I should view the Bill very differently according to whether it was to be regarded as a final measure or as a compromise, in other words, what is popularly called "the thin end of the wedge." But I am quite sure it is not introduced in that sense by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Herschell; and if it was to be one of a series of measures of this-sort I am quite sure he would tell us so. I had the honour of being upon a Committee with that noble and learned Lord, and I must say, if I may be allowed, he-showed so much consideration for the objections of his opponents, and of delicate feeling for the views of those with whom he did not altogether agree that it will always be a satisfaction tome to, if possible, meet him half way Taking this Bill, then, in the sense of being a final measure, and not in the way of a compromise, I will say that I

325
should not oppose it if it came to a vote. But I object to the principle of this legislation on two grounds. I think the Bill so far from attaining the object desired, as it is regarded outside, frustrates it. I am not in the least speaking now of the motive of the noble and learned Lord in introducing the Bill, and very likely he knows of special cases where it may be of urgent importance on grounds of expense and practical convenience in cases of small properties of perhaps 25 acres; but there is a large section of the public who support legislation in this direction under the idea that it will facilitate the extension of land holding and the multiplication of freehold lodgings. Mr. Alm, before the Allotments Committee, said that was the ground of his support of the Land Transfer Bill. I would ask your Lordships to consider for a moment what is the most likely way in which these multiplications of holdings can be brought about in the way of sale; and I say, unhesitatingly, that it is in cases where the mansion and demesne are reserved. Where the mansion and demesne are sold, they pass away from the proprietor, whose family has, perhaps, held them for generations, it may be to some capitalist; whereas, if there is a reservation of the mansion and demesne, there is no reason why the land outside should not be sold in separate lots and to different persons. It is not the majority of those who support legislation of this kind who would wish to see the manors of England dismantled, or the parks, which are the distinguishing feature of the landscapes of England, destroyed and broken up. Wherever the mansion and demesne are reserved there is always a chance given to a family which has held the estate of recovering its position and maintaining itself in the locality where it has existed, perhaps, for centuries. Of course, the Bill is promoted in the interest of landowners, and it is so far of advantage to them that they will be in a better position to maintain their mansions. It occurs to me that where there is a difference between the tenant for life and the Trustees in nine cases out of 10 the members of the family are in favour of the retention of the mansion and demesne, and are with the Trustees as against the individual; and I say, in this
326
legislation you are sacrificing the family to the individual. Those are the grounds upon which, though I should not vote against the Bill upon the principle, I should not vote for it as it is introduced before your Lordships' House by the-noble Earl.
On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents 22; Not-Contents 21.
Resolved in the affirmative.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I would make one suggestion to the noble and learned Lord. It may be unnecessary, because the Court, as I understand, has to approve of these schemes, and it might, per-haps, deal with the matter; but it is quite obvious, supposing an insurance upon the house which has been burned down, it-would not be reasonable for the tenant for life to put the money in his pocket and raise the amount upon the estate necessary for the purpose of re-building the house. It ought, I think, to be made clear that the money received from the Insurance Company should go as far as necessary towards the re-building of the house, and that if sufficient for entirely re-building the house, no money ought to be raised. That ought certainly to be made plain.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think so too, and also that the calamity must have happened—that the house must have been burnt down; because otherwise the tenant for life might pull down the house by way of improvement, and re-build it at the expense of the remainder man.
THE EARL OF POWIS: I would suggest to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that the power should be limited to the estate on which the house is situate.
EARL CADOGAN: As the word "rental" is used in the Bill, I would ask, Does that mean gross or net rental?
LORD HERSCHELL: With regard to the noble Earl's suggestion, I am not sure that the security against what has been pointed out would not arise in this way. These are improvements within the meaning of the original Act, and Section 26 of that Act provides that—
"Where the tenant for life is desirous that capital money arising under this Act shall he applied in or towards payment for an improvement authorised by this Act, he may submit for approval to the Trustees of the Settlement

327
or to the Court, as the case may require, a scheme for the execution, of the improvement, showing the proposed expenditure thereon."
So that the tenant for life would not be able to expend the money at his own pleasure without a scheme. Probably in that way he would be prevented doing what the noble Earl has suggested. With regard to its being confined to the particular estate, I apprehend the power ought to be confined; but I suppose the Court would see that it was an estate settled to similar uses to that for which the mansion house existed. It would not do for some remainderman to expend the money raised from one state upon another estate. That ought obviously to be guarded against. If it were confined to estates settled to the same uses, I do not know that there would be any harm. The remainderman would be the same, although the money would not arise from the same piece of land as that surrounding the principal mansion house. I take it, it would be better for the remainderman, rule, because he would get the estate with the mansion house upon the estate habitable instead of ruinous. That is the advantage he gets out of it.
Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 212.)

CUSTOMS CONSOLIDATION ACT, 1876, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 152.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: My Lords, this Bill has pass3d the House of Commons, as I understand, with the assent of the Government. It proposes to amend one clause in the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, which defines the penalty attaching to vessels for breach of the Revenue Laws. As that section at present stands, the penalty is forfeiture, whatever may be the size or value of the vessel. This Bill proposes to substitute a fine in the case of vessels of 250 tons burden and over. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill, and that it be referred to the Committee on Law.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

PAUPER LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) (OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION) BILL.—(No. 209.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD DE ROS: In asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, I will merely say that it has received the sanction of the other House of Parliament, and also of Her Majesty's Government. It is for the purpose of benefiting a class of persons, the officers and servants of pauper lunatic asylums in Ireland, who have a very great amount of wear and tear, and whose duties require the exercise of a great amount of humanity and discretion in performing them. The Bill provides that the Governors may, at their discretion, recommend certain sums to be given to the officers or servants when incapacitated by sickness, age, or infirmity, or who have attained the age of 50, and have been in the Asylums not less than 15 years. That recommendation is to be approved by one of the Inspectors, and is to receive eventually the sanction of the Lord President in Council. I hope your Lordships will grant a Second Reading to this Bill.
  Bill read 2a(according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Report from, That the Committee have added the Lord de Ros, the Lord Tyrone (M. Waterford,) and the Lord Morris to the Standing Committee for General Bills for the consideration of the Pharmacy Act (Ireland) (1875) Amendment Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.