Lords Sitting of 17 February 1891

INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS, &c., SITES BILL [H.L.]—(No. 3.)
Committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BILL [H.L.](No. 37.)
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, it seems somewhat superfluous in me, after now some years of disappointment, to raise this question again. The noble Marquess at the head of the Government gave me two days at the time of the introduction of the Representation of the People Bill, so that I was enabled to introduce an Amendment which would have made all other Bills on the subject unnecessary. In 1886 I ventured to trouble the House on the subject. I was most courteously treated by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and I wished that nothing but his Lordship's speech should appear in the Report, but Mr. Hansard insisted upon reporting the whole of my speech, whether I wished it or not. I would remind your Lordships of the way in which this question has been dealt with in India. On one occasion I laid on the Table of the House a measure upon which M. Bignon had made a speech in the French Chamber of Deputies as to the persecution of women, and I know that that was extensively circulated. On this occasion I shall lay upon the Table of the House the report of an address to the Undergraduates of the Madras University by the Principal of the College there. The words which he uses are most impressive. He says: "To educate men you must also educate women." This, my Lords, is a very comprehensive Bill, and it would do away with the necessity for another which I introduced with regard to the power of women to vote at Municipal elections in Ireland, because it embodies that power. In reference to that measure, I could only get an answer two years in succession, from the
810
Lord Privy Seal that it was intended to introduce a very extensive measure of local government for Ireland. That measure has not yet appeared. The late Duke of Buckingham said that it was a step in advance towards women's suffrage, but it appears to me that was a very great mistake, because no woman with a £10 ownership could have the privilege of voting. But I have not been careless of the effect of this measure, because I do not forget that in the Local Government Act there will be a triennial election for all County Councils. It was a very great evil that the hasty way in which the former Bill was passed prevented all due consideration by your Lordships' House of that measure. A speech was made for me by the reporters, not one word of which did I utter. However, the opinion of the majority of the House was in favour of the measure. I am not going into that question again. The system adopted in reference to the Grand Committees impairs the usefulness of every Member of this House, and your Lordships have not the same control as if you were satisfied in Committee of the whole House. It is open now, through the great and useful change in the Standing Orders, for noble Lords to say whether matters shall be so dealt with or not. It is a very narrow system to have these elections to Grand Committees; you do not know what they are doing, and it is impossible for business to be conducted on a sound basis unless every Member of the House has an opportunity of seeing what is done. I humbly venture to differ from the objection of the noble Marquess that measures affecting the interests of the other House of Parliament should not originate in this House. What was the Septennial Bill, which was originated by the ancestor of the Duke of Devonshire, in this House? That was a most useful measure, and if it were not that it exists we should have a General Election this year. Sometimes there is a difficulty with the Clerk of the Table about money Bills, but it is really not at all in accordance with the principles of the Constitution. I may remind your Lordships that one most important measure was a money Bill, because it gave a salary to six paid members of the Judicial Committee. I trust that if Mr. Haldane's Bill comes to this House it will have due consideration.

811
I think that every Bill should have the fullest consideration from this House by whomsoever it may be introduced. I am at very great disadvantage in bringing forward this question. I have been always blamed for doing so; but at the same time I thought I obtained the great support of Lord Carnarvon and Lord Wentworth, and I certainly was not without a teller. But I am not one to be discouraged by being alone in any measure that I venture to advocate. The abrogation of Standing Orders by Resolution has been an evil in this House since the year 1856. Both sides of the House agreed in passing measures which afterwards fell to the ground. But it is not known at the time what noble Lords are present in the House, that can only be ascertained from the Journals of the House on the occasion of a Bill being carried to a division. I am really anxious that there should be reciprocity between the two Houses, and I believe it to be possible that we may by communication with each other very much shorten the duration of Sessions of Parliament. I am sorry again that this question will benefit nothing from the feeble advocacy by which I have endeavoured to support it. I may say in reference to the present Bill that I have ceased to receive petitions from duly qualified women, but I know that Miss Becker was particularly anxious that there should be agitation in the House of Commons in order to carry out this measure. Why should it be said that your Lordships are unwilling to allow women householders to vote if you admit ladies into the Gallery and treat them with courtesy? And surely they are better judges of the qualities of candidates for membership of Parliament than many who now have votes. We have given votes to our servants who occupy their own houses. In 1869 there was a change made as to the right of women to vote at Municipal elections, and more power was given them in unincorporate than in corporate towns. I humbly beg your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this measure, and I hope it is not presumptuous in me to suppose that you will carry it. I know from my correspondence with the noble Marquess that he would be desirous to equalise the Municipal franchise for all women. The lodger franchise is possessed by those
812
who do not pay rates, but women are often householders paying rates and taxes. There is a question also as to married women voting. Certainly if women pay rates and taxes there should be no objection to their having votes. They have many duties in which they are associated with men. I believe also that they are strong political partisans. There would be much less difficulty in getting Irish enthusiasts to cease agitation if they could see that we know how to get rid of agitation ourselves. I am a very old man and I hope that nothing I have done will affect your decision in this matter. I feel that I have done my duty with impartiality in this respect. I have often heard Mrs. McLaren, the sister of John Bright, in Edinburgh, and Mrs. Fawcett in London, and I am sure that their counsels can always be acted upon although they do not wish to appear in Parliament themselves. In the old times the abbesses were represented in Parliament by proxies, and I am very sorry that proxies are no longer used in this House, because I think the opinion, of the best men in the country is in favour of voting by proxy. However, that is past. I have introduced a measure against lengthened speeches and I hope I have not occupied your Lordships' time much beyond the hour when Debates formally begin. 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, there are very few subjects which the noble Lord has not touched upon in the course of his speech. I shall not imitate him in its discursive scope, but will confine myself to repeating the reason which I have previously had the honour of laying before your Lordships, for rejecting this Bill, that it is against the comity of Parliament for one House to undertake the reconstruction of the constitution of the other House. I should think it very unwise, and very unbecoming for us to set the example of departure from so wholesome a rule. Without expressing any opinion on the main question involved in the

813
Bill. I beg to move that it be read a second time this day six months.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On question, whether the word ("now") shall stand part of the motion, resolved in the negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day six months.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888. (MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH.)
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government as to the powers and duties of a Medical Officer of Health appointed by a County Council under Section 17 of the Local Government Act, 1888; and to move for a Return of the medical officers appointed, and the Councils appointing them; and also for a Return showing the representations, if any, made to the Local Government Board under Section 19 of the Act, and the results of such representations, said: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board whether he can give me some definite information as to the powers and duties of Medical Officers of Health appointed by County Councils; and I should be glad if, at the same time, he could also give me some information as to the powers of the County Councils in the matter. We may be preternaturally stupid in requiring any information on the subject, but it appears to me it is very difficult to gather from the Local Government Act what the powers of medical officers appointed by the County Councils are, or what powers the County Councils themselves have. That Act states that the County Councils can appoint Medical Officers of Health, and it is provided that by arrangement with the District Councils their services can be rendered available; and pending the institution of District Councils they could make, I presume, some arrangements with the Urban or Rural Sanitary Authorities. But what those arrangements were, the Act does not specify, and it is impossible to find out. As far as I can gather from the Act, the only action the County Council can take on a Report of a Medical Officer of Health appointed by it would be similar to the action it can take in
814
reference to the report of an ordinary district Medical Officer of Health; that is to say, it can make a representation to the Local Government Board. Of course, any other body or individual can make a representation to the Local Government Board. If an individual does so, the result I fancy generally is that he obtains a large amount of explanation to a minimum of action— the minimum amount of results which can be obtained from the maximum amount of correspondence. I do not mean to challenge the action of the Local Government Board in all cases, because if the Board were to exercise practical supervision over all bodies in all matters which may be brought before it, it would have an amount of work to do which it could not possibly perform. But if that is the only power which the County Councils have in the matter, I do not think they have the power they should possess. The County Councils should have the means of rendering their opinions effective, and it does not appear to me that what the powers of Medical Officers of Health are is at all apparent from the Act. I wish also to move for a Return of the medical officers appointed and the Councils appointing them; and also for a Return showing the representations, if any, made to the Local Government Board under Section 19 of the Act, and the results of such representations. I do not imagine the Return would be very voluminous, and I hope the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board in this House will have no objection to granting it. If the noble Lord can give me, now, the information I want, I shall be very glad to receive it in that shape, instead of in the form of a Parliamentary Return.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, this question of my noble Friend's seems to be a very practical one, and I trust that the Government will give the Return that he asks for. As far as I am aware, Section 17 of the Act has never been acted upon, and remains a dead letter. Living in a populous county, the County of Kent, I am able to state what is done there. The Medical Officer of Health is appointed by and for groups of Unions; he reports to those Unions separately, and they take action in the matter if they think fit; but, as far as I am aware

815
neither in Kent nor in any other county has action been taken under Section 17. And, indeed, if action had been so taken, and medical officers had been appointed by each County Council in England, I am very doubtful whether any Report under Section 19 would have any effect whatever, because, as my noble Friend has pointed out, under Section 19 of the Act, only "a representation" can be made to the Local Government Board; but it does not say that any action can be taken by the Council. Being myself a member of the County Council of my county, I am anxious to know how far this clause has been acted upon, and I trust, therefore, that the Motion of the noble Lord for a Return on the subject will be assented to.
LORD THRING: I can state that in the case of our County Council, in the County of Surrey, at all events, a Medical Officer of Health has been appointed. I agree that the section requires amendment, and that the powers possessed by the medical officers must be put in proper form, and, as far as necessary, increased.
LORD HENNIKER: My Lords, in answer to the question of my noble Friend, asking what has been done under Sections 17 and 19 of the Local Government Act of 1888, it is quite true that under the 17th section of the Act, the County Councils have the power to appoint one or more Medical Officers of Health within their jurisdiction. The Local Government Board are aware that such appointments have been made by some of the County Councils, but there is no obligation whatever on the part of any of the Councils to report to the Local Government Board as to any appointments they make. We have, therefore, no complete list at the offices of the Local Government Board of the cases in which Medical Officers of Health have been appointed. The statute, too, does not in any way prescribe the duties which are to be performed by these officers; nor has the Local Government Board any power whatever to define their duties. In each case the duties must be such as the County Council may choose to lay down when making the appointment. I have no objection to offer on the part of Her Majesty's Government to the Motion of the noble Earl for the Return he asks for of the medical officers appointed, and of the
816
County Councils appointing them under Section 17. Then as regards the question respecting Clause 19, as to representations that have been made to the Local Government Board under this section. Such representations by County Councils have been made from the West Riding of Yorkshire, and by the County Councils of Wiltshire, Surrey, West Suffolk and Durham. These representations have had reference in every case to the sanitary defects which have been specified in reports of the Local Medical Officers of Health. With respect to four of those districts, the Local Government Board have directed an inspection to be made by one of their Medical Inspectors. In other cases, they have been in correspondence with the Sanitary Authorities and with the County Councils. This correspondence is still proceeding in the majority of cases, with regard to the districts concerned. If the noble Earl wishes to move for a Return of these representations, as he suggests, I, on the part of the Local Government Board, will consent to their being granted; but while I give that consent, I must remind the noble Earl what I have said already, that the correspondence upon the subject is still very incomplete.
LORD THRING: I would also ask the noble Lord whether the Government are not prepared to amend the section of the Local Government Act of 1888 relating to the duties of County Medical Officers of Health. At the present moment several counties—as I have said before, for example, the County of Surrey—have appointed these medical officers because they think it their duty in the interests of their counties to take a step towards improving the sanitary condition of the districts under their jurisdiction. But it is, I think, the duty of the Government to supply a manifest defect in the powers of the medical officers. No proper powers are conferred upon them. They ought to have jurisdiction given them over various sanitary matters. The extent of that jurisdiction is a question for Her Majesty's Government, and what I desire to ask the noble Lord is whether the Government are or are not prepared to amend the Act of 1888 for the purpose of extending and defining the duties of Medical Officers of Health.
LORD HENNIKER: I must ask my noble Friend the noble Lord opposite to

817
give me notice of this question. I can hardly take upon myself to give him an answer to it without notice.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I should be glad to have the second of the Returns I desired as there is no objection made, because I think the correspondence which has been going on with the Local Government Board has been terminated for some time. I did not quite clearly understand the noble Lord as to whether he could give the Return which I first asked for as to the Medical Officers of Health that have been appointed by the County Councils, and of the County Councils who have appointed them. I understood him in the first instance to say that the Local Government Board had of necessity no cognisance of those appointments. Am I right in understanding that?
LORD HENNIKER: Yes.
Ordered to be laid before the House,
"Return of the Medical Officers of Health appointed by County Councils under Section 17 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and the Councils appointing them; and Return showing the representations, if any, made to the Local Government Board under Section 19 of the Act, and the results of such representations."—(The Lord Kenry, E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENin rising to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is proposed to lay upon the Table of the House Papers relating to the fishery question in Newfoundland, said: I must apologise to your Lordships for intruding so much upon the golden silence which generally pervades this House, but I think this matter (which I will allude to very briefly) is of some importance. I will not for a moment go into the general question, more than a century old, of the difficulties with regard to French fishery rights in Newfoundland, and I will not touch upon the fascinating theme of the modus vivendi, or even indulge in a few remarks upon interesting questions in Natural History as to whether lobsters are fish or birds or wild beasts, or anything of that kind. Your Lordships will be aware that in Parliament, and I think throughout the country generally, or at any rate among those Members of Parliament and other individuals in the country who are aware
  818
  of the existence of our Colonies, there has been considerable interest excited of late by accounts of a somewhat sensational character which have appeared in the newspapers. A great deal of excitement appears lately to have been raised in the Island of Newfoundland on the subject. I have seen extracts from the local papers, and from Canadian papers, stating, for instance, that it was proposed by Her Majesty's Government to cede absolutely to France a large portion of territory, a considerable peninsula in the Island of Newfoundland; and according to the newspapers the legislature in Newfoundland has quite recently passed Resolutions strongly condemning the whole action of Her Majesty's Government in refusing assent to a Bill to make operative certain provisions entered into by Newfoundland and the United States with the consent of Her Majesty's Government, and which were satisfying to Newfoundland. Those are matters important of themselves, and with which obviously great principles of local self-government and freedom are connected; and I think it would be well that some definite information upon the subject should be given—that Parliament and the nation should be put in the way of obtaining some information upon these points. If the noble Lord who represents the colonies can give information on these points, I shall be very glad. If on the other hand he considers it inadvisable, pending the production of Papers, to give information to the House, I can only say that I hope the correspondence upon this subject will be laid upon the Table of this House as soon as may be convenient. I would only add that in asking the question I wish to be clearly understood in saying that I should be the last man in the world to ask for any information the statement of which would be in the slightest degree premature, or that could in any way add the slightest difficulty to the very complicated matters, which have arisen out of this Newfoundland Fisheries question. If the Papers can be laid on the Table without any detriment to the public interest I trust that Her Majesty's Government will take the present opportunity of doing so.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, I am not surprised at the noble

  819
  Earl's bringing this question before your Lordships. There can be no doubt of the importance of it. I think it hardly necessary to refute the rumours to which the noble Earl alluded with respect to Her Majesty's Government proposing cession of any part of the colony to France. I may inform him, in reply to his question, that Papers on the general questions affecting Newfoundland are in preparation, and will be laid on the Table, I hope, in a few days, in continuation of the Paper which was presented in June last with respect to these questions. I think the number was C, 6,044. As to the other point, the draft Convention between Newfoundland and the United States, I may also inform the noble Earl that we are preparing Papers to be laid before Parliament. But perhaps your Lordships will allow me to state that considerable misapprehension has arisen in Newfoundland as to the exact position of Her Majesty's Government with respect to that Convention, and that the misapprehension which prevails accounts for the Resolutions which I dare say your Lordships have seen in the newspapers, couched in very strong language and condemning Her Majesty's Government for having broken solemn engagements and obligations to sanction the convention. Let me say that there can be no breach of any solemn engagement or obligation, inasmuch as no such engagement or obligation has been entered into by Her Majesty's Government. I will explain to your Lordships how this misapprehension has arisen. There is no objection in principle to a separate negotiation between a foreign Power and an individual colony with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government. It may be quite possible in some cases to be able to secure to the colony the advantages, which it desires, by an arrangement without interfering prejudicially with the interests of other parts of the Empire which are not parties to that arrangement. But the mere fact of consent being given by Her Majesty's Government for the time being to a colony to negotiate a separate arrangement is always subject to a well-understood and well-recognised principle, condition, and reservation, that when draft terms have been settled
  820
  between the Representative of the colony and a foreign State, then Her Majesty's Government must consider those terms, and see how far they affect other interests, British or Colonial—that is to say, the leave given to negotiate does not carry with it an obligation or an engagement to sanction the arrangement when made. Now, it was subject to this well-understood condition that Her Majesty's Government, at the request of the Newfoundland Government, readily assented to Mr. Bond, who was one of the colonial delegates here, and who is also one of the Government of Newfoundland, going to Washington. The visit was unofficial. Mr. Bond had no instructions from Her Majesty's Government, but it was made for the purpose of communicating with Her Majesty's Minister at Washington to see what terms and what arrangement could be entered into which would be acceptable to the United States as well as to the colony. Certain terms were agreed upon and drafted, and then, as I have pointed out, it became the duty of Her Majesty's Government to consider those terms, and to see how far, if at all, they conflicted with the interests of other British colonies. Accordingly, the Government communicated with Canada, and the Dominion Government very strongly protested against that Convention being concluded. I will not now dwell upon the nature of that protest, or on the reasons which the Dominion Government advanced, because they will be found in the Papers which we shall very soon present to Parliament. But Her Majesty's Government, after full consideration, have arrived at the decision that the Convention, as to the feasibility of which Mr. Bond was permitted to consult informally with Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, cannot at the present time be concluded. In arriving at this decision Her Majesty's Government have broken no engagement or obligation; and I trust I have satisfied your Lordships on this point, and made it clear that it is a misapprehension as to the position of Her Majesty's Government that has brought down these very strong Resolutions of the Newfoundland Legislature condemning Her Majesty's Government.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I should like to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies whether the Correspondence with regard to this Convention is to be included in the Papers to be laid before us, because it would, of course, be very wrong and indeed impossible to form a judgment upon the matter without knowing precisely what form the negotiations took. I quite comprehend the position laid down by the noble Lord—namely, that all these agreements must be subject to the sanction and approval of Her Majesty's Government. At the same time, I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me that in order to prevent friction in negotiations which must always be very delicate in their nature, it is desirable to ascertain as far as possible beforehand, whether it is likely that the Convention which may be proposed is one which could be sanctioned. Of course points may arise afterwards which could not be anticipated or considered at first, but in these cases there is always very great danger of the colony, if they find that Government ultimately disapproves of what has been done, being very dissatisfied, and saying that it ought to be assented to. I quite agree with the principle which the noble Lord lays down, that Government could not beforehand pledge itself to accept any terms which may be arrived at in such circumstances; but I am sure the noble Lord will be of my opinion that it is necessary to avoid friction as far as possible. I entirely abstain from offering any opinion upon what has taken place except to regret that the Legislature of Newfoundland should have felt offended at what has occurred, but I shall be quite prepared to find that the noble Lord has done everything in the matter. My object in rising really was to ask the noble Lord whether those Papers can be included in those which will be presented to your Lordships.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: I am afraid I did not quite make myself understood. I answered the Question put that the Papers on the general subject will be presented, and then also that the Papers relating to this Convention for which the noble Earl asks will be presented in a separate Paper. I fully recognise the importance of the remarks he has made, and I regret that there should
  822
  have been any friction in this instance between ourselves and the colony, but I deny that we were in the wrong.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.