Lords Sitting of 30 May 1895

VISCOUNT MONCK.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Henry Power Charles Stanley Monck Viscount Monk to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2).

2. Finance.

3. Cruelty to Animals (Scotland) Act (1850) Amendment.

4. Courts of Law Fees (Scotland).

5. Military Lands Provisional Orders.

6. Great Eastern Railway.

7. Edinburgh and District Water.

8. Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours (Steam Vessels).

9. North Middlesex Gas.

10. Ayr Faculty of Solicitors' Widows' Fund Society.

11. Hayward's Heath Gas.

12. London Street Tram ways.

13. Aire and Calder Navigation.

14. Hebden Bridge and Mytholmroyd Gas Board.

15. Rhymney Railway.

16. Great Northern Railway.

17. Whitby Water.

18. Scarborough Gas.

19. York New Water.

The Commissioners were:—The Lord Chancellor (Lord Herschell), Lord Carrington, and Lord Kensington.

FISHERIES (CLOSE SEASON) (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a.—(No. 141.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a.—(No. 142.)
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TOWER BRIDGE SOUTHERN APPROACH) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a.
Annual Statement of the Trade of United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions, for 1894, presented.
RAILWAYS (CONTINUOUS BRAKES).
Return by the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom for the six months ending the 31st December 1894, presented.
INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL.— [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Infant Life Protection Act, 1872—Was presented by the Earl of Onslow; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 140.)

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
The following Bills were read 3a (according to Order), passed, and sent to the Commons:—
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LLANGOLLEN) BILL.—[H.L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONGBENTON) BILL.—[H.L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WILMINGTON) BILL.—[H.L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (CROYDON) BILL.—[H.L.]
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL,
and—
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL,
were Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MUSEUM AND GYMNASIUMS (AMEND- MENT) BILL.— [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for resuming the Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading, read.
  Debate resumed by
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)who remarked that, when the Bill was last before their Lordships, the question was raised whether it was competent for this House to consider the Bill, or whether, on the ground of privilege, the Bill could only be dealt with by the other House. He had looked into the matter, and undoubtedly there were certain Clauses of the Bill which were Privilege Clauses and which could not be dealt with in this House. They would have to be treated in the ordinary way as Privilege Clauses and they were those which determined how any expenses under the Act were to be raised. Subject to these Privilege Clauses he did not think the Bill in any way infringed any of the Privileges of the other House, and he had reason to think that view was taken by the authorities in the other House also. The Bill empowered public bodies to do certain things, but they would not necessarily cast any burdens on the rates or affect the incidence of rating, and therefore he did not think they would be a breach of Privilege.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (the EARL OF MORLEY)pointed out that Clause 9 of the Bill amended the Open Spaces Act from 1877 to 1890, although in the title of the Bill itself, which referred to Museums and Gymnasiums, there was nothing to indicate this. He suggested that such Amendment should be effected by a separate Bill, bearing some indication on the face of it of what its intention was. As he understood, the officers of the other House did not object to the Bill with the excision of the taxing clauses. He hardly thought it would be necessary to press the question of Privilege to the extreme.
  LORD HALSBURYobserved that his principal objection to the Bill was, that it gave the power of imposing additional taxation upon the ratepayers by clauses of reference without giving notice of what was going to be done.
  LORD THRINGobjected to referential or obscure clauses as much as anyone, but he did not think that this Bill carried out its purposes either in an unfair or obscure way. When it stated that a particular body should have the power under another Act to add to their existing powers, he thought that was a fair mode of dealing with the question. Though he had a repugnance to obscure clauses, he did not think that that objection applied to this Bill; and with respect to the question of Privilege, he had known numerous Bills exactly in this form passed with the assent of the House of Commons.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORintimated that, with regard to Clause 9, he doubted whether that could be dealt with by their Lordships. It transferred the powers of the Open Spaces Acts from one authority to another. That might include powers of payment, and it would be better to deal with the matter by putting the Expenses Clause among the Privileges Clauses.
  LORD THRING: I object to Clause 9.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he should withdraw his objection now until the Third Reading of the Bill, when he should be able to see what was left in the measure.
  LORD HAWKESBURYexpressed regret that, owing to other duties on Monday, he was unavoidably prevented from getting to this House until too late to be present when the Second Reading of the Bill was moved. The question of Privilege had already been dealt with by the Lord Chancellor, and so he would refer to the general principle of the Bill. Clauses 1–8 inclusive extended the power of urban authorities so as to enable them to provide and maintain winter gardens, and conferred on the vestries and district boards in the Metropolis and the Woolwich District Council the powers of an urban authority as regarded the provision of museums and gymnasiums and winter gardens. The general principle of these clauses was accepted by the Local Government Board, although on some minor points some Amendments

  601
  may be necessary at a later stage of the Bill. As regarded Clause 9, by which it was proposed that the powers of a local authority under the Open Spaces Act, 1887–90, should be conferred on County Councils, it was to be observed that by the Metropolitan Open Spaces Act, 1887, the Metropolitan Board of Works (now the London County Council) were empowered to acquire by purchase or gift and hold open spaces for public exercise and recreation; and by Section 12 of the Open Spaces Act, 1887, to purchase or lease, and maintain or contribute to the maintenance of public walks or pleasure grounds. The Metropolitan Open Spaces Act, 1881, enabled the trustees of open spaces acting under a local Act, and other owners of open spaces, to transfer them to the vestry or district board, or the Metropolitan Board of Works. It also authorised the transfer of disused burial-grounds to such authorities, for the purpose of being maintained as open spaces. These enactments were extended to urban and rural sanitary authorities (now urban and rural District Councils) by Section 5 of the Open Spaces Act, 1887, but in the case of a rural sanitary authority the Section required that the authority should first be invested by an Order of the Local Government Board with the powers of the Act. By a Bill now before the House of Commons, which had been introduced by the Government, it was proposed that the powers of a rural District Council under these Acts might be exercised whether the Council had been invested with powers under the Acts by an Order of the Board or not. Seeing that, under the existing law, provision had been made under which all urban and rural district councils might exercise powers under the Open Spaces Acts, there did not appear to be any necessity to confer like powers in respect of the same districts on the County Councils. It appeared undesirable that this concurrent jurisdiction should be given to the County Councils. If the powers were exercised by the County Council, the charge must either be borne by the whole county or by the particular locality; and if it were to be borne by the particular district, it would appear that the authority of that district should be the authority for the purpose
  602
  of these Acts, and should carry out their provisions. Whilst concurring in the Second Reading of the Bill, it must not be understood that the proposals in the concluding clause had the concurrence of the Government.
  THE EARL OF MEATH,in reply, expressed his readiness to yield to the desire of those Lords who wished Section 9 to be cut out. At the same time he thought there was some excuse for putting in the section, inasmuch as the Open Spaces Acts permitted in the open air gymnasia, and also conservatories, which would be practically winter gardens, in parks and public gardens. There was some slight connection between these matters, but he acknowledged it would be better to have a separate Bill if it were thought necessary that this subject should come before Parliament again. He knew there was a desire in the case of some County Councils to obtain these powers. It was only the previous day that the Chairman of the Middlesex County Council called upon him to express his great desire that this particular clause should pass, because, he said, he was continually being asked by the local authorities in his district when they wanted open spaces why the Middlesex County Council should not have the power enjoyed by the London County Council of giving half the purchase money for the purpose of assisting local bodies in adding to their parks.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday, the 18th of June next.

  CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 6:—

  PRELIMINARIES TO PRESENTATION AND INSTITUTION.
  (1) A presentation to any benefice shall not be complete until the bishop has received a statutory declaration in the prescribed form, by the patron, stating the date when and the manner in which he acquired the right of patronage, and that either he is not a trustee for the presentee, or if he is such a trustee, that the right of patronage has not been transferred to him since the passing of this Act, and that the patron has

  603
  not made the presentation in consideration of any benefit to himself or to any other person, and that no engagement has been made with any person that the presentee shall at any time resign the benefice, except as authorised by law: Provided that this subsection shall not apply when the patron is a public patron.

  (2) If a patron presents himself, such necessary modifications as may be prescribed shall be made in the declaration, and there shall be added thereto a declaration that the right of patronage has not been transferred to him since the passing of this Act.

  (3) The presentation shall not be complete until the bishop has received—

  (a) a statutory declaration by the presentee of all benefices, offices, and employments held by him since his Ordination as a deacon; and (unless the bishop shall otherwise direct)

  (b) letters testimonial in the prescribed form signed by three beneficed clergymen having such knowledge of the presentee as is stated in the letters, and countersigned by the bishop of the diocese in which each of the clergymen signing is beneficed, which countersignature it shall be the duty of every such bishop to give with or without qualification.

  (4) The bishop shall not institute any person to a benefice until the expiration of one clear month after notice that the bishop proposes to institute him has been sent by the bishop to the churchwardens of the parish, which notice shall be published by the churchwardens in the prescribed manner; and any parishioner may send to the bishop a representation in writing to the institution on any ground which by virtue of the next succeeding section entitles the bishop to refuse to institute.

  LORD LINGEN LORD LINGEN moved to leave out "benefit" and to insert "valuable consideration." The noble Lord observed that the word "benefit" seemed to him too great an extension of the intention of the clause. For instance, if a patron was to present his son, it could hardly be said he did not confer any benefit on him by that process. Clause 14, which gave the form of the declaration which had to be made seemed to contemplate rather such a consideration as was implied by the words "valuable consideration," and on that ground he moved the Amendment.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYreplied, that the word "benefit" had been in every Bill that had passed their Lordships' House on this subject and was first adopted on the highest legal advice. He thought the words "valuable consideration," conveyed a
  604
  meaning which was altogether too narrow to apply to a clause like this. The ordinarily accepted meaning was in connection with money, but there were many cases of presentations to benefices which would not come under the idea of money or valuable consideration at all. For instance, a patron might desire to present a clergyman to a living for certain personal reasons. He might give the clergyman in possession of that living a more valuable living in order to secure to himself the right of presenting a clergyman to the other, but no one could reason that he had thereby received a valuable consideration. He would say a word or two on the history of the word "benefit." In the original statute of Queen Elizabeth's reign the words ran much as they did here until they came to this: that a patron was not to present himself and not to make a presentation—
  "in consideration of any sum of money, reward, gift, profit, or benefit, direct or indirect."
  He had very good legal advice that all those words were covered by the word "benefit;" and as he thought it a much better word for the purposes of the Bill, and of much wider applicability than the words "valuable consideration," he hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought the words "valuable consideration" would be too narrow for the reasons pointed out by the most rev. Prelate. But he was not quite easy about the word "benefit" standing alone; nor did he think the words quoted by the most rev. Prelate mere verbiage. He would, therefore, suggest to the most rev. Prelate whether it would not be well, on the Third Reading, to revert to the words which would meet with the objection of the noble Lord.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I shall be happy to propose them at the next stage of the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD LINGEN LORD LINGEN moved, in Clause 7, page 4, line 28, to leave out "if there be no other impediment," and insert "subject, however, to any existing right of a bishop to refuse, independently of this Act, to institute a presentee." He

  605
  understood the words "if there be no other impediment" to refer to objections taken to doctrine. The Bill did not include "doctrine"—in express terms—at any rate. It was confined to "competency" and "morals," and the words "if there be no other impediment" might cover doctrine. In all cases under the Bill the decision of the Archbishop upon appeal was final; but in the case of doctrine there was, by law which this Bill did not change, an appeal from the Archbishop to the Privy Council; and his Amendment, which he had imported from Clause 13, would cover rights which the Bishop might have beyond the Bill.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he did not think the noble Lord had grasped exactly the very narrow scope of Sub-section 4 of Clause 7 which he sought to amend. The intention of the sub-section was, that when a bishop or Archbishop failed to institute when told after an inquiry to do so, then the Vicar General should institute the presentee. The question of doctrine had nothing to do with the sub-section. The words "if there be no other impediment" referred to such matters as, for instance, the patron's title. The words which the noble Lord proposed to introduce into the sub-section applied, when used in the 13th Clause or the Savings Clause, to the whole Act; and he thought it would be detrimental to the Act to remove them from their position of wide application, and apply them to this particular clause.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsuggested the insertion of the word "legal" before "impediment."
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he would adopt the suggestion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD LINGEN LORD LINGEN moved to omit from Clause 9, page 5, line 28, the words, "without restricting the existing law." It seemed to him that the words would defeat the object of the clause or else they were superfluous.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, the intention of the words was to make it clear that the communications mentioned in the clause were not only made privileged by the clause, but that
  606
  any other protection for communications in the existing law also applied to them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORconsidered that Clause 9 did not give any additional security to such communications beyond which the law already gave; but it was felt that the insertion of the words referred to would remove many apprehensions on the part of the people making those communications. He did not altogether like the words, "without restricting the existing law," and he suggested that some other words, such as "nothing shall diminish any privilege already existing," should be substituted for them on the Third Reading.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYadopted the suggestion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD LINGEN LORD LINGEN moved, in Clause 13, page 6, line 21, to leave out "a right of patronage," and insert "an advowson which being." The Amendment was merely verbal, and was intended to make the clause clearer.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he had on the Paper an Amendment to substitute the words "an advowson" for "a right of patronage," which would perhaps meet the object of the noble Lord.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *On the Motion of the ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY the words "an advowson" were inserted in the clause in line 21, instead of "a right of patronage."

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (CHANNEL ISLANDS CHIL- DREN) BILL.
  Read 3a, and passed.

  TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  On the Report of Amendments to this Bill,
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, he desired to ask Lord Ribblesdale whether he could now answer the question put to him in the Standing Committee that arose upon Clause 3 of the Bill. Clause 3

  607
  provided that the redemption of their liability by the Treasury under this Act should not affect the obligation of the Company, and so on, as regarded the efficient maintenance and the working of the tramways, and it went on to provide, that if the Board of Trade informed the Lord Lieutenant that such obligation was not fulfilled, he should declare the same, and until he declared that it had been fulfilled the Grand Jury were to raise, and pay to the Crown annually, a sum equal to 3 per cent. upon the capital sum the Treasury had redeemed. What was to be done with that 3 per cent.?
  LORD RIBBLESDALEwas sorry he had not been able to answer this question before, but he was now in a position to do so. The 3 per cent. was to be paid into the Exchequer, and was not to be held up with a view to its increasing in body and bulk. It was a penalty payment, as it were, for the non-fulfilment of the obligation of these tramways being kept in efficient and good working order The whole of the Bill, of course, proceeded upon that understanding, and the commutation of the Treasury liability of 2 per cent. would not be undertaken unless part, as it were, of the exchange value of that redemption was the efficient and good working of the tramways. The object of the clause was, that the Treasury should be placed in no worse a position under the Bill than it was now. At present, under the Tramways Act of 1883, the Treasury was liable for 2 per cent. of this guaranteed interest, but it was only liable for that if the tramway was not in good working order. If the provisions of this Bill were taken advantage of, the Treasury would borrow at 3 per cent., and at 33½ years' purchase, and of course borrow on the understanding that the tramway was kept in good order. If the tramway, however, were dropped, or kept in bad order, they did not wish to be this 3 per cent. out of pocket, but required that that should be paid back by the grand jury. There was a question raised on Clause 1 which he would answer now. It was what "public interest" meant. A line in the
  608
  first clause was "public interest whether by means of directors or otherwise." "Public interest" meant the grand juries, because if the provisions of the Act were taken advantage of, the grand juries would become the owners of a very much larger proportion of the capital of those companies than they were at present; and, consequently, as they paid the piper, they claimed a greater right to call the tune, and required a greater control than they at present had. He did not think there was any intellectual difficulty in understanding the word "directors."
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that the explanation of the noble Lord was quite clear. This was a matter of course affecting the localities and the ratepayers, and he assumed that those who were looking after their interests in the negotiations with the Treasury, and the negotiations with the House of Commons looked after this matter too. As far as he recollected the discussion in the House of Commons this was a consent Bill. He understood that the parties most interested had threshed the subject out on the spot, and had arrived at the conclusion that the locality would make money. He also understood that the Treasury had made up their minds that they too would make money. Everyone, therefore, being satisfied the Bill passed. Personally, he thought that Clause 3 was rather loosely drawn, for the Lord Lieutenant was given the power of declaring that he was satisfied with the efficient working of the tramways, in which case the 3 per cent. payment would stop. He supposed the localities were satisfied that they all put such pressure upon the Lord Lieutenant that he would be reasonably satisfied on this question.
  Report of Amendments agreed to.

  LOWERING OF BOATS FROM SHIPS.
  THE EARL OF STRAFFORDasked, whether the Board of Trade had given a trial to the method of lowering boats by flexible steel wire on board steam and sailing ships, as advocated by Mr.

  609
  W. Bell, naval architect, of Greenock, N.B., by which system it was said:—
  "That the heaviest lifeboat could be released and lowered by a couple of men in less than sixty seconds."
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, the Board of Trade had the power, under the Shipping Act, 1894, to take care that ships had good and efficient lowering gear for the boats, but the Act did not enjoin that any particular method of lowering should be followed. A Committee of experts inquired into the whole matter, and gave their own ideas of efficiency, but all the Board of Trade had, through its surveyors, to do was to see that when a ship passed examination the method of lowering boats was efficient. They could not enter upon an inquiry as to any particular method or invention. If the invention to which the noble Lord alluded were applied to one particular ship, and that ship applied to the Board of Trade to be passed as a ship well equipped for navigable purposes, the Board would send a surveyor to see the working of the method. Under the circumstances, the Board could not hold an inquiry as to the merits of the particular invention in question.

  ASIATIC TURKEY.
  LORD CONNEMARAasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to lay upon the Table of the House papers relating to the affairs of Asiatic Turkey?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (the Earl of KIMBERLEY)said, that at the proper time Papers upon this subject would be laid on the Table, but at the present moment, when negotiations were actively going on with the Turkish Government as to reforms in the interest of the Armenians, and when a project had been presented to the Sultan by the Ambassadors of the Three Powers who were acting in concert in this matter, it would not, in his opinion, be to the public interest that Papers should be laid on the Table.
  House adjourned at Ten minutes after Five o'clock till Monday, the 17th of June.