Lords Sitting of 4 August 1891

APPEAL COMMITTEE.
Fourth Report from; read, and agreed to.
REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR IRELAND.
Writs and Returns electing the Lord Carberry a Representative Peer for Ireland in the room of the late Earl of Clonmell, deceased, with the Certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland annexed thereto: Delivered (on oath), and Certificate read.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.] (No. 77.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered (on Motion) and agreed to.
FOREIGN MARRIAGES BILL. (No. 282.)
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been dispensed with) Bill read 3a, and passed.
WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BILL [H.L.] (No. 37.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, through the research of the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland it was discovered that "months" meant lunar months, and consequently 13 days are saved which had to elapse before this Bill could have been read a second time. I will state to your Lordships that on the 17th February I very nearly fainted, and I thought I should have fainted. I had been advised by two medical men not to exert myself, and it was, consequently, at very great risk that I came up here. I can only say, without any desire to
  1218
  appropriate credit to myself, that I have conscientiously brought forward this measure. If I had died in the course of time after my first bringing in the Bill my wife would have had no vote. The Duchess of Granville, the Duchess of Roxburgh, and the Duchess of Buckingham have also been in the same position, though their servants have all votes. Your Lordships, I really believe, would not regret it if you set a good example to the other House of Parliament, and allow this Bill to be read a second time. With regard to the conduct of a Bill not beginning in your Lordships' House, it really does show a great want of knowledge of the Constitution for anyone to advance that such a scruple should prevail in this House. A Bill was brought in by an ancestor of the Duke of Devonshire at a most critical time when Parties were really violently opposed to each other; and even now I believe that if this Bill were passed it would tend to the promotion of goodwill and good counsels, which are sure to be followed by those, whether they be strikers who almost ruin themselves, or whoever they may be, who have sensible women around them to give them advice at the right time. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Denman.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I am afraid I am not able to say "Content" to this Motion any more than I was six months ago, but the question is not one I should wish to argue in this House at the present moment.
  On Question, resolved in the negative.

SCHOOLS FOR SCIENCE AND ART BILL [H.L.]—(No. 290.)
Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.
MARKETS AND FAIRS (WEIGHING OF CATTLE) BILL.—(No. 243.)
Commons Amendments and consequential Amendment considered (according to order), and agreed to.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL. (No. 291.)
Commons Amendment to Lords Amendments, and Commons reasons for disagreeing to some of the Lords Amendments, considered (according to order).
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): My Lords, the first Amendment is on page 3, line 9, as to inquiries to be made under Section 9 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870. The Commons have disagreed to the Amendment made in this House, because a public inquiry in a School Bard district might cause unnecessary delay in providing free school accommodation. To this we propose to assent.
Commons Amendment agreed to.
A further Amendment of the Commons agreed to.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: The next Amendment arises from the circumstance that in the House of Commons an objection was made that the Amendments proposed by this House in the new clause with regard to grouping schools, after Clause 5, infringed the privileges of the House of Commons; and the Speaker held that, inasmuch as it might in contingent cases lead to an increase in the public charges, it was in contravention of those privileges. If I may say so, with great respect to the Speaker, that seems to me to be a decision with regard to this House which would preclude its dealing with many matters in which, upon some contingency, a slight charge might be added to those thrown on the Public Revenue, not being a direct interference with the application of the Public Revenue. At the same time, we are anxious in every way to meet the decision which the Speaker has expressed. Therefore, with the permission of your Lordships, I have to a certain extent to vary the Amendment which is placed in my name on the Paper, inasmuch as I find it does not altogether meet the point which the Speaker thought objectionable in the other House. What I propose would read so that no addition to the charge on the Public Revenue may result from the course taken under the section in
1220
conjunction with Section 19 of the Elementary Education Act. One other alteration will also be necessary, inasmuch as in the House of Commons they struck out the words "not being schools provided by a School Board," and therefore "schools" now would come under the clause. It would be necessary to put in this in order that the voluntary schools may not partake, by providing that no Board school shall, under this section, be associated with a public elementary school other than a Board school. I hope the House will assent to this, which, in substance, is the same, though it is put in a different form to meet the decision of the Speaker.
Lords Amendment.
After Clause 5, to insert Clause (A.) (Clause 7 in Bill 257).

"(1.) Where the managers of two or more public elementary schools in the same or neighbouring school districts, not being schools provided by a school board, agree to associate, and elect a committee for the schools in accordance with a scheme to be approved by the Education Department, the schools may le treated as one school for such of the purposes of the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1891, as may be mentioned in the scheme, and the committee may for such purposes be treated as the managers of the associated schools.

(2.) Where two or more public elementary schools are under the same managers, the said schools shall, if the managers so desire, be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be one school."

The Commons disagree to Clause A inserted by the Lords, for the following Reason:—
"Because the clause might have the effect of increasing the Parliamentary grant, at present permitted by law, to certain of the schools associated under the provisions of the clause, and thus create a further charge upon the revenue. The Commons do not deem it necessary to offer any further Reason, hoping the above may be sufficient."
Amendment moved thereupon:
In lieu of Clause (A), to which the Commons have disagreed (and on which it will be moved that the Lords do not insist), to insert the following clause:—
"(1.) Where the managers of two or more public elementary schools in the same or neighbouring school districts agree to associate and elect a committee for the schools, any surplus income on the accounts for the school year of any of the associated schools may be paid into a common fund, out of which contributions may be made to

1221
any of the other associated schools, but the contributions received by any such school shall not be counted as income from other sources for the purpose of Section 19 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, so that no addition to the public charge may result from this section taken in conjunction with the said Section 19. Provided that no Board School shall, under this section, be associated with any public elementary school other than a Board School."—(The Viscount Cranbrook.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, with reference to this Motion I have to say it appears to me the claim set up in the Reasons sent by the House of Commons is an excessive claim, and much in advance of any that has been made before, and I do not think the decision of the Speaker is tenable. We do not assign to the officer who presides over us the duty of watching over our own privileges, and therefore it falls to me to make a suggestion to the House on the subject. I think, in assenting to this Amendment, we ought to indicate that, though we do so for the sake of the Bill being passed, we cannot consent to the doctrine stated in the Reasons sent up by the House of Commons being made a precedent hereafter, that anything which may indirectly lead to an increase in the public charge is outside the competence of this House. I therefore beg to move—
"That this House, in agreeing to the said Amendment, makes no admission in respect of any deduction which may be made from the reasons offered by the House of Commons, and does not consent that the said reasons should hereafter be drawn into a precedent."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the matter is one of considerable nicety, and I am not myself sufficiently acquainted with the exact procedure of the House to be able to offer an opinion upon what the noble Marquess has proposed; but I cordially agree with him in saying that I have no doubt he has ascertained that this would be going further than has heretofore been necessary in the practice of Parliament, and that it is necessary this should be done to guard the privileges of the House as stated by the noble Marquess. I wish to say a word on the Amendment itself. I understand the effect of it will be to provide that while the schools may pay whatever surplus they have into a
1222
Common Fund, and may use it for the purposes of the associated schools, any sum which is so derived in excess of what they would have if they were separate schools shall not rank towards the calculation of the amount to be given by the Privy Council Office. If that be so, the result is that it meets the difficulty raised that otherwise we should be adding to the taxation of the country.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: That is so; I believe this will meet it altogether. There has been a difficulty felt in the matter, because if anything was paid in advance it might have the effect to which the noble Lord has alluded with regard to the money having reached the schools in the first instance. It is quite obvious that that objection is now obviated, and I move that this House do not insist upon its Amendment of Clause A, and in lieu thereof to insert the Clause I have read.
Commons Amendment agreed to.
Moved to resolve—
"That this House, in making the said Amendment, makes no admission with respect to any deduction that may be made from the reasons offered by the House of Commons, and does not consent that the said reasons should be hereafter drawn into a precedent."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
Motion agreed to.
Bill returned to the Commons.

PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 292.)
Commons Amendments to the Amendments last made by the Lords considered (according to order).
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, I had hoped it would not be necessary for me to trouble your Lordships with further Amendments on the subject of this Bill; but the Amendment which has now come up to this House is one which is made upon a clause that I had the honour to introduce when the Bill was last before the House, and therefore I think it my duty to call your Lordships' attention to the action which has been taken in another place. Clause 26 in the original Bill was a clause enabling the Land

1223
Commission to place themselves in possession for the purposes of sale. It was thought undesirable that the Land Commission should thus be placed in the position of judges in their own cause; and in this House a provision was inserted in the shape of a new clause, which I moved, enabling them to apply to a County Court for an order to be put into possession. It has been found, however, that there would be some inconvenience in this arrangement, and I now beg to ask your Lordships to agree to a further Amendment to that Amendment. The clause as sent to the Commons applied to all sales by the Land Commission, whether for the purpose of recovering arrears of annuities or of enforcing forfeitures for breach of conditions. As amended, it only applies to the former case, the main object being to strengthen the hands of the Land Commission in the event of a general strike against the payment of annuities. The Amendment was accepted by the Government in another place, the existing law being considered adequate to meet the case of sale on forfeiture. The other Amendment provides with regard to possession not being taken by order of a County Court in any case. Reference to the County Court in cases of small holdings was proposed in the interest of the tenant purchasers; but as the Commons objected to it, and as it did not affect the powers of the Land Commission, it was accepted by the Government. Other additions to the clause give a right to appeal, as to which there can be no objection, and confer upon the tenant purchaser, on paying the amount due to the Land Commission, with costs, within a certain time, power to prevent the execution of the order. This provision has been considered advantageous both to the Land Commission and to the tenant purchaser. The clause, both in its original and in its amended form, deals exclusively with the relations between the Land Commission and the purchasing tenants, and does not in any way affect landlords.
Moved, "That this House doth agree to the Commons' Amendments."—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Motion agreed to.

CONVEYANCING AND LAW OF PROPERTY ACT, 1881, AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 293.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, this is a Bill which has several very useful provisions for further relieving lessees of houses from the consequences of breaches of covenants, that is to say, relieving them from the forfeiture which they would otherwise incur. The law has provided that relief in a great number of cases, and this Bill is to make the law more complete in that respect. It seems to me a very useful Bill, and therefore I beg to move the Second Reading. I understand the Lord Chancellor has certain Amendments, to which I have no objection, but that otherwise he does not object to the passing of this Bill.
  Bill read 2a (according to order); then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been dispensed with) House in Committee.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in Clause 2 I move to omit Subsection 3. In the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, there are certain reliefs given on equitable grounds which are considered to be proper to be granted in several cases; but for good reasons, as it appears to me, the authors of that Act struck out from those cases where relief might be given a condition for forfeiture on bankruptcy of the lessee, or on taking in execution of the lessee's interest. I think they were justified in making those exceptions. This Bill, as originally framed, sought to apply that Act to those two contingencies. I think that is a very undesirable thing to do; and therefore I move to omit this subsection.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 2, page 2, line 7, to leave out Sub-section 3.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I had no notice of this Bill, and I had not seen it before. It is a very wide and strong measure, and affects the rights of landlords all over the country,

  1225
  affecting them, it seems to me, to some extent injuriously. It is laid down in Clause 3—
  "In all leases containing a covenant, condition, or agreement against assigning, underletting, or parting with the possession, or disposing of the land or property leased without licence or consent, such covenant, condition, or agreement shall be deemed to be subject to a proviso to the effect that such licence or consent shall not be unreasonably withheld."
  That means to say that no man may prevent the underletting of his tenement, but he is obliged to go to a Court of Law to know whether it is reasonable or not. This is a very large borrowing from Irish legislation; and as, on what I understand is the penultimate day of the Session, there is no time for considering the Bill, this is a matter which I find it impossible to assent to. I must say that I think the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act itself was a very doubtful bit of legislation. It has been held to be the duty of landlords—I do not complain of that duty—to see that their houses are properly inhabited—that is to say, that they are not used for purposes which are against public policy, public morals, or public law; but the simple way of forcing landlords to fulfil that duty was to enable them to eject tenants for breach of covenant in those matters. Yet the law is to take away that power from the landlord, although public opinion claims from him that he shall effect that result which this power was his sole means of carrying out. It is a very difficult and thorny subject. I do not at all preclude myself from legislating upon it after full consideration, but it seems to me much too grave a subject, and to involve principles much too wide for your Lordships to consent to this measure under these circumstances, rushing it through on what is practically the last day of the Session.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I must say in my own defence that I am not responsible for the Bill coming up so late. I consulted on the matter with my noble and learned Friend, who is far better acquainted with matters of law than I, and he thought that, on the whole, it was a useful Bill. Under those circumstances, I thought myself justified in placing the Bill before your Lordships, but, of course, the noble Marquess at the
  1226
  head of the Government has it in his power to stop the. Bill. There can, I think, be no doubt that the Bill deals with matters of great hardship at the present moment. There is no doubt that many cases arise out of breach of covenant which involve great hardship upon under-lessees, and it seems to me that the law should be carried much further than it is at present. There is an extremely useful clause in the Bill protecting the interests of under-lessees. Under-lessees now frequently suffer from a breach of covenant by the immediate lessee from the original lessor, and the Courts have endeavoured to relieve them from those consequences. This Bill would have gone a considerable way to improve the position of under-lessees. I think, as a matter of justice, an under-lessee should not suffer from the laches of the lessee who holds from the original lesson. Of course, if the noble Marquess objects to the Bill at this stage of the proceedings, it is in his power to stop it. I ought to add this: of course I do not contend that in the case of a Bill coming up so late as this does the Government is bound by what took place in the other House, but I understand it was approved of there after full discussion upon these grievances.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not denying the existence of grievances in connection with this subject; no doubt such exist, and they ought to be remedied. I only say that it requires consideration, I think it was Sir W. Harcourt who stated that we have "ceased to be a deliberative Assembly." I hope at least we shall remain a deliberate Assembly, and that we shall not, at all events, rush into this legislation without considering what we do. Some of these clauses have a disagreeable aspect which I do not wish to introduce into this discussion.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I only wish to explain what my view is upon this Bill. When I saw it, there was pointed out what to my mind was an insurmountable objection, and that I still maintain. I am, of course, not out of sympathy with what my noble Friend has said, but I think I may state what provisions in the Bill might be useful and might be safely passed, notwithstanding Section 3 to

  1227
  which the noble Marquess has adverted. Practically, I may say this: I found that the operation of Sub-section 3 excepted from the Bill agricultural land, to which the Irish Office added pastoral land; mines or minerals; a house used, or intended to be used, as a public house or beershop; a house let as a dwelling house, with the use of any furniture, library, works of art, or other chattels not being in the nature of fixtures; any property with respect to which the personal qualifications of the tenant are of importance for the preservation of the value or character of the property. I am bound to say that with all those safeguards it did seem to me that, as far as my sight was concerned, I was not able to discern much danger in the passing of the measure. But I have no particular fancy for it, and if the noble Marquess at the head of the Government does not like it I shall not oppose him.
  Moved to report Progress.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 294.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD DE ROS: I venture to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill. I confess that I regret it did not come up to your Lordships' House a little earlier in the Session, when more Irish Peers would have been here to discuss its merits. I may say it passed through another place without any opposition being offered to it, and that the Amendments made by the Government were accepted. The object of the Bill is not to enlarge the powers of Boards of Guardians, but merely to remedy the grievance resulting from their inaction, particularly in the Province of Ulster, in reference to the Labourers' Acts. The operative clauses are strictly controlled by the Local Government Board; and I think, the tenant farmers having received so much lately from legislation in their favour, something should be done for the labourers; the labourers are naturally desirous that
  1228
  something should be done for them, and they feel that they have been left out in the cold. These clauses, I think, speak for themselves. The operation of the Labourers' Acts in Ulster is almost a dead letter, on account of the difficulty of getting 12 labourers to initiate the proceedings. Clause 3, therefore, provides for this being done by not less than 12 persons, but they need not be ratepayers. Then the 4th clause is on account of the Boards of Guardians having repeatedly rejected representations made to them, a course which has caused great agitation. The 5th clause is necessary, simply because of the fact that although the powers of the Land Commission are in operation there is no one capable of enforcing those clauses; but this enables the Local Government Board to enforce them. The other clauses I do not think I need comment upon, except the 6th clause. That is to save the expense caused by technical errors in carrying through any improvement scheme. The 8th clause gives discretion to the Local Government Board in cases of wilful neglect by Boards of Guardians. I may say that the last clause has been struck out on the representation being made that it was a money clause. I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord de Ros.)
  *THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I rise according to notice to ask your Lordships to read this Bill a second time this day three months. I will say at once that I am in considerable sympathy with the objects of the Bill, but it seems to me sufficient time has not been given for its proper consideration. The Bill only passed the other House late on Friday; it came up to your Lordships' House yesterday, and it cannot possibly have been in the hands of noble Lords who do not happen to be in London to-day, as it was only printed in time to be put on your Lordships' Table this afternoon. I believe there is considerable difference of opinion as to how the Bill will work in the South and West of Ireland, and therefore I think it is hardy reasonable to ask your Lordships to pass the Bill through all its stages this evening.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Lord Sudley [E. Arran].)
  EARL WEMYSS: My Lords, there is one point which ought to be noticed in this Bill. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) has pointed out a dangerous principle in a former Bill, and I think attention should be called to a very dangerous principle here. I do not enter at all now upon the question of policy involved in providing houses for people, whether labourers or others, out of the rates; but hitherto the ratepayer has had this protection, as I gather from what the noble Lord (Lord de Ros) has said in introducing the Bill, that it has required the consent of the ratepayers before these Acts can be invoked. If the ratepayers put the Act in motion, then it may come into operation; but this Bill does away with that, for the 3rd clause says—
  "Notwithstanding anything contained in the fifth section of the Labourers (Ireland) Act. 1883, a representation in pursuance of the said Acts shall mean a representation signed by not less than twelve persons, whether rated for the relief of the poor within the sanitary district or not."
  Now that, it seems to me, is a very marked step in advance, and an absolute departure from the security which the ratepayers had under the former Act. I certainly do not think the House ought to depart from such a principle too hastily.
  EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, the Government have no actual connection with this Bill beyond the fact that they allowed it to pass through the other House of Parliament, and that some verbal Amendments were made in it by the Attorney General for Ireland. The noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Earl Wemyss) has alluded to what in my mind is the main point of the whole Bill, namely, that it adds to the number of those who were previously able to initiate proceedings, in whom lay the power of calling the Act into operation, that is to say, the ratepayers; but my noble Friend, I think, put it rather too strongly. It merely gives them power to join in the representation, and they have no further power in the matter; as proposed by the Bill they have no power
  1230
  of decision. But I confess I feel some difficulty in reference to the course that has been taken, and by the Motion of the noble Lord (the Earl of Arran). I must leave it to the House to say whether they will accept the Bill or not. As far as the Government are concerned, they consider the Bill is certainly harmless in its objects, and that its passing might be advantageous.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It seems to me, my Lords, that rather different treatment has been meted out to this measure than to the last. I am not going to argue against this Bill, except on the ground which has been already put by the noble Marquess, namely, that we ought not to pass a Bill without examining it. It may be an excellent Bill, but I certainly have not had an opportunity of examining it more than I had in the case of the other Bill. With regard to the acquiescence which it received from the Government in the other House, I had that plea in my favour with regard to the other Bill. At the same time, the Bill does not seem to be one of a very serious character, and though I feel the force of the objection to passing Bills hurriedly at this period of the Session, and that it is an objection not lightly to be put aside, I hope the noble Lord will act with some magnanimity in not dividing the House, because if the House is divided now the Bill will be assuredly lost.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I can only say the maxim de minimis non curat lex may be applied here. It is a very small Bill indeed.
  On Question whether ("now") shall stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 2a accordingly: Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been dispensed with) Bill read 3a, and passed.

FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL. (No. 296.)
Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendments and Reasons for disagreeing to some of the Lords Amendments, considered (according to order).
LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, the first Amendment is not an important one, and I would ask your Lordships not to insist upon your Amendment.
Commons Amendment agreed to.
LORD DE RAMSEY: The next is a clause which was inserted in your Lordships' House in regard to the supervision of Sanitary Inspectors, and the Commons have disagreed to it. It was not in the original Government Bill, and I have to ask your Lordships not to insist upon its insertion.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I desire on this clause, though I know of course that it is unavailing, to enter a strong protest against the course that has been taken. This, it seems to me, would have been a very useful clause indeed, as introduced into the Bill in this House. It is a clause which would have enabled the County Councils to superintend the Sanitary Inspectors in the performance of their duties with regard to workshops. I understand the objection taken to the clause is that the owners of the workshops would be harried by having another set of Inspectors, and that it is quite sufficient to provide for inspection by the Sanitary Inspector; and, further—which undoubtedly is a fair argument—that there is a power in the Home Secretary, in case he is dissatisfied with the action of the Sanitary Inspectors, to send a Government Inspector to enforce the provisions of the Act, and see that they do their duty. What I wish to point out is this: I do not think the action of the Home Office would be nearly so efficient in these matters as would be the action of the County Council, and for this reason: that the County Council through their medical officer would be able to keep a watch upon these Sanitary Inspectors in the performance of their duties at all times, whereas the Home Secretary will only be able to act in case he hears, which he may not often do, that the Sanitary Inspectors are not doing their duty. For myself, I think the Home Office have a most undue amount of confidence in these Sanitary Inspectors; they seem to me to have, so to speak, "Sanitary Inspectors upon the brain." That must be so, when we see that they have provided in this Bill that the Sanitary Inspectors are to do certain duties, and apparently suppose that it follows they will perform those duties. I have frequently observed that though it is extremely easy to pass Bills for such purposes, it is much more difficult to get those Bills, when they become Acts, carried into effect; and my
1232
belief is that the provisions made with regard to workshops in this Bill will fail of their effect, and from a very simple cause. In the first place, the Sanitary Inspectors throughout the country, as a rule, are not men of high position, and greatly to be trusted in these matters; but what is of far more consequence, there is a much more serious objection, which has been frequently urged in the course of the discussions upon this Bill, namely, that these Sanitary Inspectors are appointed by bodies which, to a considerable extent, consist of persons who are directly interested in the abuses which the Sanitary Inspectors are to prevent. I am certain that those who know the working of the law in this respect will know that there have been innumerable cases in which the Sanitary Inspectors have failed to do their duty, because they are in fear of those under whom they act. To that extent I think this will prove an unsatisfactory provision in the Bill. I cannot imagine any real sound objection which there could be to placing this power in the hands of the County Councils. They are empowered by the Local Government Acts to appoint medical officers. Those medical officers would, in the performance of their duties, naturally know what are the qualifications of the various Sanitary Inspectors throughout the country, and will be in touch with the various Local Bodies; and though, no doubt, the County Councils are elected by electorates similar to those by whom the Local Bodies are elected, yet it is always a result which is bound to occur where you have a large body extending over a large district. Those who are at a distance are not actuated by the same motives as actuate those who are in the immediate district. It is simply human nature; people are ready enough to deal with nuisances affecting other persons, but they will take extremely lenient views of the nuisances arising on their own property. I merely utter these few words as a protest, and I sincerely trust my vaticinations may prove unfounded; but I have a strong belief that the provisions of this Bill will be found ineffectual, because the power is left in the hands of the Sanitary Inspectors without sufficient control over them.
Commons Amendment agreed to.
The Lords Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed, not insisted on.

PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) BILL. (No. 297.)
Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments and consequential Amendments considered (according to order.)
LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, there are a good many Amendments to this Bill, but there are none of importance upon which I need trouble your Lordships with any remarks. Perhaps it will be as well if I move them altogether, and ask your Lordships to assent to them, as they are all really verbal.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not think they are all quite verbal. There is one with regard to leaving out the word "dangerous." The Commons Amendment proposes to leave that word out, and I should like to know exactly what the effect of that is.
LORD DE RAMSEY: With regard to this matter, it has been suggested that under this clause, as passed by your Lord-ships, there might be cases where a person who is presumed to be suffering from a dangerous infectious disease, and who in consequence has been removed to a hospital, might be afterwards found not to be suffering from a dangerous and infectious disease within the meaning of the Bill—that is, patients found to be suffering from chicken-pox who were supposed to be suffering from small-pox, or from measles when they are supposed to be suffering from scarlet-fever. It was said that as the clause stood payment might be claimed in those cases, and that that might check the sending of patients to hospitals in such cases. It is therefore proposed to leave out the word "dangerous."
Commons Amendments agreed to.

MEDICAL OFFICERS IN SCOTLAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL WEMYSS, in rising to call attention to the action of the Board of Supervision in the matter of the appointment of medical officers under the Local Government Act in connection with the Government grant of £15,000 in aid of local expenditure; also to call attention to the refusal of the same Board to sanction the employment of the police
  1234
  as Sanitary Inspectors, said: My Lords, my notice is to call attention to two subjects, but your Lordships will be glad to hear that I do not intend to say anything with regard to the second branch of the matter, which is as to the appointment of Police and Sanitary Inspectors. There is a Committee in my own county considering the matter, and I would rather that another meeting of that Committee should take place before the question is brought publicly forward. But the other matter, to which I shall, with permission, call your Lordships' attention, is one of considerable importance to us in Scotland under our Local Government Act. I think I shall show your Lordships that rules have been laid down by the Board of Supervision which, to a great extent, cripple the free-will of those who have to administer the Local Government Act. Your Lordships may wish to know what that Board of Supervision means. It means bureaucracy for Scotland, and it lives at 127, George Street. It has been called the Board of "Super-vision "—I suppose because its vision is superior to that of the noble Marquess and to the purview of the Act which Parliament has passed. Now, the matter to which I wish to direct your Lordships' attention turns upon the provisions of the Local Government Act with reference to the appointment of medical officers. Nothing can be clearer than the provisions of that Act. It affords to Local Authorities and County Councils two courses which they may take. Indeed, there is a third, but I do not touch upon that now-farther than to say that the third course is that, without appointing any head medical officer, either for the district or for the county, they may appoint all the present officers county officers, and have no heads at all. My noble Friend's Office admitted last year that that construction was possible under the wording of the Act, but said that it would be contrary to its spirit; therefore, I eliminate that third course. But the other two courses are perfectly clear. They are contained in the 52nd proviso of the Act, Part VIII. It is stated there—
  "That the Council of every county shall appoint o; pay a medical officer or medical officers, who shall not hold any other appointment

  1235
  or engage in any private practice or employment without the express written consent of the Council."
  Those are the two courses. You may either appoint an officer who is to do nothing else, or you may appoint a medical officer who will continue his private practice. Well, counties have acted in different ways upon this construction. They were perfectly free to take the one course or the other. They may either appoint, as I have said, an officer who has done nothing in his profession, and who will, therefore, have no private practice; or they may appoint an officer who is in private practice, and give him a letter to continue his private practice. As far as the Act is concerned, if there had been nothing else, the counties would have so acted, and you would have heard no more of it—the thing would not have engaged public attention at all; some Councils would have taken one course and some another; but it so happened that there was a small grant of £15,000 to be distributed among the different counties of Scotland. There was an Act passed upon this grant being given, which I believe said it was to be distributed—I have not the exact words, but the sense of it was that this grant was to be distributed among the different County Councils in Scotland according to rules to be laid down by my noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland. Then, soon after this, there came out rules and regulations laid down by this Board of Supervision; and they are contained in this Paper which I hold in my hand. The date of it is the 8th January, and it is addressed to the clerks of the different County Councils. It says—
  "I am directed to inform you that the Board have been in correspondence with the Secretary for Scotland as to the conditions under which the grant of £15,000 towards the cost of local inspectors and sanitary inspectors shall be contributed."
  What the origin of this Paper is I do not know. We only know that they say they have been in communication with the Secretary for Scotland. Whether the Board was moved by the Secretary for Scotland or the Secretary for Scotland by the Board, or whether both were moved by the College of Physicians in Edinburgh, I cannot say, but there the matter stands. Perhaps if the College of Physicians moved
  1236
  in the matter they may have thought, if they could get these rules passed, there would be a good many places for doctors with nothing to do. But whatever the reason may be for this document which we have before us, the conclusions which the Board have come to are these: One knows that County Councils have appointed duly qualified medical practitioners to be medical officers at an adequate salary. Talking of medical officers' salaries, I would remark that one great object on the part of these bodies seems to be to encourage expenditure. Take this very considerable grant which is to be distributed: is it to be distributed in proportion to population, or to the value of rateable property in the country, or in proportion to efficiency? Not a bit; it is to be distributed in proportion to expenditure. What they calculate is, I think, 8s. in the £1. I say that is a wrong principle for the distribution of this or any other grant to a county, that it is to be in proportion to their expenditure in certain branches. Then it lays down this: that the medical officer for the county shall not be permitted to engage in private practice, and that his whole time shall be devoted to the duties of his office. They say they cannot recommend a scheme by which a medical officer of a county, or the chief medical officer of a district, is permitted to engage in private practice. Now this regulation has come out, and it has been variously treated by different counties. Some counties have accepted and acted upon it with the view of getting a portion of this grant. Other counties have declined to act upon it, and have stood upon the Act which these rules practically override. They have said, "We will do without this grant; we will maintain our independence, and we will act as we are entitled to, freely, under the original Local Government Act, which we are sent here to administer." The counties which have so acted, to the best of my belief, are—there may be others—Ross, Berwick, Clackmannan, Forfar, and the large County of Perth. A noble Lord says, No. Well, if Perth has not acted in that way it has changed again; because I hold in my hand the result of a discussion of the question, when, by a majority of 99 to 19, the principle of appointing a medical officer with a letter enabling him to continue

  1237
  his private practice was adopted. There may have been some change since; but, as far as my information goes, those are the counties which have so acted. In my own County Council there are, I think, only four who are in favour of accepting the rules and regulations of the Board of Supervision. Those counties stood on their rights under the Act; and the reasons they did so were twofold: One was that they thought it would be a more economical way of dealing with the question than by appointing a man with a large salary who would have nothing to do but go about to find work—to find something or other to show his raison d'être. At all events, we believe that this is the most efficient way of working the Act, and efficient on this ground. Here it is put in this very debate, to which I refer. It was moved in Perthshire that they should act upon the powers which they have, and that they should give a letter conferring power to the officer to carry on private practice. The gentleman who moved that said, "The question was whether a doctor in practice or a doctor without practice was the better man. A doctor in practice was certainly abreast of the times in medical treatment; while a doctor without practice must in a short time cease to have opportunities of studying complaints." I am perfectly certain of this: that there is not a member of that Board of Supervision, and certainly not, I should say, my noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland himself, who, if he were ill, would call in a doctor who had no practice in preference to one who had a practice; and, therefore, I maintain that, whether you look at the economy of the matter and to the rights under this Act, or to efficiency in its administration, these counties that have stood upon their rights and have declined this "mess of pottage," offered them in the shape of a share of this £15,000 grant, have properly administered the Act, and have done more wisely than those who have not done so, in the interests of their counties and for the purposes of the Act. I have thought it right to call the attention of your Lordships, and especially of my noble Friend, to this matter, on the ground that I think where you have an Act of Parliament passed after great care, and great attention has been paid
  1238
  to the subject, and that Act gives an alternative, those who have to administer it are in their right when they administer it to the best of their ability according to one or other of those alternatives whichever seems best. I say it is not sound in principle, or right or just or any thing else when circumstances arise which are supposed to give to those in authority, whether my noble Friend in the first instance or acting really through the Board of Supervision, the power to decide the meaning of that Act as regards the appointment of medical officers, to say, "If you will not do what we say, you shall not get the grant." I say that is neither right nor sound in policy, principle, or anything else. I have called attention to this matter in the interests of everybody. We do not want bureaucratic Edinburgh government in such a matter as this, and I hope my noble Friend (the Marquess of Lothian) will be prepared to re-consider the matter. In my own county, I may say, it will make very little difference; but I submit to your Lordships that it is not a question of amount, but of principle. I apologise for taking up so much of your Lordships' time on this subject.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN): My Lords, the noble Lord on the Cross Benches has, with his usual eloquence and energy, brought forward for your Lordships' consideration a grievance which he says is felt in the County of Haddington, and in other counties in Scotland, at the present time. I must take leave to point out to the noble Lord that, whether he agrees or not with the course which has been taken by the Board of Supervision and by myself, we have not, at any rate, been guilty of any act of illegality, but have pursued a course which is perfectly justifiable under the Act he has referred to. Though I am afraid I shall not convince my noble Friend, it is my duty to point out the course we have followed. My noble Friend has referred to the 52nd clause of the Local Government Act. That clause provides that the Councils of every county shall appoint and pay a medical officer or medical officers, who shall not engage in private practice or employ without the express written consent of the Councils. Now, I take quite a

  1239
  different view from the noble Lord of the effect of that clause, because I think if it had not been held that there was some possible disadvantage in employing a medical officer not in private practice those words would not have been put into the clause. I think the fact that it was required that the written consent of the County Council should be granted when a medical officer engaged in private practice, showed that those in office were of opinion that that should rather be the exception than the rule. But that is not the ground on which the action taken by the Board of Supervision has been based. As the noble Lord has pointed out, the action has been taken on the Local Taxation Act of 1890. By the 2nd clause of that Act a sum of £15,000 was to be distributed under such regulations as might be framed by the Secretary for Scotland. In pursuance of the duty which was laid on the Secretary for Scotland under that Act, I issued certain regulations, and those regulations were to this effect: "That in order to entitle a County Council"—
  THIS EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Would the noble Marquess tell us when the regulations were issued, and by whom?
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I think it was in October of last year. I have not the exact date—
  "In order to entitle a County Council or any other Local Authority to participate in the distribution the arrangements made with regard to salaries and otherwise shall be approved by the Secretary for Scotland on the recommendation of the Board of Supervision."
  Naturally, I referred to the Board of Supervision as being the authority most competent to make such a recommendation. They are the authority who ad-minister the Poor Law in Scotland. They have for a long time administered those Acts, and clearly they are the proper body to make such a recommendation. In consequence of those regulations which were issued by the Secretary for Scotland, the Board of Supervision did make certain regulations as they were bound to do. Before issuing the Circular to which my noble Friend has alluded they referred to me as to what were the conditions they proposed to make with regard to the grant of £15,000. I considered that proposal very carefully.
  1240
  There was a great deal of correspondence, and there were objections raised on one side and the other, some people approving generally of the course taken by the Board of Supervision; but the general result was that I did not see my way to withhold my approval from the regulations laid down by the Board of Supervision; and, having granted that approval, I must hold myself responsible to that extent for the conditions which have been laid down by the Board of Supervision. Now, the Circular which my noble Friend objected to was, I think, a very proper Circular—I do not mean as to the wording, though I do not understand that my noble Friend objects to that; but I think it would have been very unfair on the County Councils who are affected by this Circular if they had not been informed at once, at the beginning of January, of the conditions under which the grant would be made. Consequently, the Circular was issued, and, as my noble Friend has observed, some County Councils have taken one view and others have taken an opposite view. With regard to the sanitary part of the question, as my noble Friend has not entered upon it, neither will I; but as to the medical officers being allowed to engage in private practice, I think my noble Friend is wrong in saying that so many County Councils have taken the view he states. There are only two exceptions, and those have been allowed by the Board of Supervision on the ground that the circumstances were exceptional—one was Orkney and Shetland (the Islands), and the other was the County of Bute. With those exceptional cases every county in Scotland—Forfar, Berwick and East Lothian excepted, have accepted the view of the Board of Supervision and of myself. My noble Friend has, of course, stated that the action of the Board of Supervision, approved of by myself, is rather ultra vires as upsetting the arrangements made under the Local Government Act. I do not accept that view. I think at this present moment, as my noble Friend has stated, the County Council of East Lothian and the County Council of Berwick have both acted under that view. Their liberty has not been curtailed by what has happened since. They have simply not accepted the conditions under which the grant was given, and they do not

  1241
  obtain their share in the distribution of the £15,000.
  EARL WEMYSS: The noble Marquess says their liberty is not curtailed; but they are acting under a pecuniary penalty.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: It is so far a pecuniary penalty no doubt, they not accepting the conditions. But if my noble Friend's County Council had accepted the conditions the pecuniary penalty would not have attached. I am not concerned further than to say that whatever view may be taken by my noble Friend or others as to the desirability of allowing medical officers to engage in private practice, I believe there is nothing illegal in the course which has been followed, and that the Board of Supervision have taken a course which it is perfectly competent to them to adopt. I can only express the hope that my noble Friend's County Council will come to take an opposite view, and they will thereupon obtain their share of the £15,000 grant.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, the noble Earl has done very rightly in bringing this matter before the House. It is a point in Local Government which is considerably larger in its application than many of your Lordships may suppose, and it will apply to England just as much as it will to Scotland. With reference to this particular matter, of course the question which has been raised is a very small one. It is really a question of principle, but it is also a question of how a sum of £15,000 is to be divided. Now, the Act says that that sum is to be divided in such manner and under such regulations as the Secretary for Scotland shall make; and if the noble Marquess will tell us that he himself, as Secretary for Scotland, says he thinks it right that no county should have a share of this grant unless it debars the medical officer of the county from private practice—if he says that is his own deliberate opinion, there is nothing to be said in answer to it. He has the power to enforce it; that is the power given by the Act of Parliament. But the account which he has given us of the transaction, and of the part which he took in the transaction, is quite of another sort. The noble Marquess said that he informed the County Councils that he was going to
  1242
  ask the Board of Supervision to make certain regulations or recommendations; but it by no means followed that those recommendations would be accepted. If the noble Marquess means that whenever he asks a person for advice he considers himself absolutely bound to do what that person proposes, and that everyone who is affected by that advice, and who is informed that certain recommendations are going to be asked for, is thereby bound to anything which that advice may suggest as necessary to be done, I think that is a very extraordinary state of things. But I think the noble Marquess was quite right to ask the Board of Supervision for their advice, and that he was perfectly right to act in whatever manner he saw fit with regard to the advice given him; but the point which I think the County Councils must insist upon is this: that the Board of Supervision have no authority whatever over a County Council, and, moreover, that the Board of Supervision ought not to conduct correspondence with County Councils except upon such matters as they may have some executive authority upon. If it were a matter of the dismissal of a medical officer or of a Sanitary Inspector, there, I admit, the Board of Supervision has a perfect right to write to the County Council, because an officer cannot be dismissed without the consent of the Central Authority; but on such a matter as this the Board of Supervision ought never to have written to the County Councils at all. Any advice ought to have gone direct to the Secretary for Scotland, and the Secretary for Scotland himself ought to have informed the County Council what he proposed to do. He was at liberty either to take advice from the Board of Supervision or from any other advisers he might choose; but his action ought to be his own, and the Board of Supervision ought not to have taken any direct part in the matter. I do not say anything on the nature of the correspondence which was conducted by the Board of Supervision. I do not wish to say anything against them at all; on the contrary, I wish to uphold their authority within their proper sphere. I think it would be unfortunate if the Central Authority in Edinburgh were abolished or done away with; but I must say I think their epistolary style is of a

  1243
  rather unfortunate character. I would suggest to the noble Marquess that he should read these letters; he will find himself referred to in this sort of way: They say, "The general principles of distribution upon "which the Secretary for Scotland and the Board of Supervision will proceed may now be stated." When the Board of Supervision tacks oh its name as of nearly co-equal power with himself, I think it about time the noble Marquess should look into the matter. Now, with regard to the practical course which has been taken, I must differ from the noble Marquess himself, because he says he approves of this proposal of the Board of Supervision. I maintain there is no question that under the Act it was expressly contemplated that any County Council might appoint as local medical officer a person who was engaged in private practice. It is expressly so stated in the Act. That being so, how can it be right by a pecuniary penalty—the matter is trifling, and, therefore, I have the less hesitation in speaking about it—to prevent any County Council from taking any course which the Act says they may take? And moreover, with all due deference to the course taken, it is not, I should say, the most sensible one. I should like to know how many counties there are, cither in England or Scotland, where the whole time of a medical officer is required? I must admit that there is some support for the remark which was made by the noble Earl just now that the object of the Board of Supervision appeared to be to encourage expenditure. They said, "You must employ the medical officer; it does not matter whether you want the whole time of the medical officer or not, you must pay his salary; "and of course it stands to reason that if you are to have a medical officer worthy of the name, his whole time cannot be obtained without paying him a considerable salary. In Forfarshire, as far as I can understand the matter, to pay for the whole time of a medical officer would be perfectly unnecessary. The Committee appointed for the purpose carefully inquired into the matter, and they came to the conclusion—a very sensible one it seems to me—that the principal part of the administration of this Act would fall upon the Sanitary
  1244
  Inspector, and not upon the medical officer, and, therefore, while they were perfectly prepared to pay a large salary to the Sanitary Inspector, they did not see any necessity for employing the whole time of a medical officer. I think that course is not only in harmony with the Act, but is consonant with common sense. I suppose it is too late to make any suggestion to the noble Marquess now; but what I should say would be the right course would be to throw the whole burden and responsibility upon the shoulders of the County Councils to inquire into the manner in which the officers perform the medical duties which are incumbent upon them under the Act, and if those medical duties are not performed in a satisfactory manner, then fine them or punish them in any way you choose; but to begin by saying that the Central Office in Edinburgh does understand what the county wants, and that the County Council does not understand, appears to me to be centralising the administration to the very last extreme and to be taking a course of action which certainly was not contemplated by the Local Government Act.

COINAGE BILL.-(No. 298.)
Read 2a (according to Order); Committee negatived; then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been dispensed with) Bill read 3a, and passed.

BERKELEY PEERAGE
Report from the Committee for Privileges with respect to the claim of the Right Honourable Francis William Fitzhardinge Baron Fitzhardinge, that it is the opinion of this Committee that no reason has been shown for departing from the resolution of the Committee of the 28th of June 1811, and the order of the House thereon of the 2nd of July 1811; Report from the Committee for Privileges with respect to the claim of Randal Mowbray Thomas Berkeley, that the said Randal Mowbray Thomas Berkeley hath made out his claim to the titles, honours, and dignities of Earl of Berkeley and Viscount of Dursley; made, and agreed to, and resolved and adjudged accordingly; and resolution and judgment to be laid before Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves: Ordered, that all deeds, documents,

1245
registers, and papers produced on behalf of the respective claimants by their respective agents be delivered to the said agents respectively.
House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.