Lords Sitting of 20 March 1891

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
Earl of Milltown—Petition of Henry Earl of Milltown in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
Lord Dunsany—Petition of John William Plunkett, Baron Dunsany in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.

BERKELEY PEERAGE.
Petition of Randal Mowbray Thomas Berkeley, claiming to be Earl of Berkeley, for leave, on the consideration of his Petition to Her Majesty, to use the evidence adduced in the case of the claim of William Fitzhardinge Berkeley to the Earldom of Berkeley in 1811, and in the case of the claim of the Right Hon. Sir Maurice Frederick Fitzhardinge Berkeley to the Barony of Berkeley in 1859, and that he may be relieved from the expense of reprinting such evidence; read, and referred to the Committee for Privileges.
THE ROYAL ACADEMY.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I desire to put a question to the noble Marquess the Prime Minister, of which I have given him private notice. It has reference to an announcement by the Council of the Royal Academy, which has appeared in the usual channels of information, that the days for the taking in of pictures would be Good Friday, Saturday, and Easter Monday. It can hardly be said that these are convenient days. Some exception might be taken to putting Good Friday to such a use, and on that point it might be interesting to hear what the Chaplain to the Council, the Archbishop of York, might have to say. But there are secular reasons why
  1518
  the proposed days are objectionable—convenient, if not obnoxious. In the first place, the days chosen are extremely inconvenient for communication and delivery of packages, owing to the general holiday traffic. The proposal interferes very much with the Easter holiday making, which is general for all classes, and especially there are large numbers of parcel porters and others, especially frame - makers, of whom there are very many, and amongst whom there is very great dissatisfaction. It will, undoubtedly, I am told, cause a great deal of work to be done on Sunday. I am informed, also, that the work of taking in will not be over before 1 a.m. on Tuesday, and there is great danger of damage to valuable works of art. The proposal also causes great inconvenience and dissatisfaction amongst a very large number of the artists themselves, because in a great many cases they will be unable to get their works into the Academy until very late. I therefore ask, seeing that the Royal Academy derives its privileges from the Crown, whether Her Majesty's Government would make a protest as to these proposed taking-in days, which are obnoxious to those most concerned, and on many grounds inexpedient, with the view of seeing whether any alteration can be made in them?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I am afraid, my Lords, the Government can hardly admit themselves to be responsible for all the acts of those who have the direction of affairs at the Royal Academy or other institutions which may derive their privileges from the Crown. It would add very seriously to our responsibilities. But, at the same time, the question of which the noble Lord has given me private notice seems, if I may say so, an extremely reasonable question; and if I had been able to do so I should have been very glad to have done what he wishes, namely, to have asked from the Council of the Royal Academy some reason to give to the House for the course they have taken in this matter. But the time was too short, and I have not been able to do so. I feel, however, that the statement of the noble Lord will carry conviction, at all events, to the minds of the Council

  1519
  that there is primâ facie a considerable difficulty in the particular arrangement they have adopted. We all know that the interval between next Thursday and the Tuesday following is, in addition to its sacred character, a very popular holiday, and a popular holiday is not the best of times in which to get work of this kind done. I believe that representations from the noble Lord will be quite as effective as any made by the Government, and I can only trust that the Council of the Royal Academy will pay attention to the very just considerations the noble Lord has adduced, and will apply what remedy they can. If the period of the Session had permitted, I should have been glad to have given the noble Lord another answer.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: As the noble Lord has mentioned my brother the Archbishop of York, whose office as Chaplain to the Royal Academy has always been highly esteemed, I think, in his absence, I ought to say that I am quite sure what his view of the subject would be. There are a very large number, indeed, both of Church people, Roman Catholics, and Nonconformists whose religious feelings would be much injured by the setting apart, as the Council of the Royal Academy seems to have done, Good Friday for such hard work as the delivery of the pictures, and who would feel that numbers of their people were being hindered from taking part in the religious observance of the day. The observance of Good Friday has greatly increased in the last few years, I think, with great satisfaction to people at large. I must thank the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, in the name of my brother and myself, and also of a large proportion of the population, for having stated that he trusts the Council of the Royal Academy will pay attention to the representations of the noble Lord. I hope the noble Lord will persevere in them, and that he will receive from the President a satisfactory reply.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order): Then Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.
  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.—(No. 75.)
  Read 2a (according to order): Then Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Committee negatived: Bill read 3a, and passed.
  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]—(No. 17.)
  Read 3a (according to order); amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL [H.L.]-(No. 68.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, before proceeding to move the Third Reading of this Bill, I would ask your Lordships' permission to make a short statement for the purpose of removing a misapprehension which I believe exists in some quarters that a new principle is introduced in this Bill by its enacting the deprivation of a clergyman upon conviction of treason, felony, or grave misdemeanour. It is supposed by some that the sentence of a Civil Court has not hitherto taken effect in that way, and that this is, therefore, a new principle introduced into ecclesiastical legislation. With your Lordships' permission I desire to say a few words-merely in order to remove that entirely erroneous opinion. The state of the case really is this: that down to the year 1870 a conviction for felony involved forfeiture of the felon's property, and consequently a clergyman convicted of felony forfeited his benefice. In 1870 the Felony Act which is chap. 23 of the 33 & 34 Vict, was passed abolishing the old forfeiture; but it provided that a person convicted of felony should forfeit public offices which are mentioned in the Schedule. Amongst others an ecclesiastical benefice is forfeited ipso facto upon a conviction. The section expressly declared that the benefice held by a clergyman convicted of felony should forthwith become vacant, unless the convict received a free pardon within two months of his conviction, and before the living had been filled up. It was further provided that a clergyman so

  1521
  convicted should remain incapable of holding an ecclesiastical benefice afterwards. The present Act repeals the earlier Act, but it re-enacts the provisions as to forfeiture in the cases specified. What it does is simply to extend them to certain very grave and gross misdemeanours, of so bad a character that the person convicted is sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour. Now, hard labour can only be given for certain classes of offences defined by Statute, and cannot be given for any trivial offence upon indictment. Then the Bill contains a similar provision in reference to any clergyman upon whom a bastardy order has been made, or who has been found guilty in the Divorce Court of adultery. It will only carry out the general conviction and belief that a man who has incurred either of those consequences is not a fit person to go on holding a benefice and administering to the spiritual wants of the people. I wish to point out that in other respects the Bill relaxes the stringency of the Act of 1870, because it prevents a conviction from operating until the time mentioned has passed, and then by Clause 16 the incapacity for holding future preferment is not absolute, but is made conditional on the assent of the Bishop of the diocese and Archbishop of the Province being obtained to holding another preferment; that is in cases where a free pardon is not given by the Crown within two months after conviction. The provision in Clause 3 of the Bill by which a conviction in a Temporal Court is made conclusive in the Ecclesiastical Court is little more than re-enacting the existing law; and in some cases Clause 3 relaxes the existing law if it is a summary conviction which cannot be appealed against. With this explanation, trusting that it will remove any misconception upon those points, I beg leave to move the Third Beading of the Bill.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  POLLEN FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 69.)
  Read 3a (according to order) with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL. (No. 62.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to order).
  Verbal Amendments made.
  Clause 2.
  *LORD MONKSWELL: I have to propose an Amendment after the word "section," to add the words "unless and until the Council shall otherwise direct." The object of this Amendment is——
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must point out to the noble Lord that he is not in Order, as he has not given notice of the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that to be the Rule which we ordinarily adhere to, and I think it is rather a valuable Rule. It is not, of course, an absolute one, but it is very generally adhered to; and it is rather dangerous that the House should allow it to be broken, to avoid matters being sprung upon us at the last moment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Still, as the discussion upon this Bill was not pursued in the ordinary way in regard to opportunity being afforded of bringing forward Amendments at an earlier stage, and the Bill has been rather rushed through, it appears to me that, as it has not been quite proceeded with in the ordinary course, the Amendment might be allowed now to be brought forward.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If that is the feeling of the House, I will not oppose its going forward, but I earnestly hope that a Rule will not be readily disregarded which is part of the usage of this House.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I think the only reason that can be urged for it is that which has been pointed out by the noble Lord the Earl of Camperdown, that the Bill was allowed to pass through Committee without Amendments being put in, upon the understanding that they were to be allowed to be brought forward upon this occasion. But I entirely agree with the noble Marquess, and hope that it will not be regarded as a precedent.
  *LORD MONKSWELL: Then by the courtesy of the House I shall ask your Lordships to agree to this Amendment

  1523
  which gives the County Councils a somewhat freer hand. The members of the London County Council, I may say, so far as I have been able to consult them, are desirous that these words should be inserted. The Amendment is after the word "section," at the end of line 3, to insert "and unless and until the Council otherwise direct." This Amendment will enable the County Councils, if they like when they appoint a Committee, or at any time afterwards, to say that the appointment of that Committee shall not be held under the section to be an appropriation of the fund. As I have said, it only proposes to give the County Councils a somewhat freer hand, and I hope the noble Lord will not refuse to accept it.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I merely wish to suggest that the Committee act at the pleasure of the Council, and that it is entirely open to the Council to cancel the Committee altogether. If so, the words are certainly not required. I hold that the Council has full power over the Committee to deal with it they please. If I am wrong I daresay I shall be corrected by noble Lords who are well aware of the construction of the Act, but that is certainly my impression—that they may revoke the appointment of the Committee.
  *LORD LINGEN: I beg to point out that the words can, at all events, do no harm. I think the Councils ought certainly to have a freer hand.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The worst of it is that the Judges, when words are put in merely because they can do no harm, will imagine that they have been put in for some reason, and then they endeavour to find the reason, which is often very unfortunate.
  *LORD LINGEN: The words would, I think, remove any ambiguity.
  *LORD HOBHOUSE: I think I can point out how the words will do good. Suppose a case in which a Council have referred it to a Committee to advise whether part of the fund, or the whole of it, shall be applied for the purposes of technical education or not, and to inquire and report upon the question. That, I may say, is in point of fact an actual case; a reference of that kind having been made by the London County Council to a Committee.
  1524
  As this clause stands, as I ventured to point out yesterday, such a reference as that would make the first part of Section 2 attach upon the fund, and the reference to a Committee in those terms will be taken as an appropriation until the Committee shall have made their Report, and the Council shall have arrived at a decision, or the Committee shall have been superseded. That puts the Council to make a fresh order, perhaps to supersede altogether the Committee, whom they want to be advised by, in order to prevent that operating as an appropriation which they never intended should operate as an appropriation. But if the words proposed by Lord Monks-well were put in, then the Councils will have it in their power to say—"We desire to make this general reference to a Committee, but we do not desire that that general reference shall act as an appropriation, but the question of appropriation shall be reserved," as I humbly think it ought to be, until the Committee have reported and the Council have considered that Report. That would be the effect of it.
  LORD HENNIKER: If the Amendment which is proposed by my noble Friend opposite to-day is passed with regard to rescinding the appointment of a Committee, it appears to me this Amendment is almost surplusage, and personally I think it is rather a mistake to make Acts of Parliament, one may say, almost too explanatory in some ways. But if noble Lords opposite wish that this Amendment should be inserted, I have no objection to offer on the part of the Government.
  LORD HERSCHELL: As I understand the matter, it acts in this way. Practically all that my noble Friend desires could be done under the Bill as it now stands; but it would involve this: that if the Council wanted this money not to be hung up for this purpose, and at the same time desired that there should be a reference to a Committee notwithstanding that, for the purpose of considering the question of the application of the money to technical education, it could be carried out under the Bill only in this way: that they could rescind the appointment of the Committee, which would set free the money, and then I apprehend they might re-appoint the Committee upon terms which would prevent the

  1525
  money being in that way held in suspense. This proposal of the noble Lord would—and I understand that to be the object of it—do away with the necessity of rescinding the appointment of the Committee, because it would enable them to expedite the appointment, and to say, "We do not want in these particular cases that the fund shall be tied up." It would give the necessary power to the Council, though it might be worked out in another way.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: But is it not rather absurd to refer the question of appropriating the whole or any part of the money to a Committee, and yet not to take care to tie the money up while the Committee is deliberating?
  LORD HENNIKER: As I said before, I can only say that I think the words are surplusage, but, if your Lordships wish, I do not object to their being put in. The other point would be this: that if you rescind the appointment of the Committee by the Council which has had these funds left in their hands, the money which is given to them would fall into the general fund.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I am not quite sure that I have not made a mistake, if the House will indulge me for a moment. I am not quite sure that if they did rescind the appointment of the Committee, they could re-appoint the Committee without hanging up the funds. Therefore, I think that the words are necessary, if you want to enable the Council to appoint a Committee to consider the appropriation without unnecessarily hanging up the funds.
  *LORD BASING: I apprehend this provision may be necessary as far as London is concerned, which, of course, is a peculiar case, involving special circumstances, though, as far as the rest of the country is concerned, it might be rather inconvenient. But what I apprehend is this: supposing the Committee to have made its Report, the whole thing will be done; whereas, as I understand, the question referred to the Committee regarding technical education will be the subject of a series of Reports, and until they have furnished such Reports, and the County Council has determined the matter, it is not intended that the money should be merged; but I apprehend the object is to make the Council responsible for merging the
  1526
  money whenever they think the time has arrived for so doing.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 2, line 3, after the word "section," at the end of the line, to insert the words "and unless and until the Council otherwise direct."—(Lord Monkswell.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Verbal Amendments agreed to.
  *LORD LINGEN: I hope your Lordships will excuse me, at this late stage of the proceedings upon this Bill, for saying a few words more in regard to a clause of it which I cannot help thinking is of great importance. On the Second Reading it so happened that no opportunity was taken of discussing this Bill on its general merits as a public measure, and this is, indeed, the only occasion upon which I shall be able to make some few statements that seem to me to be deserving of your Lordships' attention. I have had, I may say, considerable experience in dealing with matters of this kind, and therefore I hope your Lordships will bear with me upon this occasion. In reference to the 2nd sub-section of Section 1, I scarcely think that urgency can be pleaded. That sub-section raises questions of very great general importance, which require, I think, for their full elucidation more time than we have had at present afforded us for the consideration of the subject. The Amendment which has been made to that clause provides that the words which occur in the Technical Education Act, 1889, shall be modified in their application under the provisions of the present Bill. The words in the Act of 1889 are to the effect that the Councils shall be bound in distributing the amount of provision to be made, to do so exclusively in proportion to the nature and amount of efficient technical or manual instruction supplied by the schools or institutions. The Amendment that is proposed to that clause, in the present Bill, is that they shall not be so bound; and how very effective an Amendment the insertion of that monosyllable will constitute, your Lordships will readily be convinced. I would point out to the House that, in the first place, the Act of 1889 is a rating Act. Under that Act the ratepayers, if they determined to promote technical education, must rate themselves. If, therefore, any precau-

  1527
  tion under that Act was needed to be taken, surely some precaution is not less needed under an Act which is not one of rating, but of making public grants. Now, I have been familiar with the system of making public grants for considerably more than 40 years; and I can state to your Lordships from my own knowledge that the principle adopted by successive Governments in making such grants as these has been that a certain modicum of efficiency should be secured before grants are made at all. Such grants have been emphatically grants made for improvement. I do not think that, under this Bill, which so far conforms to the policy of past times, that it is a Bill of grants and not a Bill of rates, the conditions should be made more easy than the Rating Act of 1889. That, I think, is a point to which attention should have been directed; and though I am aware that my observations can bear no practical fruit at this time, yet I have thought it desirable to make them to your Lordships.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  CUSTODY OF CHILDREN BILL [H.L.] (No. 31.)
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with amendments: The said amendments considered (on motion), and agreed to.
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL.—(No. 70.)
  Returned from the Commons, with several of the amendments made by the Lords agreed to; several amendments agreed to, with amendments; and several other amendments disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement: The said amendments and reasons to be printed; and to be taken into consideration on Monday next. (No. 78.)

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL. (No. 62.)
  Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.