Lords Sitting of 24 March 1892

BLACKROCK AND KINGSTOWN MAIN DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
THE EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERY: My Lords, as what I ask your Lordships to do, to refer this Bill back again to the Standing Orders Committee, is very unusual if not altogether unprecedented, I hope you will have patience with me for a moment while I explain what this Bill is and the fate it has met with. The Blackrock Township is one of the townships in that thickly populated district that runs from Kingstown to Dublin. All the way from Kingstown to Dublin the sea is extremely shallow; there are sands which run out a long way to sea and which are all dry at low water. I want your Lordships to take in the geographical aspect of this question; I only wish I had one of the big maps with a long stick that they have in the Committee Rooms upstairs to make myself clear; because unless you understand the geographical position it will be hard for your Lordships to understand what the peculiar difficulty of the Blackrock people is in dealing with their sewage, why they have always had to wait upon the people of Kingstown, and why they are perfectly justified at the present time in persisting with this Bill. My Lords, owing, as I say, to the shallow water and flats in front of these townships, to deal properly with their sewage it is absolutely necessary to intercept it and take it away to the right past Kingstown and away out to the deeper water beyond at Dalkey or elsewhere. They cannot possibly deal with it in front of their own township for the reasons I have stated. What happens at the present time is that this sewage is poured upon the sands; at low water it festers in the sun, and at high water it is all washed up again on to the shore all along Dublin Bay and causes a tremendous nuisance. If there is any noble Lord present who is in the habit of travelling, particularly by slow trains, backwards and forwards along
1626
that way from Kingstown to Dublin, especially at low water when the wind is off the sea, I am sure he will back me up in saying that, it is now almost an intolerable nuisance, the smell is so horrible. [After reading some letters from medical men in the district in support of his statements the noble Lord proceeded.] My Lords, I think the letters which I have read will leave no doubt upon your Lordships' minds that this question is most urgent, and, in the words of the Kingstown Commissioners (those very Commissioners who are now opposing this Bill) in a resolution which they passed last September, "the cleansing of the foreshore is an absolute necessity." My Lords, what is the history of this question up to now? For the last 20 years efforts have been made on the part of the Kingstown Commissioners to deal with the question, but they have all come to nothing; and, if I have made myself clear to you, you will understand that it was not such a pressing question 20 or even ten years ago as it is now. Things went on in this way until last year, when the Kingstown Main Drainage Committee devised a scheme which is the scheme now before your Lordships' House. As usual they asked the Blackrock people to contribute towards it and the Blackrock people did. What happened at the last moment? For reasons, about which I shall have a word to say presently, the Kingstown Commissioners dropped the Bill, and on 7th January they turned round and passed a resolution opposing their own Bill and their own scheme. Then it was that the people of Blackrock, being utterly sick of suffocating in the smell of their sewage, and despairing of getting any efficient assistance from the Kingstown Commissioners, made up their minds to go on with this Bill by themselves in the teeth of the Kingstown Commissioners. What has happened to this Bill? My Lords, the Bill came in the ordinary way before the Examiner of Private Bills, who pointed out that it was inconsistent with the Standing Orders on three points, of which the first and third, which I may take together as consequent upon each other, are I understand the most important. The Examiner pointed

1627
out that the words of the Bill were so wide in connection with the sewage works,—their drains, that it really gave power to the promoters to construct sewage works; and if that were done, of course consistently with the Standing Orders, their limits ought to have been denned, and proper notice ought to have been given in the Bill to the people likely to be affected by this nuisance. The promoters of the Bill were very much taken aback at this announcement; they had no more idea of constructing sewage works near the outfall than they had of building a lighthouse there. They had no idea of stealing a march or taking an unfair advantage of anybody. The mistake was due entirely to careless drafting and inadvertence. Before the Standing Orders Committee of the House of Commons therefore they offered to insert a clause restricting these wide words entirely to the two sewage pipes, which was all they wanted, to go past Kingstown and to go 600 feet out to sea. The House of Commons Standing Orders Committee took the view that such a safeguard as that would be sufficient, and they allowed the Bill, so far as that objection went, to proceed. I now come to the second objection taken by the Examiner, namely, that the notices for the Bill do not state the intention to compel the Kingstown Commissioners to contribute towards such a course and its expense. To anyone who knows the private history of this matter this objection will appear a very technical one; because, as I told your Lordships just now, it is the Kingstown Commissioners own scheme, drawn up by their own Main Drainage Committee, and the one they asked the Blackrock people to co-operate with them in. They cannot possibly plead that they have been taken by surprise in any way, for this is what passed on the 4th March last year. Their Committee reported to them that—
"As the Commissioners of the Blackrock Township represent the next largest township to our own in the suggested drainage district, we invited them to say whether they would join your Board in preparing and promoting a main drainage scheme which would provide for the townships and the area draining into them, on the basis of contribution and representation pro rata."
1628
I think your Lordships' curiosity may well be excited at the way in which the Kingstown Commissioners have dropped this scheme of their own,—it is really a very curious reason. They have dropped it I understand because certain members of the Kingstown Commissioners hold leases of landlords in Kingstown which will shortly expire, and they think they can get better terms from the landlords for renewing their leases by opposing this Bill, which the landlords are promoting. And, just to show that I am not repeating any mere malicious gossip, I think I had better read you this short extract from a speech of Mr. Myles, late chairman of the Kingstown Commissioners, when seconding the resolution passed on the 7th January of this year to oppose the Bill. He said that—
"They were now going to pass a resolution to oppose the Bill, and he hoped it would be unanimously passed. He thought that any main drainage scheme in the present deplorable condition of the Kingstown leases would be a mistake."
So that they avowed that as their reason for turning on the Blackrock Commissioners and opposing their own Bill. Again I refer to what passed before the Standing Orders Committee of the House of Commons. The Committee thought that this objection might reasonably be met by allowing the question of costs to be dealt with by the Committee before whom the Bill might come. The first objection they thought might be met by a restricting clause; the second by leaving the question to the Committee on the Bill; and the House of Commons Standing Orders Committee allowed the Bill to proceed. Your Lordships' Standing Orders Committee took a more severe view; they held that the Bill had not been drafted in compliance with the Standing Orders and that it could not further proceed. Well, my Lords, I for one am not going to say that they were not perfectly justified in coming to that decision. I quite understand the extreme importance of insisting that people should comply properly with the Standing Orders; and there is no one in the world to blame in this matter but the draftsman of the Bill, through whose carelessness or inadvertence the whole difficulty has arisen. But looking at

1629
it from the point of view of the Blackrock people and their feeling upon the subject, it does seem to me very hard thing that a measure of such urgent necessity for their health and comfort should be lost, perhaps indefinitely, on account of a merely technical objection. My Lords, upon what ground can I claim a re-hearing? I claim it partly on this ground: that there was a certain irregularity in the way in which the Bill was opposed before the Standing Orders Committee of your Lordships House. The agents who represented a noble Lord in this House, Lord Carysfort, did not appear before the Examiner, but appeared before the Standing Orders Committee, without any notice to the promoters of the line they were going to take. I am informed that such conduct is very irregular. Anyhow it is highly inconvenient and very hard upon promoters. I believe there were several things put forward on behalf of Lord Carysfort which could have been shown to be inaccurate. There are several other things which could have been met and answered in a way that would I think have satisfied both the Committee and the noble Lord. For instance, the noble Lord representing the people of Dalkey was very much alarmed at the wide Parliamentary limit taken in the Bill for the possible outfall of the sewage; but, if the promoters had had notice and had been able to meet him before the Standing Orders Committee, I think they would have proved to the Standing Orders Committee and to the noble Lord that his fears were groundless, because there are other people to be consulted, and the Dublin Port and Docks Committee have confined the area in which they may discharge their sewer to the small area marked blue on the map which I have here, and which I shall be happy to show to any of your Lordships, in the extreme furthest corner of the Parliamentary limits, and at a spot where there is always 30 feet of water at low water, and where I am also informed the strong ebb tide (and the sewer is only to discharge at ebb tide) would carry all the sewage away. I base my appeal for a re-hearing partly upon this: that there was some irregularity as to the evidence which
1630
could have been given, if there had been proper notice, before the House of Lords Standing Orders Committee, evidence which would be given if the Standing Orders Committee should consent to allow the promoters a re-hearing; but I also appeal, my Lords, very strongly on the ground of the urgent sanitary necessity for this Bill, coupled with the fact that the non-compliance with the Standing Orders was due entirely to inadvertence, and did not conceal any unfair or nefarious design. I am fully conscious of the extreme importacen of enforcing compliance with the Standing Orders by a sharp lesson if need be, and I think what has passed with regard to this Bill will have taught such a lesson. On the other hand it does seem a great misfortune that so desirable a measure as this, of such urgent sanitary necessity should be lost upon a merely technical ground. My Lords, I may be met by saying that as a precedent it would be dangerous. But I ask your Lordships to remember that I am not asking that this Bill should pass. I am not even asking that it should be referred to a Committee to be sat upon. I only ask that it should have a re-hearing before the Standing Orders Committee. The Standing Orders Committee will always have power to throw out this Bill or any other, and therefore I think the argument as to its being a dangerous precedent will fall to the ground. No dangerous precedent will be set by this Motion of mine if you pass it, and I hope the Standing Orders Committee will listen to the plea that I have brought before them and will consent to my Motion. I beg leave to move the Motion that stands in my name.
Moved, "That the Report from the Standing Orders Committee of the 14th instant be referred back to the said Committee forre-consideration."—(The Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): I hope the noble Earl will excuse me if I do not follow him into the details of the merits of this Bill which he has so ably brought before your Lordships. It is not a question of merits at all; it

1631
is simply a question of the Standing Orders not having been complied with; and it is a question for the Standing Orders Committee whether they should be dispensed with in this case or not. It is a perfectly simple question, and the merits I venture to think do not enter into the question at all. My Lords the facts are these: The Committee to which the Bill was referred was particularly strongly composed; no less than 15 Members were present and heard with patience, and I think with perfect fairness, everything that was brought forward by those whom the noble Earl represents to-day. I beg the noble Earl not for a moment to imagine that the Committee entered into the question, or would deny what he has said as to the desirability of the scheme. Of that we knew nothing; but we considered the question whether in this case the Standing Orders, which undoubtedly had not been complied with, were so unimportant that they might be dispensed with with safety; and the Committee, without any division, came to a decision that it was not a case in which the Standing Orders should be dispensed with, and in that sense we reported to the House. Now my Lords the Motion of the noble Earl is a very unusual one; I think I may say that in the particular form in which he has brought it before the House it is almost without precedent. I can imagine cases where new evidence was forthcoming that was not produced before the Committee, and which had arisen subsequently, where it might be desirable to refer the Bill back to the Committee; but in this case the only plea that the noble Earl has brought forward is certain irregularity with regard to Lord Carysfort's Petition. Now that irregularity certainly was not brought to the notice of the Committee when we heard the arguments for and against dispensing with the Standing Orders, and I am not quite certain that it existed. But, at any rate, I may say I think, without much fear of contradiction from my colleagues, that the grounds upon which they based their decision were not very materially strengthened by that Petition, whether it was regular or whether it was irregular. My Lords, I think there might be cer-
1632
tain cases, such for instance as when there was a considerable divergence of opinion on the Committee, or where a Member of that Committee desired that the Bill might be again referred to it, that I think might,—I do not say that it would,—form a justification for a re-hearing. But in the present case I am bound to say, sorry as I am if the district is deprived of a beneficial scheme in consequence of its failure to comply with the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House, I should not be doing my duty if I did not state to your Lordships that I think it would not be desirable to re-open a question that has been already decided unequivocally by so strong a Committee as that which sat upon this Bill.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: It is with great deference that I rise to say anything in opposition to the noble Earl who has just sat down; but as one of the ground landlords of Kingstown, whose supposed oppression of their tenants is the so-called cause of the opposition on the part of the Kingstown Commissioners, and, I am afraid, of the greater part of the Kingstown Corporation to this measure, I really hope your Lordships will excuse my saying a few words, especially when I say that I do not so much rise on my own part as on behalf of my partner in the ground landlords of Kingstown, Lord De Vesci, who is out of England and unfortunately cannot come back, or I would not trouble your Lordships at all. I quite defer to all the noble Earl said about the great impolicy of creating a precedent for revising or re-considering the decisions of the Standing Orders Committee of your Lordships' House. And I daresay I am perhaps rather prejudiced by my local position and local views upon the subject. It is of course rather a thankless task to take any part in a Debate in your Lordships' House on one's own property, especially in such a question as this, and I certainly shall not say anything more than the noble Earl, the Mover of this Motion, said concerning the actual merits or demerits of this Bill. I do not think there can be any dispute about them, because this is not a question of merits or demerits of the Bill at all; it is really a question whether the Bill ought to have a

1633
fair show before your Lordships at all,—I do not use the term in an invidious sense, but in the sense that we should have what is vulgarly called a run for our life. Under the present circumstances the whole project is disqualified before ever it gets a fair show at all, owing to the error for which all of us who are interested in the Bill are I suppose in a certain sense responsible. Yet I think we may be forgiven if we feel rather sore that a project, in which we have so great an interest, and in which so many other people are interested, should not be tried absolutely and entirely on its fair merits. And my Lords if I were opposed to the Bill in any way, if I were a Kingstown Commissioner, or a ground landlord of Dalkey, or if I were in any way anxious to destroy this Bill there is nothing I would sooner do than second the Motion which I am now seconding; because, if this scheme is a bad one and deserves to be destroyed, surely that should be done by a Select Committee. I know this is more an appeal to your Lordships personally than anything else when a Bill comes before you rather as a culprit. But we ask for forgiveness for the mistake simply on account of the great inherent merits of the Bill, and because it is so absolutely necessary that something should be done to remedy the state of things in Kingstown and Blackrock; and if this scheme is not discussed before a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, I do not suppose anything more will be done. My Lords, the matter is of course entirely in your Lordships' hands. I say we ask rather for mercy perhaps than strict justice; but still if your Lordships will give us another chance, at any rate a project of great public importance and benefit will be submitted to your Lordships. If on the other hand your Lordships decide against us, that will continue the horrible nuisances that have been already described, and it will serve no purpose except to warn promoters against the drafters of Private Bills to be brought before your Lordships' House.
On Question put; Resolved in the negative.

CONVEYANCING AND LAW OF PROPERTY ACT, 1881, AMENDMENT BILL.
COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clause 3.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I understand that the contents of this Bill will be considered in the Standing Committee. I have given no notice to the House; but it appears to me that an amendment is desirable in the last sub-section of Clause 3 so as to enlarge the clause, and I shall certainly be disposed at the proper time to suggest some amendment in that respect.
LORD HERSCHELL: I quite agree with my noble and learned Friend on the point to which he has called my attention, that it would be desirable to enlarge the terms of this sub-section. I shall be very glad, therefore, if he will propose such an Amendment as he suggests when the Bill is before the Standing Committee. There are several detail Amendments which I propose to suggest then; but as they are matters of detail entirely, of language rather than principle, I have thought it better to defer them to the Standing Committee; more especially as I understand that representatives of Building Societies desire to propose certain Amendments,—they are not prepared with them to-day, but they will be prepared with them by the date when the Bill goes before the Standing Committee,—and as they may affect some of the Amendments that I myself should propose, I have thought it better to take them all together.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): There are several observations that arise upon the particular clause in question; but I entirely agree that they would be better discussed in the Standing Committee as they are more or less technical, than in Committee of the Whole House.
Bill reported without amendment and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

BETTING AND LOANS (INFANTS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
STATUTE LAW REVISION.
Message from the Commons that they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on the 14th of this instant March on the subject of Statute Law Revision as desired by this House.
SALE OF GOODS BILL, [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, this is a Bill for the purpose of putting in the form of a Code the law relating to the sale of goods. The Bill now before your Lordships is exactly in the form in which it passed this House last Session after careful consideration, first by the sub-Committee and then by the Standing Committee; and I apprehend your Lordships will have no difficulty under those circumstances in giving it a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Herschell.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

HARES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF WHARNCLIFFE: My Lords, I have been requested to lay this Bill before your Lordships for Second Reading, and I think I had better just state in a few words what the progress of it in the other House of Parliament has been. It was introduced in 1887 for the first time, and the Bill then provided that no one should kill hares between 12th March and 12th August in any part of Great Britain, the penalty being then £1 and costs. That was supported by one side of the House and carried by a majority; but subsequently the Bill was blocked. It was again brought in in 1888, 1889, and 1890; but in 1890 the principle of the Bill was carried by a majority of 109, that is to say, 239 to 130. In 1891 the Bill provided that the close time should be left entirely to
  1636
  the County Councils. This was an alteration of the original conception of the Act; but it was carried by a majority of 61 in a House of 191. It failed, however, to get into Committee on that occasion. The Bill as it stands at present simply provides that during the months of March, April, May, June, and July, it shall be unlawful to sell or expose for sale in any part of Great Britain any hare or leveret under a penalty of £20. The Bill does not apply to foreign hares, and there are some other minor details of no importance. My Lords, I have been sometimes asked whether it would not be difficult to discriminate between English, Scotch or Irish and foreign hares, and it appears that experts are of opinion that there would be no difficulty. I cannot state that as my own opinion because I have had no opportunity of testing the difference between the two kinds of animal; but certainly if my information is correct that will not prevent the Act being carried into force if it is once enacted. Your Lordships will observe that by the passing of this Act there is no restriction imposed upon owners of property in this country or those who hold farms with the right of shooting; they are allowed to carry on just the same as before under the provisions of the Ground Game Act, and the only restriction placed upon them is that they cannot kill a hare and expose it for sale. I think I may mention incidentally that, as we all know, hares at those times are really not fit for consumption, and should the hare have young which are left behind, where they are deposited, it is impossible that those poor creatures should live when their mother has been killed at the time when she is teeming with milk and ought not to be destroyed, and is not fit for human food. Another curious fact is that English salesmen complain of the great diminution in the number of English hares—not that you could expect any other result to take place from the passing of the Act; but the curious thing is that they are almost all doe hares that are killed, and hardly any buck hares are brought into the market at this time. That shows that it is the doe hares that are the sufferers, those which we ought to protect just at the time they ought not to

  1637
  be shot. With regard to foreign hares it must be remembered that a great many of them come into this country which have not been shot during this time, but have been kept frozen and brought over here in a frozen state. It is not therefore the continental dealers who suffer in favour of the English dealers, because they have opportunities of introducing hares which we have not in consequence of the difference of climate. My Lords, I have spoken on the subject to the noble and learned Lord who leads the other side of the House, and he is aware that this Bill is not a contentious Bill in any way; it has been passed by both sides of the Houses of Parliament, and the noble Lord is aware that it is a compromise, and, being such, we can only hope that your Lordships will accept the Bill as it stands and let it pass without any amendment. I may say that as regards my own part of England I find there is a great dissatisfaction created by the killing of hares and their diminishing numbers. In my neighbourhood near Sheffield there are a great many packs of harriers that afford enjoyment to neighbouring farmers and small occupiers. I am constantly being asked to allow these small packs to go across my grounds that they may get a day's hunting, and I always tell them I shall be very happy to allow them if they will find the hares; but in consequence of the Games Acts they cannot, and great dissatisfaction is expressed accordingly. I think therefore that this Bill is a remedy for that dissatisfaction, and perhaps in a political aspect it will be a wise thing if your Lordships will give a Second Reading to the Bill and let it be passed.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Wharncliffe.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill road 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  MARRIAGES ABROAD BLLL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  MILLBANK PRISON BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
POOR LAW (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, the object of this Bill which has passed the other House is very simple. The Poor Law in Ireland at present permits Boards of Guardians to provide for the education of workhouse children, children that is to say under the charge of the Poor Law in places of education outside the workhouse. As the law stood until 1889 they could only keep them at these places of education till the age of 15. In the year 1889 the Poor Law Act of that year enabled them to keep deserted children, if they were boys to the age of 16, and girls to the age of 18, without any necessity for returning them earlier to the workhouse. This Bill proposes to extend that by applying the same law in the case of other children which the Act of 1889 applied to deserted children, and also to any other children under the charge of the Guardians to whom they think it expedient that it should be applied. There seems certainly no reason why that which was desirable in the case of deserted children should not be desirable also in the case of orphan children and some of these other children, enabling them, instead of returning to the workhouse at the age of 18, to continue another year.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Herschell.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ALLOTMENTS BILL.
  Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for this day) put off till To-morrow.

  SMOKE NUISANCE (METROPOLIS) BILL [H.L.]
  House to be in Committee on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Five o'clock.