Lords Sitting of 27 July 1893

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 3.)

2. Burgh Police (Scotland) Act (1892) Amendment.

3. Land Tax Commissioners' Names.

4. Prison (Officers' Superannuation) (No. 2.)

5. Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment.

6. Rivers Pollution Prevention.

7. Railway Servants (Hours of Labour.)

8. Barbed Wire Fences.

9. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 4.)

10. Water Provisional Orders (No. 2.)

11. Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Chiswick, &c.)

12. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6.)

13. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7.)

14. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8.)

15. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12.)

16. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14.)

17. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 16.)

18. Local Government Provisional Order (No. 17.)

19. Local Government Provisional Order (Housing of Working Classes) (No. 2.)

20. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 6.)

21. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 7.)

22. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 8.)

23. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 9.)

24. Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3.)

25. Water Provisional Order (No. 3.)

598

26. Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 5.)

27. Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 6.)

28. Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 7.)

29. Gas Orders Confirmation (Bromyard, &c.)

30. Gas Orders Confirmation (Newent, &c.)

31. Metropolitan Police Provisional Order.

TOOK THE OATH,
The Lord Ebury.
SAT FIRST.
The Lord Tennyson, after the death of his father.
FRANCE AND SIAM.

  QUESTIONS.
  LORD LAMINGTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (having given private notice of the question) whether he could give any information respecting the critical state of affairs in Siam, with especial reference to the interference caused to British trade by the blockade the French proposed to establish; and whether, in view that only recently the British Government gave rights of suzerainty to the Siamese over the State of Kiang Kheng, with the proviso that it should never he handed over to another Power, any protest has been made against the demand of the French as contained in their ultimatum for the cession of all territories east of the Mekong River?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Earl of ROSEBERY): To the last point in the question of my noble Friend I would rather not give an answer to-day, but I would ask my noble Friend to be quite sure that we shall make our rights in that matter respected. Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to make a full statement about Siamese affairs to-day. This is not owing to any reluctance to take the House into its confidence, but from the fact that M. Develle has been unable from various causes to see Lord Dufferin since their first interview on Saturday until yesterday, and we await a full Report of that interview. It may be well, however, once more to define the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in

  599
  this question. From the very first it has refused in any way to intervene in the dispute between France and Siam. On the merits of that quarrel Her Majesty's Government do not feel called upon to pronounce an opinion. They have, therefore, limited themselves to providing for the safety of the British lives and interests at Bangkok, and it is to he regretted that some should appear to suspect in that provision—none too large for the security of life and property in an Oriental population of 350,000 souls—an encouragement to the Siamese to persevere In a hopeless resistance. In this connection it is, I think, unnecessary to state in this House that from the commencement of this Siamese difficulty we have scrupulously avoided giving any advice to the Siamese Government, beyond, when they have asked for it, urging them to come to terms as quickly as possible with their powerful neighbour. But the events now passing in Siam are by no means indifferent to Her Majesty's Government. We have, in the first place, great commercial interests in that country, and British shipping constitutes 87 per cent, of the whole shipping in Bangkok in point of tonnage, and 93 in point of value. For this reason we regret that a blockade should be deemed to be necessary by the French authorities, and it might raise some difficult questions of International Law; but it is not yet formally notified, and perhaps it is not too much to hope that the necessity for it may yet be averted. Moreover, the territorial arrangements consequent on this dispute involve matters of British concern. Her Majesty's Government are glad to believe that the French Government are not less alive than themselves to the value of Siamese independence, and that they regard it as a matter of moment, both to France and to ourselves, that we should nowhere have conterminous frontiers in the Indo-Chinese Peninsula, for such a frontier would involve both States in great military expenditure and cause constant liability to panic. Her Majesty's Government can well understand the anxiety of the House for Papers on this subject, and they will take an early opportunity of gratifying that wish by laying Papers on the Table which will embrace the course of negotiation on this subject for the last three years.

COMPANIES (CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 178.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, before the House goes into Committee on this Bill I desire to say that, as some misapprehension has been expressed by the Board of Trade with regard to the framing of this measure, I consequently should wish to postpone it with the view of consulting with them. I think we shall arrive at a conclusion which will meet their views. I intend, with that object, to propose one or two Amendments in Standing Committee upon matters of detail, not of principle, which no doubt will meet the objection entertained.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL.—(No. 225.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, this is not a Government Bill, neither is it connected with the Department over which I have the honour to preside; but as I have felt a very keen interest for 40 or 50 years in what is known as the co-operative movement, and as there has been no active opposition to this Bill in the other House of Parliament, and as it raises no opposition of a Party character, I felt I should not be going beyond my proper position if, at the request of those interested in this subject, I took charge of the Bill in your Lordships' House. It will not be necessary for me to detain the House for more than a few minutes in moving the Second Reading, because this is, in the main, a consolidating Bill re-enacting the provisions of the existing

  601
  law. It is not necessary that I should go at any length into the magnitude and importance of Co-operative Societies in this country at the present day. The first Industrial and Provident Societies Act was passed in 1852. Societies of that kind were for a considerable time after that Act passed but few in number and comparatively insignificant in importance; but, showing the magnitude of the movement at present, there are now registered under these Acts 1,643 Societies, with a retail trade of nearly £32,500,000 at Cooperative Stores. In productive Societies the trade comes to £2,625,000, and for the wholesale Societies the figure is nearly £12,500,009. The number of members of these Societies in 1892 was 1.179,600, and the Union promoting the Bill represents 1,029,291 of those members, and has the authority of successive Co-operative Congresses held at Rochdale and at Bristol for their action. In 1876 a consolidating Bill was passed relating to these Bodies; hut various changes in the law have since taken place, and a further consolidation in one Act of Parliament is now desired. The Bill has passed through the House of Commons without any opposition. There was no Division on it, and I do not think there were any Amendments moved. It was referred to a. Select Committee presided over by Sir Herbert Maxwell, whose interest in Friendly Societies is well known to your Lordships. There the Bill was carefully considered, and various Amendments were adopted with unanimity, and when the Bill was returned to the House no further changes were made. It is, therefore, with the authority of tin; other House of Parliament and a specially competent Select Committee that this Bill now comes before your Lordships. I may fairly submit the Bill to your Lordships as representing the wishes and desires of all interested in this question. There are some minor alterations of the existing law proposed which will be matters for Committee. They are mainly of a consolidating character, introducing provisions affecting Societies of this kind which are to be found in other Acts of Parliament passed since 1876. Though mainly, as I have said, a consolidating Bill it does make some changes in the existing law which I shall lie happy to explain if necessary in the Committee
  602
  stage of the Bill, but I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with them on this occasion. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Ripon.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, in consequence of a communication I have received I will say a few words. I am not making any objection to this Bill at all. It is, as my noble Friend said, really a consolidation Bill. Bills of this kind are carefully studied by tin; Statute Law Revision Committee, and a suggestion has been made to me by the draftsman that a variety of alterations are expedient, having regard to the mode in which consolidations have been already carried out. The Amendments suggested are purely drafting, and the Bill will be dealt with on that footing to make it a more satisfactory measure.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I am quite sure those who are interested in the matter will assent to my noble and learned Friend's suggestion. I shall be only too glad to have the assistance of the draftsman, and, therefore, agree at once to what my noble and learned Friend proposes.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

LAW OF COMMONS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]—(No. 200.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Lay for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD THRINGsaid, this was a very short Bill, and would require but little explanation. Its object was to extend to wastes belonging to freehold manors the same provisions as appertained to copyhold manors: in short, to make in both cases the assent of the Hoard of Agriculture a condition precedent to enclosure. The Bill was in amendment of one of our most ancient laws, the Statute of Merton, passed iii 1235 in the 20th year of Henry III. at Merton in Surrey. The Statute dealt with the most ancient tenure known to us, called the mark in Germany, which became the manor in England, and which was prevalent throughout Europe in feudal

  603
  times. The manor or mark might shortly be described as the property of a landed community consisting of the lord's domains, of arable laud, and of common waste. The arable land was cultivated by the free tenants, and as a compensation for holding that land they rendered services to the lord. The common land was shared between the lord and the tenants, and was intended to provide pasture for the cattle employed in the cultivation of the arable land. Even at that very early period, as land became valuable, disputes arose with regard lo the common land, the lords wishing to appropriate it, and the tenants strenuously resisting. Accordingly the Statute of Merton was passed, declaring that if the lord could prove he had left sufficient of the common land for his tenants he might enclose a portion of it. That Statute remained dormant for centuries. It became a fad of political economists to enclose these lands, and some thousands of Acts were put upon the Statute Book for that purpose. Latterly the fashion had changed; enclosure became more difficult. The Statute of Merton was revived, and attempts had been made to enclose land under it. Those attempts were resisted, and enormously expensive litigation followed, which had been generally successful in favour of the commoners, He would quote the case of Banstead Downs, which now remained open owing to a resistance longer in duration than the Siege of Troy, for it lasted 13 years, and cost an enormous sum of money. The object of this Amendment was to interpose the consent of the Board of Agriculture before enclosures could be allowed. It was, in fact, to substitute that consent for what under the old Statute of Merton was called a writ of novel de seisin, long since disused, to test the sufficiency of the laud left to the tenants, that sufficiency having to be determined by a Judge and jury. An exact precedent existed for the Bill in the case of the Copyhold Act of 1887, which imposed a similar restriction on the enclosure of wastes in copyhold manors. For the measure he claimed the sympathy of the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Cross), who, in 1876, passed a Bill for the regulation of commons, a measure which, in his opinion, had done more to prevent the undue and
  604
  unfair enclosure of waste lands than almost any measure on the Statute Book. He hoped, therefore, for the noble Lord's assistance, and trusted their Lordships would give a Second Reading to the Bill, which he believed to be a just measure. He had brought it in at the instance of the Commons Preservation Society, and it would, without interfering with the just rights of property, protect those open spaces which formed the breathing-places of the people, and which constituted the heritage of the stranger and the poor.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2£"—(The Lord Thring.)
  THE: MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I confess I wondered very much what arguments the noble Lord would adduce in favour of this remarkable and far-reaching Bill. He has brought in many matters which seem to me irrelevant. I shall not follow him in a, discussion as to the identity of the manor and the mark, or of the battleground which has been fought over by Sir Henry Mayne and Mr. Seager. Those are interesting antiquarian questions: but they belong to a period far anterior to the passing of the Statute of Merton. Nor is it necessary that I should go into the Copyhold Bill of a few years ago. There were some difficulties in copyhold tenures which led Parliament, after careful examination, to think it necessary to enact that no further copyhold tenures should be created; and I think that was generally received as the solution of a controversy which was difficult of solution in any other way. But this is a Bill simply to take away from landowners or lords of manors a right which they have had under Statute for six centuries, and to take it away without a whisper or a shadow of compensation. I cannot understand on what grounds such a proposal can be recommended to the House. No doubt there is the reservation that if the Board of Agriculture choose to permit a lord of the manor he may exercise his rights without any such check or supervision; but there is no word to indicate to the Board of Agriculture on what principles they are to exercise their discretion. The noble Lord said it was practically the same thing as the ancient writ of novel de seisin, which would have ascertained

  605
  whether the tenants under the operation of the Statute of Merton had retained a sufficient amount of the common land to satisfy their legal claims when the lord of the manor enclosed the remainder. But there is nothing of that kind in the Bill. There is no word about the rights of the tenants.
  LORD THRLNG: The rights of the tenants are preserved under the Statute of Merton.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The words in the Bill (Clause 2) an—
  "An inclosure or approvement of any part of a common purporting to be made under the Statute of Merton shall not be valid unless it is made with the consent of the Board of Agriculture.
  "3. In giving or withholding their consent the Board shall have regard to the same considerations as are directed by the Inclosure Acts to be taken into account by them in giving or withholding their consent to any inclosure of common lands under those Acts, and shall give an opportunity to all persons interested in the common to object to such inclosure or approvement."
  The only rights tinder the Statute of Morton are the rights of the commoners of the manor. The rights affected by this Bill are totally different, (treated by Act of Parliament subsequently as a condition for the interference of Parliament. Parliament has recently declared it will not interfere with its supreme authority to secure the enclosure unless under certain conditions which in the judgment of Parliament are necessary. Of course, it was open to Parliament to make any conditions it pleased for the exercise of its supreme power. But this is a totally different matter. Here you interfere with a statutory right that requires no support from Parliament, but which acts by itself, and you try to impose the same conditions which Parliament has hitherto imposed as the condition for its own supremeaction. If you take away the rights of it lord of the manor in this way you are bound to compensate him. It is a simple question of the ordinary rights of property. I do not believe the Statute of Merton, as it at present acts, does any harm. On the contrary, I believe that in the past, in spite of the noble Lord's history, it has done a great deal of good, and that it is largely the cause of the extensive cultivation of the poorer land in this country. But be that as it may, this right has been in the lords of the manor without contest
  606
  for six centuries, and it is contrary to all the principles by which Parliament guarantees the sanctity of property in this country that property should be taken away without some compensation being offered.
  LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid, the Board of Agriculture quite admitted that the Bill required careful consideration in detail, and they hoped ample time would be given for such consideration: but the Government hoped their Lordships would give the Bill a Second Reading. There was nothing novel in the Bill. It proceeded on no startling new principle, but a principle which already existed in legislation. Some doubt seemed to exist as to what right was conferred by the Statute of Merton, and as to whether that was not merely a declaratory enactment. He thought that cases of action taken under the Statute of Merton would be difficult of treatment: but the Board of Agriculture felt that the same measure of control should be provided in the case of enclosures under the Statute of Merton as had already been provided by Parliament in regard to other enclosures—that was, that the benefit of the neighboarhood should be considered as well as the benefit of private, individuals. The Bill, as he had said, proceeded on no new principle. The Bill proceeded on the modern policy of Parliament in these matters. That was a provident policy, and it already existed in the Acts of 1866 and 1876 and 1887, the former being the first Act which embodied this modern policy of Parliament, and prevented the Enclosure Commissioners from entertaining the bare idea of enclosing a Metropolitan common.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That Was done by Act of Parliament. The Commissioners had no rights under the ancient Statute.
  LORD RIBBLESDALEquite agreed, but said the principle was the same. Parliament had assented to the principle that the interests of a community living in crowded neighbourhoods were to be considered before a common wits enclosed. The Board of Agriculture were of opinion that this was it useful Act in harmony with the legislation which Parliament had already affirmed, and they hoped that a Second Reading would be given to the Bill. In view of the

  607
  conditions under which they lived and the great density of population, the Board thought no further enclosures of any sort should he allowed unless some Central Authority was of opinion that the proposed enclosure would not militate against the interests of the district.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that under the Statute of Merton a lord of the manor desiring to make enclosures was obliged to prove before a jury that he had left sufficient pasture for the commoners; but that process seemed to have been abolished. What was to take the place of that jury in future? The noble Marquess had said that the commoners under the Statute of Merton were a different body from those under the Enclosure Act. Would the noble Lord in charge of the Bill admit that that was the case?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HEERSCHELL): My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Marquess that this Bill introduces any new principle, and if it interferes with the rights of property the Copyhold Act interferes with those rights in exactly the same way; because this Bill only imposes upon the lord of the manor who might have the right to enclose under the Statute of Merton the same restriction as the Legislature has already put upon him in connection with copyhold, where there existed a custom to enclose with the consent of the homage. It is quite true, as the noble Marquess has said, that the Statute of Merton has existed for centuries; but I believe it has been practically obsolete for centuries, and it is only in comparatively recent times that it has been revived and again put in use. Where a Statute has been so long obsolete it is evident that the exercise of rights under it cannot be regarded as of a valuable character. The means of trying the right of the lord to enclose by a writ of novel de seisin is a process which is not only obsolete, but which has ceased to exist. That was a question as between the lord and the commoners whether the lord was leaving sufficient common. Under the Statute of Merton attempts have been made to enclose portions of common laud. These attempts have been successfully resisted, and the only result of reviving the Statute of Merton has been to encourage certain individuals to waste a vast amount of money in what
  608
  has proved to be profitless litigation, imposing, at the same time, a great deal of expense upon other people, without-getting any benefit themselves. Surely it would be better to have a measure by which the enclosure of common land under the Statute of Merton should be restricted in the same way, and subjected to the same approval, as enclosure under the Copyhold Act. It seems to me it would not interfere with any substantial right of property, and that it would be advantageous as putting the whole question of the enclosure of commons on the same footing.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord, in introducing the Bill, quoted as an example and precedent for it that of 1876, for which I was responsible; but that Act was on a totally different footing. At the time of the war it was thought that, as there were a large number of commons lying idle, an Act should be passed to enable those commons to be enclosed for the purpose of providing food for the people. A number of commons wore enclosed under those Acts; but they were dealt with under Statute, and there were no rights involved otherwise than those conferred by Statute. Then, at a later date, it was found that the commons were being enclosed at a greater speed than was wise of necessary for the people, and that it was wise to maintain some of the waste lands, if possible, as open spaces. But the rights were not interfered with at all. That being so, the object of my Act of 1876 was simply to make it more difficult to make enclosures than it was before; and Parliament, which gave the Enclosure Commissioners the right to enclose, had an equal right to impose restrictions upon those enclosures, and to take care there should be some system of regulation in enclosing commons. I have thought it necessary to make this explanation, because the noble Lord opposite (Lord Thring) stated that I had made a precedent for this Bill, and I only wanted to show that that was (tarrying out an entirely different policy, and that that Act stands upon an entirely different footing to those alluded to by the noble Lord.
  THE EARL OF SELBOPNEsaid, what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had stated as to the analogy between this Extension Bill and the

  609
  Copyhold Act of 1887 was quite true; but he rather demurred to the idea of the application of the word "enclosure" to the rights of lords of the manor under the Statute of Merton, or to the right to create new copyholds which had been placed under restriction by the former Acts. There was a great difference between the general enclosure of a whole common and the right which a lord of the manor exercised in enclosing some part of it. Under the Statute of Merton the right was only to take such portions of the common as was reasonable without interfering with the rights of the commoners. The tendency of the Courts had latterly been to construe the rights of the lords very strictly in favour of the commoners. The result had been expensive litigation, in which the lords had usually failed, and be was very far from thinking this Bill would be unfavourable to lords of the manor. In any ease in which there was reasonable ground a fair arbitrator would allow him to make his approvement. He could not he sure that this would not be favourable to the lord, assuming always that the duty of arbitrating was properly performed by the Board of Agriculture. It might save him from much expense, and from uncertainty as to the result. The noble Marquess had pointed out that the rights of lords of manors had not yet been taken away without compensation. If he were thoroughly convinced that the right as it now stood was practically ratable, and would be taken away, he would certainly agree in the noble Lord's conclusion; but that was a question of fact, and the result had been under recent decisions practically to destroy the value of the right, and no lord of a manor in future would be likely to exercise it unless in cases where it was clear he was not injuring the rights of the commoners. If, therefore, their Lordships went to a Division he could not vote against the Bill.
  LORD HOBHOUSEsaid, be must give his voice in favour of the Bill. He had had to study the history of enclosures in one locality—Epping Forest—and he had been strongly impressed that the result of leaving the lords to enclose at their will and of leaving the commoners to resist by whatever means they could (the legal means being extinct) were extremely lamentable, and that it would
  610
  be of great advantage if some impartial authority could be brought in before the quarrel arose to say whether an enclosure should be made or not. In the case of Epping Forest the lords of manors could not get Enclosure Bills, because they were always opposed and defeated. They, therefore, had recourse to enclosing partly under the Statute of Merton (whether called enclosures or approve-ments did not matter in the least, the land being turned from open into enclosed land), and partly under the custom which had been referred to of enclosing the waste with the consent of the homage, he granting plots in copyhold. It was a very curious result that in that way a customary estate might be created de novo—a, rare and exceptional instance, but there it was. The noble Marquess was quite right in saying that the Act of 1887 was directed to limit the creation of copyholds, and in pointing out that distinction between it and the present Bill. Gradually large tracts of laud became affected, with the result that the number of enclosures was so great that people resorted to every kind of controversy for settling their differences. But in Epping Forest the enclosures went on under both methods; and they wore so numerous and extensive, and their legality so disputable, and the feeling of resentment at the disappearance of open spaces so widespread and deep, that every conceivable mode of resistance was resorted to. There were public speeches, and newspaper writings, and overthrowing of fences, and lawsuits, and Chancery suits, and criminal prosecutions, and riotous meetings, with the common accompaniment of fisticuffs and broken heads, and Debates in Parliament; in short, whatever method there was for people to settle, or to embitter, their dissensions, that method was followed. And that went on for 10 years, with an expenditure of rime, temper, and money which no man could calculate. However, the Gordian knot was not loosened, but, on this contrary, was rather tightened, by all this tugging and pulling. And at last Parliament had recourse to the rather rude device of appointing an arbitrator, giving him broad outlines of directions, and arming him with the power of Queen, Lords, and Commons, to settle all differences which could arise between the Crown, the lords, the commoners,

  611
  and the public. He happened to be that unfortunate arbitrator, and it was in the course of four years' hard labour in that capacity that lie formed the conclusion which lie had ventured to express to the House. The Copyhold Act of 1887 was referred to a very strong Committee, of which lie was Chairman. The effect of granting copyholds out of the waste was that in a year's time the copyholder applied to be enfranchised, and the property was lost to the waste for ever for the benefit of the lord. To control that custom certainly was an interference with the rights of property. But that right of property was so hard to exercise; it was exercised under such limitations of quarrels, litigation, and expense, that the Committee found that very little indeed was taken away from the lord. As the Earl of Selborne had said, the lord would have his chance of obtaining an opinion in his favour from the Board of Agriculture, and then the enclosure would take place without any dispute at all. He understood that a few cases had conic before the Board of Agriculture (they could only be few, because the custom which the Act restrained was a comparatively rare one), and that sometimes the Board gave the leave and sometimes refused it, the Act working with great smoothness and satisfaction. He thought a good case had been shown for reading this Bill a second time.
  On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents 32; Not-Contents 23.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

CONVEYANCE OF HAILS BILL. (No. 213.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  Amendments moved,
  In page 3, line 15, to leave out ("All proceedings relating to") and insert ("Notwithstanding anything in the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888"). Line 17, after ("Act") insert ("may in the discretion of the Commission be heard and determined by the two appointed Commissioners, whose order shall be deemed to be the order of the Commission, and subject to this provision all proceedings relating to any such matter of difference").—(The Lord Playfair.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  LOND PLAYFAIRproposed to leave out this clause, as it related to Jersey, which it was desirable not to include at present, as there were questions in negotiation between that place and the Home Government.
  Moved, "To leave out the Clause."—(The Lord Playfair.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 223.)

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT (1890) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 208.)

  SECOND READIKG.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD KENSINGTON, in moving the Second Reading, said, the Bill was very humble and unpretending, seeking only to remedy a defect in the existing law which he would shortly explain. When the Act of 1890 was passed, the powers conferred by the Labouring Classes Lodging Houses and Dwellings Act (Ireland), 1866, were then consolidated and incorporated in the Act of 1890, and the Act of 1866 repealed; but although the power of adoption was complete in that Act its application was not. It consequently failed, and there were certain districts in Ireland having Town Commissioners which, in consequence of that defect, were left out in the cold, and were unable to take advantage of the Act of 1890. This Bill sought to give no fresh powers of any sort or shape, but simply to place those districts in the same position as they wore in under the Act of 1866, but which they had lost by the repeal of that Act and by the passing of the Act of 1890. As an example, he might state that he received a letter showing the position of one of those districts. Previously to the-passing of the Act of 1890, the Town Commissioners of Mullingar applied to the Irish Board of Works for the loan of £600 for the cost of four houses to be built in that town under the Labouring Classes Dwellings Act. That loan was-actually sanctioned before the passing of the Act of 1890; but in consequence of

  613
  the letter informing the Town Commissioners of the sanction not having been sent off promptly, the Act of 1870 having passed in the meantime, it was found that the power under which the money was to be lent had been accidentally taken away. That, of course, was a great hardship on the Mullingar Town Commissioners, who, through no fault of their own, found that their scheme was rendered nugatory by the passing of that Act. That letter had been continued by telegram. This Act was merely to remedy defects which had been discovered, and was almost retrogressive, for it sought to place districts under Town Commissioners in the position they were in before the passing of the Act of 1890. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Kensington.)
  The MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said he did so in order to obtain some discussion upon it, as it had been passed through the House of Commons after 12 o'clock at night almost without discussion. He thought that the measure had been introduced with the sole object of whitewashing the Corporation of Mullingar, who had exceeded their powers.
  LORD KENSINGTONexplained that though they had applied for the money they had not received it.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERKYsaid, the Bill proposed to place all Town Commissioners on the same footing, and that whenever the places were large or small they were equally to have the power of throwing on the ratepayers whatever charge they pleased for the erection of houses for the artisan class. That was not a, fair proposal. In the first place, it was unfair to the ratepayers: and, secondly, it was hard on the Town Commissioners themselves in subjecting them to pressure from their constituents. He thought that the powers proposed to be given should not be conferred upon the Corporations of towns having under 6,000 inhabitants. He objected to the powers in question being conferred upon Urban Authorities as defined by the Public Health Act, 1878. He would be content if Her Majesty's Government would insert an Amendment carrying
  614
  out the provisions of that Act. What he objected to was the vague phrase "any Local Authority." He would he guided by their answer as to whether he would divide the House or not.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, nothing could be clearer, fairer, or more reasonable than the explanation given by the noble Lord in charge of the Hill. Their Lordships quite realised how the Bill came to be presented to the House, and also the grounds on which Her Majesty's Government expected that the substance of the proposal would receive consideration at their hands. This was the first syllable of explanation which had been made on the subject, for the Bill went through the other House without any discussion after 12 o'clock at night. He had some knowledge of the subject, because he was in charge of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, when he considered the whole question. Until he heard his noble Friend's lucid explanation he was at a loss to know what he was at in the Bill: but it was now plain that the intention was to cure an unfortunate disaster which had occurred without any shortcoming on their own part to the Town Commissioners of Mullingar. He was sure their Lordships would say at once that every fair consideration should be given to remedy a state of facts which appeared to press very hardly on Irish Town Commissioners without any blame on their part: but, as the noble Marquess had pointed out, the House should proceed with caution in the matter. Such a hardship as the Bill sought to remedy could not have been contemplated under the Act of 1890, but it certainly was framed rather curiously. It was certainly not what it purported to be, a declaratory measure, for that was the case only where there were differences of opinion, and the state of the law was declared. The Government could not have been advised in this case that this had always been the law. There could not be a shadow of doubt with regard to the application of these particular sections that they had not always applied. He would not oppose the Second Reading: but when the Bill arrived at another stage its

  615
  phraseology, drift, and intention would have to be stated with greater clearness. He quite concurred as to the danger of leaving in the general expression "any Local Authority in Ireland." That was dangerously general. He was not disposed to question the reasonableness of attempting to amend legislation per in-curiam. The whole purport of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, was that the powers of Urban Sanitary Authorities should be limited, as the noble Marquess had stated, to towns of 6,000 inhabitants, and if the status of an Urban Sanitary Authority was given to other towns they should be specially dealt with. This Bill would per saltum give those powers to any Local Authority of any kind in Ireland the moment after it was passed. He thought it right to make those observations, as it seemed obvious that at another stage of the Bill considerable attention would have to be paid to its framing.
  LORD KENSINGTONwished to make it perfectly clear that the provisions of the Bill would not be limited to Mullingar, the ease he quoted as an example, but that its object was to place all Town Commissioners, whether of towns below or above 6,000 population, on the same footing as they were prior to the Act of 1890.
  THE EARL OF RANFITRLYhoped that the Bill would not be allowed to pass in its present form. Apparently the noble Lord did not understand that in Ireland there were Town Commissioners who wore not the Sanitary Authority, and that the sanitary powers were exorcised by the Hoards of Guardians. He believed the Town Commissioners objected to having those powers handed over to them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): I think some of the objections raised by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Ashbourne) are really met by the fact that the "Local Authority" is defined by the Act of 1890, and that this Bill is to be road as one with it, so that it would be controlled by the definition in that Act.
  Lord PLAYFAIRsaid, that the Boards of Guardians in Ireland did not come under Part III. of the Act of 1890. The chief powers contained in the Bill wore those in the Act of 1866, and these were simply revived without change.
  616
  The Act of 1890 gave the Town Commissioners and Sanitary Authorities the power of borrowing. The definition of Sanitary Authorities was not the same in Ireland as in England, and, therefore, the Town Commissioners, who wore not always Sanitary Authorities in Ireland, became excluded. That was the reason why the Bill had a technical clause, to bring them within the operation of the Act of 1890. As his noble Friend had said, the Bill was simply to give them the power which they had under the Act of 1866, which was repealed by the Act of 1890.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, nothing could be clearer than the noble Lord's explanation: but he must reserve the opportunity of referring him to the details of the Act at a later stage.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

THE IRISH CHURCH SURPLUS.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK, in moving for a Return of the expenditure of the Irish Church Fund, said, he would explain in a few words the reason why he asked for it. Their Lordships would remember that after the Disestablishment of the Irish Church a largo surplus fund was left after the claims wore satisfied. The destination of that fund, as provided for by the 68th clause, was that it was to be appropriated mainly in the relief of suffering. The promoters of the Bill further explained that the surplus should go to Charitable Institutions, and special reference was made to the care and maintenance of lunatics. At a time like the present, when similar measures wore being prepared for England, it was important to consider what was likely to be the result of the creation of similar funds. A Return had been presented to the House of Commons in the spring of this year; but it did not contain the slightest reference to any expenditure in the direction indicated by the Bill, or as explained by its promoters, and he therefore desired that their Lordships should have further information on the subject.
  Moved for—
  "A complete Return of the expenditure to the present time of the Surplus Church Fund created by the Act for the disestablishment of the Irish Church."—(The Lord Archbishop of York.)
  Motion agreed to: Ordered to be laid before the House.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with several of the Amendments made by the Lords agreed to; several disagreed to; and several disagreed to, with Amendments; for which disagreement the Commons assign Reasons: The said Reasons and Amendments to he printed. (No. 221.)
STATUTE LAW REVISION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 203.)
Reported from the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision Bills with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow: and to he printed as amended. (No. 222.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.—(No. 164.)
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SALMON FISHERY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—(No. 189.)
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
TRUSTEE (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 205.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
COPYHOLD (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 206.)
Head 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
STATUTORY RULES PROCEDURE BILL. (No. 187.)
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to Order): Bill reported without further Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 202.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Third Report from the Select Committee considered (according to Order), and agreed to.

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons: Read 1a; and to he printed. (No. 224.)
House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.