Lords Sitting of 30 July 1896

Lord Moncreiff—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889—
(i.) Ordinance No. 151. General No. 34. Regulations as to resignation of Principals and Professors;
(ii.) Ordinance No. 152. General No. 35. Regulations as to examinations, supplementary to Ordinances Nos. 13 and 43;
(iii.) Ordinance No. 153. General No. 36. Regulations as to fees, supplementary to Ordinance No 50;
(iv.) Ordinance No. 154. General No. 37. Regulations for the degree of Bachelor of Divinity, supplementary to Ordinance No. 63:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed.—(No. 227.)

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
  Read the Third time.
  Clause 26,—

  VESTING IN COMPANY OF SITE AND SOIL OF PORTIONS OF ROAD, ETC., STOPPED UP.
  The site and soil of the road and footpaths or portions thereof by this Act authorised to be diverted, stopped up and discontinued, and the fee simple and inheritance thereof shall (except where by this Act otherwise provided), if the Company are, or if and when under the powers of this Act or of any other Act relating to the Company already passed they become the owners of the lands on both sides thereof be from the time of the stopping up thereof, respectively.
  wholly and absolutely vested in the Company for the purposes of their undertaking, subject to the provisions of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, with respect to mines lying under or near to the railway.
  The Earl of DENBIGHrose to move after Clause 26, to insert the following clause:—

  AS TO VENTILATION OF RAILWAY.
  With a view of ascertaining the best system of ventilation which can be applied to the portion of the Metropolitan Railway between King's Cross and Praed Street, and for securing that the same shall be adopted by the Company, the following provisions shall be observed and have effect:—

  (1.) An arbitrator or arbitrators shall be appointed by the Board of Trade to consider and determine the best and most efficient means of ventilating the said portion of railway, taking into consideration the interests and convenience, as well of the travelling public as of the persons using or interested in the streets or lands over or adjacent to the said portion of railway

  (2.) For and in connection with the purposes aforesaid, such arbitrator or arbitrators shall consider any proposals as to the system of ventilation to be adopted, and also as to the situation, elevation, size, and construction of any ventilating works to be executed which may be submitted to him or them by the Company, the London County Council, or the vestry of any parish in which any portion of the railway is situate.

  (3.) The reference to the arbitrator or arbitrators appointed under this section shall be deemed to be a submission to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1889.

  (4.) When and so soon as the arbitrator or arbitrators shall have issued their award, it shall be the duty of the Company to proceed to put the same into execution; provided that, if further statutory powers are required to enable them to give effect to the said award, the same shall be applied for by the Company, or, in default, by the London County Council.

  (5.) If the Company fail to proceed with the necessary works in accordance with the award within three months after the date of the award, in the event of no further statutory powers being required, or within three months after such necessary statutory powers are obtained if such powers be required, the Company shall be subject to a penalty of fifty pounds a day for every day on which they are in default. Such penalty may be recovered by the London County Council in any Court of competent jurisdiction.

  995
  The noble Earl said that an effort had been made by the London County Council to compel the Company to accept arbitration on a subject familiar to all who travelled in London—the abominable ventilation of the Underground Railway. In 1890 the Metropolitan Railway Company sought power to buy lands fronting on the Marley bone and Euston Roads, and make holes through the roads for the ventilation of their line. Great opposition to this was raised by the local authorities, and it was insisted that the Company should be placed under certain conditions. The Company then introduced a Bill in the present Session to obtain power to acquire the houses in the Marylebone and Euston roads with their front gardens. This also was opposed by the local authorities. This Bill was referred to a Committee of their Lordships' House, who, after hearing the case, said they were anxious that the best system of ventilation should be adopted that science and experience could suggest, and they were not satisfied that the system proposed by the promoters was absolutely the best. They, therefore, desired that the arbitration mentioned in Clause 19 should be enlarged in such a manner as to empower the arbitrator to determine the most efficient means of ventilating the portion of this Metropolitan Railway to which the Inquiry referred. A clause was proposed by the London County Council and the vestries to give effect to the decision of the Committee, and, on its being adopted by the Committee, the Company declined to proceed further with the part of the Bill relating to the aquisition of land, and thereby not only defeated the decision of the Committee, but deprived them of the powers without which they could do nothing in the way of ventilation. He moved the insertion of a clause to the effect that an arbitrator or arbitrators should be appointed by the Board of Trade to consider and determine the best means of ventilating the railway between King's Cross and Praed Street, taking into consideration the interests of the travelling public and those using or interested in the streets or lands adjacent. This was an unusual course to take, but those of their Lordships who had been nearly poisoned or asphyxiated on the Underground Railway would
  996
  admit the urgency of the matter. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (THE EARL OF DUDLEY)said he hoped his noble Friend would not press his Amendment, for, as a matter of fact, it had no connection with the provisions of the Bill as they were at present drawn. The facts were, that, when this Bill was originally sent to the Select Committee, the promoters sought powers to acquire land for the purpose of ventilating some portions of the Metropolitan Railway; the Committee not being satisfied that the method proposed by the promoters was the best one, inserted this Amendment, and the Company, rather than accept so drastic a proposal, dropped the part of the Bill to which it referred. This course was assented to by the Committee, who passed the rest of the Bill without further reference to the Amendment. Thus it was clear that, in the opinion of the Committee, the necessity for this Amendment rested not so much upon general grounds as upon the particular proposal made by the promoters to increase the existing methods of ventilation, as to the efficiency and convenience, of which considerable doubt had been expressed. It would have been quite possible for the Committee to have inserted the Amendment even after part of the Bill had been dropped. They did not do so, and he submitted, therefore, that his noble Friend was not entitled to say the promoters defeated the intention of the Committee, and to quote the opinion of the Committee upon the Bill as originally drawn under circumstances that were now entirely different. ["Hear, hear!"] But, apart altogether from the question of the relevancy of the Amendment, he objected to it also on totally different grounds. In the first place, he did not quite understand what his noble Friend meant by the word "arbitrators." The persons proposed to be appointed by the Board of Trade were not, as a matter of fact, arbitrators at all. Their duties were not those of arbitration, and their opinion was not an award. Surely it was of the very essence of arbitration that there should be parties to a dispute and an agreement to refer. But in this ease there was no dispute; there were no parties, and there was no agreement to refer. In

  997
  fact., the persons whom his noble Friend called arbitrators were commissioners, to whom was to be intrusted the duty of discovering the best mode of ventilating this portion of the Metropolitan Railway, and whose decision the Company were to be bound to accept, no matter whether that decision was practical or not, under a penalty of £50 a day, without right or power of any appeal whatever. He could not Conceive that any company would accept a proposal of that kind, so drastic in its character, and he did not believe for an instant that, if this Amendment were inserted, the promoters would continue with their Bill. The experience at the Board of Trade to a large extent bore out what the noble Earl had said with reference to the conditions of ventilation upon the Metropolitan Railway, and they were anxious to put the ventilation of that railway, if they could, on a more satisfactory footing than it was at the present time. He did not think the proposal of his noble Friend was the one best suited to carry out the objects he had in view. The insertion of the Amendment would defeat the ends which his noble Friend wished to attain, and he could not help thinking that a far better course would be to appoint either a Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade or a Select Committee of their Lordships' House, to whom the whole question of the ventilation of the Metropolitan Railway should be referred, and who would report as to the best means which should be adopted to put it on a more satisfactory footing. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREobserved that he was Chairman of a Select Committee of their Lordships' House which inquired into this matter some ten years ago. That Committee authorised certain ventilators to be made which the Metropolitan District Railway asked for. But after their Report objection was taken to the ventilators on the ground of unsightliness, and the result was that in the House, of Commons a great deal of what had been sanctioned in the House of Lords was struck out of the Bill, and nothing had practically been done from that day to this. Anybody who travelled on the railway knew the state of things was no better now than it was ten years ago, and, whatever the fate of this
  998
  Amendment, something ought to be done early next Session with a view to arriving at a settlement of the matter.
  LORD MONKSWELLthought it might be well to adjourn this matter for a little while, and the noble Earl might be able to arrange some clause with the Board of Trade and the local authorities during the course of the present Session, the subject being of so much urgency as to suggest that course. He hoped the matter would not be hung up till another Session, but that the Board of Trade would at once do what they could with a view of suggesting some clause that might be accepted both by the local authorities and the railway company with regard to the ventilation.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The EARL of MORLEY)sympathised with the object of the Amendment, but was bound to say he entirely agreed with what had been said by his noble Friend who represented the Board of Trade. The Amendment was a very stringent one, and did not concern anything that was in the Bill now before the House. The Committee desired to impose upon the Company a clause with regard to ventilation. The Company refused to accept that clause, and the Committee allowed the Bill to proceed, omitting from it anything relating to the Metropolis. The Bill, therefore, came before the House as an Omnibus Bill, which had no connection whatever with any land or works in the Metropolis. He thought it would be a strong measure indeed, on the Third Reading of a Bill, to introduce into it an Amendment of this character, which had no connection with anything in the Bill itself. It would be hard upon the Company, and he was afraid would introduce a very inconvenient precedent into private Bill legislation. He therefore earnestly trusted the House, would not adopt the Amendment of his noble Friend. With regard to what had been said by Lord Monkswell, it was somewhat late in the Session to postpone this Motion, and he thought the Board of Trade would have some difficulty in introducing into the Bill any Amendment dealing in a really efficient and thorough manner with the question they all desired to see dealt with. Having said this he would like to express his opinion strongly as to the ventilation of the Metropolitan Railway.

  999
  The views expressed by the Committee ought to he taken into consideration by the Company, and he would venture to urge upon the Company the importance of considering the whole question of the ventilation of their railway, and to warn them that there might he some difficulty in their obtaining Parliamentary assistance in the future unless they took the matter really and effectively into consideration, and acted upon it.
  LORD CONNEMARA,as Chaiman of the Committee which considered the Bill, said the only part that was seriously opposed was the part relating to the ventilation of the Metropolitan Railway, and the Committee thought it would he fairer to all parties that the whole matter, being so technical, should be taken into consideration by an arbitrator who could decide as to the best mode of ventilation. The evidence given led the Committee to believe that the proposal before them for this object was not the best that could be conceived. The course the Committee suggested was, he considered, a very fair one, but the promoters were perfectly within their rights in declining to accept the Arbitration Clause, and as there were other useful clauses in the Bill, the Committee did not, because of this, care to refuse the whole Bill. He perfectly agreed with what the Earl of Dudley had stated on behalf of the Board of Trade, and he need not say he agreed entirely with the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, as to the course which ought to he adopted. He thought it would he both inconvenient and inexpedient to adopt the Amendment which had been proposed by the noble Lord, which embodied a penal clause, throwing upon the promoters of the Bill the necessity of adopting some mode of ventilation the Board of Trade might suggest to them, or, in the alternative of their failing to do so, submit to a fine of £50 a day. It would be well to adopt the suggestion of the noble Earl below him, and leave the whole matter in the hands of the Board of Trade, when the whole question could he settled within a very few months.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid that, in view of the expression of opinion that had fallen from the noble Lords, and in view of what had been stated by the noble Earl representing the Board of
  1000
  Trade, he would withdraw his Amendment. He could only say he was glad to have obtained an expression of opinion from some noble Lords as to the great necessity which existed for this ventilation. He could only hope that the noble Lord would do what he could to obtain a Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade to inquire into this matter, and to see that it was not allowed to rest longer than was absolutely necessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

FINANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a, and to be printed.—[No. 228.]

LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMISSION BILL [H.L.]
On the motion of THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (the DUKE of DEVONSHIRE), Bill read the Third time.
Question put, "That the Bill do pass."
Clause 1,—

APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS.
(1.) There shall be a body of Commissioners styled the University of London Commissioners, and consisting in the first instance of the following-persons, namely:—
(2.) If and whenever any vacancy occurs among the Commissioners, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty the Queen to appoint a person to fill the vacancy: but the name of every person so appointed shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament.
(3.) The Commissioners may, with the consent of the Treasury as to number, appoint or employ such persons as they may think necessary for the execution of their duties under this Act, and may remove any person so appointed or employed.
(4.) There shall be paid to any person so appointed or employed such remuneration as the Treasury may assign, and that remuneration and all expenses of the Commissioners incurred with the sanction of the Treasury in the execution of this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE moved to insert, after the space left for the names of the Commissioners, the words, "and it shall be lawful for Her Majesty to appoint a secretary to the Commissioners."
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3,—

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMISSIONERS.
(1.) The Commissioners shall make statutes and regulations for the University of London in general accordance with the scheme of the Report hereinbefore referred to, but subject to any modifications which may appear to them expedient after considering any representations made to them by the Senate or Convocation of the University of London, or by any other body or persons affected.
(2.) In framing such statutes and regulations, the Commissioners shall see that provision is made for securing adequately the interests of collegiate and non-collegiate students respectively.
(3.) Statutes and regulations made under this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any Act of Parliament, charter, deed, or other instrument.
THE BISHOP OF LONDON THE BISHOP OF LONDON moved to insert at the end of the clause, after the word "instrument,"—
"Provided that no statutes or regulations shall inflict any disability on any college or institution on account of its religious character."
The reason for the Amendment was that-the Bill was so drawn as practically to guide the Commissioners in framing their statutes to inflict a very serious disability upon King's College. This disability would put King's College at a great disadvantage as compared with the other institutions that would probably enter the University. King's College was entirely a Church College. They had power to provide a conscience clause; and that power had been exercised, and no student of the college was now required to attend any religious instruction or observance to which he conscientiously objected. The late Government, on the ground that King's College was a Church College, refused to them any share of the Parliamentary grant; but this Resolution of the Treasury had been rescinded, and they did now receive a share of the grant exactly on the same footing with all the
1002
other colleges of University rank in England. He thought that would be sufficient guarantee that when the Act forming this University was introduced the same policy would be pursued, and that what was done in regard to the grant would also be done in the Act that was to permanently establish the character of the new University. But it was not so. The Bill was so framed as to direct the Commissioners in all their proceedings to have regard to the Report of the Commissioners who inquired into the University system and the need of a University for London. In that Report the Commissioners were equally divided on the important point of whether or not King's College, being a Denominational College, should be put on the same level with the other colleges. The Report was agreed to, however, with a protest. He did nut think it was right that King's College should be expected to enter into the new University on a different footing from the rest, and therefore he had proposed the Amendment in order to prevent any disability from being inflicted on the college on account of its religious character. He asked, in other words, that the same thing should be done in regard to this University instruction as was done at the present moment in regard to elementary education. The Imperial Government knew no distinction, in the matter of grant, between Denominational Elementary Schools and schools that were not Denominational; and he did not think it, was logically consistent to deal with elementary education in one way and University education in another way. He did not think they ought to be content with anything less than the Amendment he had moved.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREsaid he had perhaps better state more explicitly than the Right Reverend Prelate had done how this question had arisen. In the Report of Lord Cowper's Commission, it was stated that—
"For some time to come the most effectual means of promoting higher education in London will be by completing and supplementing the resources of existing institutions,"
subject to a proviso against the grant of money to any University fund for any purpose in respect of which any privilege was granted or any disability

1003
was imposed on account of religious disbelief. That, no doubt, was the recommendation of the Commission; but, unfortunately, and he thought it was very much to be regretted, the grounds of that recommendation were not in any part of the Report discussed. He did not think that, although the statutory Commissioners appointed under this Bill were directed in general terms to frame statutes and regulations for the new University, in general accordance with the recommendations of the Report, they would be in the least precluded from considering any case which might be laid before them by King's College, and from declining to impose upon them any such disability as was feared by the Right Rev. Prelate. He feared, however, that the Amendment which had been moved went somewhat too far for the necessities of the case, that it was couched in terms which were in direct opposition to the spirit of the University Test Act, and that it was absolutely certain that, whatever view the present majority of the House of Commons might take in this matter, if these words were inserted in the Bill in this shape they would raise so much controversy in another place that it would put an end to any possibility, which, perhaps, under any circumstances was a rather remote one, of the Bill being passed this year. Although he could not assent to the adoption of the words proposed by the Right Rev. Prelate, he believed there were other words which he did not think would give rise to any such opposition. The Right Rev. Prelate had referred to the protest which was signed by Bishop Barry, then, he believed, president of King's College, and others, objecting to this proviso. They said:—
"We hold that a University should be at liberty to accept, if it sees fit, the administration of funds for every University purpose, whatever may be the conditions attached to such administration."
He should be perfectly prepared to accept in the form of an Amendment words actually embodying that opinion, and instead of the words which had been proposed, he should suggest that the Right rev. Prelate should accept words to this effect:—
"Provided that no statute or regulation shall preclude the University from accepting,
1004
if it sees fit, the administration of funds for every University purpose, whatever may be the conditions attached to such administration."
He believed those words would entirely meet every possible case that might arise. The University had not at present at its disposal any fund whatever to allot, and any funds it might hereafter be in a position to allot must either be provided by Parliament or from some private source. If it was desired that King's College should share in such assistance, the terms were granted which would admit of the University accepting it. If it was desired by the County Council, also, that the college should share in the advantages of that fund, it would be in their power to make provision to that effect. At the same time, there was no Statute that would enable the particular desire of a donor to be overridden by whomsoever the money was given. He believed the words he had suggested to be a sufficient indication of the intention of Parliament, and he hoped the Right Rev. Prelate would be disposed to adopt them, and not insist upon the adoption of words which were certain to provoke a great deal of contention in another place, and would render it impossible to pass the Bill during the present Session. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE BISHOP OF LONDONdid not think that King's College ought to accept the words submitted by the Lord President, for this simple reason. Benefactions would no doubt be given to the University, but they would be given, as a general rule, without any distinict conditions at all, and simply to be used for such and such purposes, and without reference to anything in connection with the University which made a difference between King's College and any other college. And in all those cases he thought it would be possible, and from the form in which the Act was drawn he thought it would be probable, that the statutes and regulations would exclude King's College. He could not accept the suggestion of the noble Duke. The noble Duke had referred to the fate of the Bill in another place. He was quite sure that the friends of King's College in the House of Commons would not consent without a struggle to allow the college in this matter to run the risk of

1005
being very seriously crippled in the conditions between one college and another. He could not accept the suggestion of the noble Duke.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid the Right Rev. Prelate might be right in predicting what would be the result of the action taken by his Friends in another place, but he did not think he should he far wrong in predicting that the provision which he sought to insert would never be inserted in any such Bill. 'The right rev. Prelate had said something about the college being a Church of England College. Nobody proposed to prevent that; nobody proposed to interfere with the governing body of the college in that regard. No one said that, it should not be free to appoint Professors belonging to the Church of England. The condition had been this, that, King's College insisted upon having its hands tied, so that if a vacancy in a Professorship occurred and the candidates presented themselves, the Governors might appoint the inferior man simply because he was a member of the Church of England. That was the point that arose in this case. The question was not one of hardship to the college, for nobody proposed to interfere with its government; but it was whether the University of London, which had always been an undenominational institution without any test, and which was created as such, was now to foster a test which Parliament had deliberately abolished in the case of the older Universities. Tests existed in them. They were once, in the same sense, Church of England Colleges, but Parliament swept away the tests, and, if he was not mistaken, the Eight Rev. Prelate, in those years, was not altogether indisposed to the change.
THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I supported it, and would again.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid that might be so, but when the matter came to affect this particular college, of which he was President, then he sought to lay it down that an altogether different practice must prevail—that a test of a most rigid and undesirable character must continue. Supposing the test was swept away, in; this case it would not prevent the governing body giving preference to Church of England Professors; but the Right Rev. Prelate asked that the University of London should in this way be forced to
1006
endow an educational institution which it believed to be a bad one, because in deliberately shut out the best men from teaching botany, chemistry, mathematics, electricity, and other sciences, if they were unable to declare that they were members of the Church of England. For instance, a Presbyterian of the very highest capacity as a scientific man must be put aside in favour of one of far inferior capacity and reputation, because the former did not belong to the Church of England; and that was the system which the Right Rev. Prelate wished to connect with the University of London—a system which was entirely antagonistic to that, institution. The test had been proved absolutely worthless, even in the interests of the Church itself. He ventured to say that they would find as active, vigorous, sincere, devout Churchmen in the older Universities without this test, as wens to be found in King's College with it—that they would find men as fit to take holy orders, and as capable of doing duty as parish priests, aye, and even as Bishops, coining from the older Universities as from King's College and London University. He repeated that in this Bill it was not proposed to touch the College, which might have all its endowments to itself, and the full benefit of its connection with the University of London. But what was objected to was the Bishop's desire that the University should be fettered, and that it should be compelled to give to King's College whatever it gave to other colleges. King's College had its friends and representatives on the Cowper Commission, but the Commissioners made no such proposal as that now put forward by the right rev. Prelate. Nay, they dissented from it, and embodied their dissent in a memorandum. The noble Duke had offered to insert in the Bill, as a direction, exactly that for which Bishop Barry and the other dissentients asked, but that would not satisfy the Right Rev. Prelate. Whoever had asked for such a proposal before the Right Rev. Prelate that day? Something might have been said for the view of the Right Rev. Prelate if he had contended that the dissentient report of the Commissioners was entitled to consideration, and that the report of the majority ought not to be treated as conclusive. The noble Duke appeared to accept the

1007
very terms of the dissentient Commissioners, and he for one should have no objection to that. He did not believe that it would do any harm to permit the University to accept endowments, although they might be extended to a denominational institution, as the noble Duke had said, if the money given was public money. Those who gave, would determine its destination; and in the same way, if it was private money, the donor would determine its destination. But the Right Rev. Prelate was not satisfied unless the objectionable test referred to was continued, and he could not help thinking that the Right Rev. Prelate was asking for that which would not benefit King's College either educationally or in public estimation.
THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYsaid the remarks of the noble and learned Lord might, from his point of view, be an argument against admitting King's College at all into the federated scheme. That was one reason why it took so long for the scheme to make any headway. But, if King's College was to be admitted, surely it ought to be on the terms on which it rested and on which it had hitherto worked, and worked with very great efficiency and benefit to the country. He confessed he was very-much in favour of the Bishop of London's Amendment.
LORD PLAYFAIRsaid that when the Commission prepared the scheme it included King's College with all the institutions of collegiate rank that it was desirable to place under such scheme upon terms of perfect equality. The present colleges were not nearly sufficiently well equipped either as to the number of professorships in science or as to the teaching facilities, such as laboratories and other methods which modern science required. The University, therefore, would try to obtain funds either from Parliament or private sources, in order to add to the number of professorships. They wanted to treat King's College exactly as other colleges would be treated. They desired to obtain the most distinguished people as University professors who might lecture either at King's College, University College, the College of Science, or anywhere else, but they could not have any such condition as that they should be a member of the Church of England, or Jews, or Roman
1008
Catholics. It was felt the University must be at perfect liberty, without reference to any religious faith, to obtain the most eminent and the most skilled professors of the different sciences. If the University could not send those distinguished professors into King's College to instruct its pupils, it was quite evident King's College would be at a very great disadvantage.
Amendment negatived.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid he had not divided the House because he did not want to have the whole weight of the Government against him. It would not be difficult, he was sure, to show that the arguments of Lord Herschell did not really touch the point and that the speech of Lord Play fair did not cover the ground. [A laugh.] He must be content to endeavour to secure justice in the Lower House.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREasked whether he could now move the words which he proposed to substitute for the Right Rev. Prelate's?
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid that a substantive Amendment was never allowed unless notice had been given.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREsaid that if the Amendment which he suggested would give any satisfaction to the Right Rev. Prelate, he would give notice of it for to-morrow.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONcould not say now whether he could accept the Amendment; it did not seem sufficient.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYhoped the noble Duke would put the Amendment down for tomorrow.
Bill to further be proceeded with tomorrow.

LABOURERS' (IRELAND) BILL.
THE EARL OF RANFURLY THE EARL OF RANFURLY moved, "That this Bill be now read a Second time." He said the Measure had passed through the other House unopposed, and its chief objects were to prevent the delay which had taken place under the Act of 1883 and to improve the machinery of former Acts. Before going through

1009
the various clauses as briefly as he could, he would like to say that owing to a printer's error the Memorandum of the Bill was incorrect. A clause that was struck out was mentioned in the Memorandum, and a clause which appeared in the Bill—he referred to Clause 6—was not mentioned at all, and all the clauses after Clause 5 were wrongly numbered. [A laugh.] The clauses which would shorten the length of time began with Sub-clause 1 of Clause 1. That shortened the public notice which it was necessary for the sanitary authority to give of the day of their meeting from 14 days to seven. Sub-clause 2 allowed sanitary authorities to discuss at subsequent meetings a scheme though no notice be given, but it obliged them to give three days' notice of the meeting at which they came to their decision. Sub-clause 4 authorised notice to he served on the landowner at some time or another after the advertisement was inserted in the papers, and it further reduced the number of insertions of the advertisement from three to two consecutive weeks. Sub-clause 5 permitted notice to he served on owners by registered letters. Clause 2 enabled the sanitary authority, if petition was lodged against part of a Provisional Order, to divide the Order into two parts, and to proceed at once with the unopposed part. It was worthy of note that in the past five years only 66 out of 134 Orders had been opposed, and out of 166 cases, in only four was the whole of the Order opposed. Much delay, however, was caused in the erection of a large number of cottages. Clause 4 enabled the sanitary authority to enter into possession of the land at once on the confirmation of the Order, the landlord being fully protected as regarded either the rent or the purchase money as the case might be. The other clauses were intended to simplify the procedure. Thus, Sub-clause 3 of Clause 1 provided for a representation or certificate by the sanitary authority being signed at any stage of the proceedings. Sub-clause 6 protected the owners by providing that seven days' notice should be given them of any Local Government Board Enquiry, whereas under the existing law no notice was required. Clause 3 substituted the machinery of the second schedule of the Housing of
1010
the Working Classes Act 1890 for the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act, so far as the compulsory purchase of land was concerned. The former Act was far more suited for small lots of land than the latter Act. Clause 5 provided that—
"The tenancies created by lettings under the Labourers Acts shall be deemed cottier tenancies, notwithstanding that the allotment exceeds half an acre and by the terms of the letting the tenant is bound to keep the windows of the cottage and the fences of the allotment in repair."
Clause 6 provided that—
"The inspector who holds the Inquiry and who makes the complaint, and who has authority given him to exercise the powers of the sanitary authority, need not be the same inspector,"
and Clause 7 was as follows:—
"The object of this clause is to continue the Labourers Acts for five years. These Acts are at present temporary, subject to continuance by the Annual Expiring laws Continuance Acts."
He trusted that they would give this Measure a Second Heading. He could not see that there was anything contentious in the Bill now before them. The objection which he fancied some noble Lords raised was not to what was in the Bill but to what was not in the Bill. Their Lordships must be well aware that at that stage of the Session in the other House it was not easy to pass an opposed Measure. This Bill was brought forward as an unopposed Bill, and it was impossible to accept any Amendment, which would turn it into an opposed Measure. He begged to move the Second Beading of the Bill.
LORD SUDELEY LORD SUDELEY moved to leave out the word "now," and to insert at the end of the Motion the words "this day three months." He had no objection whatever to the principle of the Bill, knowing that anything that would shorten and cheapen procedure must be an advantage. The Bill came to them under the following circumstances. When first brought in by Mr. Balfour it contained a clause which was now omitted and the purport of which was explained in a Memorandum. The Bill in its subsequent course was referred to the Grand Committee on Law, and when in I hat stage, at the instance of Mr. Dillon and Mr. Redmond, the clause was withdrawn by Mr. Balfour, but he did so on the understanding that he

1011
should bring it in next year as a Bill itself. Now they had already three Bills for Labourers' Dwellings in Ireland—in 1860, 1883, and 1889, and with this Bill and the Bill of next year they would have five Bills. As no inconvenience would be caused by putting off this Bill, he thought it would be more advantageous to do so, and let the Bill of next year deal with the clause omitted and consolidate the other Bills.
VISCOUNT DE VESCIhoped his noble Friend would not press this Motion. He claimed to have some knowledge of the subject, and as to the objection that the Bill would be availed of to put in evicted tenants, he saw no objection to that if they complied with the principal condition of the Act of L883—namely, that they were bonâ fide agricultural labourers. He could not agree that the Bill could be looked upon as a contentious Bill.
THE EARL OF COURTOWNsaid the Bill contained some useful provisions, and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would give favourable consideration to Amendments which might be proposed.
THE SECRETARY OF TATE FOR AVAR (The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE)hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a Division. There was no doubt that these Acts had been occasionally abused, and undoubtedly the Return showed that in not a large number of cases but in a certain number of cases cottages had been improperly let to persons who should not have been allowed to occupy them. The proportion under the Act of 1888 was not large, and it had not increased since that time. Out of 11,000 or 12,000, only a small number had been let either to evicted tenants or to persons for whom they were not intended. The object of the Bill was to shorten and amend procedure under the existing Act, but it did not do away with any of the existing precautions, nor did it deprive the Privy Council of the power of checking abuses under the Act. With regard to the 5th Clause, it was the only contentious one in the Bill, and owing to the limited time at their disposal, if they had persisted in it there would be no prospect of passing the Bill into law. That was
1012
a point which no doubt could be considered at a future stage of the Bill.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid the noble Marquess admitted that some cottages had been improperly let, and he wished to prevent that. He had no objection to the evicted tenants as such, but the Guardians in many parts of Ireland had a way of doing their business which was to stick in these men to make themselves popular. In 1883 a Bill was passed for the labourers, and the Act had been quoted all over the world as showing that the Irish labourer was well off, because the State could provide him with a cottage and a certain amount of land. Now a Bill enlarging that was brought, in, and they were asked to forego opposition when the whole principle of the Act of 1883 was done away with—namely, that labourers only should be admitted to these cottages. If Clause 5 were omitted, Tom, Dick, and Harry might have these cottages. If the evicted tenant were admitted, why not, the landlord, ruined by successive legislation and bad times? ["Hear, hear!"] Many Boards of Guardians would sympathise with them. ["Hear, hear!"] He would press upon the noble Lord in Committee that they should put forth all their power to insist upon Clause 5 being reinserted, else the Act of 1883 would be chucked to the winds.
LORD SUDELEYasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF BANFURLYsaid there was nothing in the Measure that dispensed with the machinery for labourers being admitted to these cottages, and there was machinery for keeping it to labourers only. The machinery which at present existed was difficult to work, and Clause 5 was intended to improve it. There was no doubt that a small number of other people had been admitted by the Boards of Guardians into these cottages, but the Local Government Board could make the Boards of Guardians turn out those who were not bonâ fide agricultural labourers.
LORD CASTLETOWNasked what were the provisions by which the Local Government Board could take action in this matter?
THE EARL OF RANFURLYsaid he was not able to state them at the moment, but he would be happy to give the noble Lord the information later.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS [H.L.]
Report of Amendments (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Tuesday next.

COAL MINES REGULATION ACT (1887) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
LORD BELPERsaid this Bill was one which had become not only desirable, but really necessary, owing to the increased light which had of late years been thrown upon the causes of accidents in mines. The object of the Bill was to decrease, as far as possible, these accidents and diminish the deplorable loss of life. The Bill was read in the House of Commons, not only without a Division, but he might say with the very general consent of all parties, and of those who were conversant with the question. The provisions of the Bill were as follows: There were powers given to the Secretary of State to make regulations with regard to various matters for the purpose of diminishing the chance of these explosions. The matters included the following:—The description of lamps used in a mine, and the manner in which they might be used; the sorts of explosives that were to be used in mines, how they were to be stored, and the manner in which the shots were to be bred; the number of persons who were to be permitted to remain in a mine when the shots were being fired, and also as to the damping or watering of mines which were of a dusty character and in which it was desirable to do so. An objection had been raised that the Secretary of State had already power to make regulations such as these, but to do so some of the regulations in the former Act of 1887 would have to be modified if not repealed, and it was, therefore, thought desirable to give the power directly by
1014
this Bill. Besides this there were important powers with regard to dealing with mines which were abandoned, and in that case this Bill made more stringent regulations than the Act of 1887. There was also an extension of the duties of inspection, and there was a very important clause which gave an absolute power, apart from any appeal, for a Secretary of State, where he considered that certain explosives were or might be of a dangerous character, to prohibit the use of those explosives, or in any class of mines in which he thought it desirable to do so. He felt sure that, in view of the urgency which existed for some such Measure, their Lordships would not hesitate to give it a Second Reading. It was practically an agreed Bill, and was heartily supported by both the employers of labour and those who represented the miners, and he hoped they would pass it into law without making any substantial alterations in it. He begged to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
COLLECTING SOCIETIES BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL.
LORD THRINGasked Her Majesty's Government whether it was the fact that the Dost, Office Consolidation Bill, which had passed through a Joint Committee of both Houses, had been withdrawn, and what was the reason for throwing away the labours of that Committee on a wholly uncontentious Bill?
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid he had been asked by the Postmaster General

1015
(the Duke of Norfolk), to express his regret at his unavoidable absence that day. There were several Amendments on the Paper to this Bill in the House of Commons which would have led to considerable discussion, and at this period of the Session it would have been impossible to pass a Bill of 93 clauses if any Members intended, as some did, to contest its passage at every stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HALSBURY)said this was a matter of much greater importance than it seemed at first sight to be. Their Lordships were probably aware that for a considerable time there had been an effort to consolidate a great variety of the Statutes. Statutes had sometimes been passed on the same subject at an interval of a century, and those who wished to know what the law on a particular subject was had to search through the Statute Book. A very learned body of persons had been engaged in putting the Statutes together and harmonising them so that it might be possible for people to know what was the whole of the Statute law with reference to the subject with which they were dealing. He regretted very much the case of the Bill which the noble Lord had referred to; there were thousands of postmasters in this country, and it was most unfortunate that they should not have at hand the Statutes applicable to their particular functions. But a matter of far greater importance was raised than the case of a particular Bill, because it appeared to him that this was the commencement of a practice which would render anything like consolidation of the Statutes absolutely impossible. The learned persons to whom he had referred were Government draftsmen, who, as they were aware, did their work admirably, and some years ago it was the practice to take these Consolidation Bills from them and to pass them through the House with the simple statement that they were Consolidation Bills. The question, however, was raised whether by inadvertence any part of the law might thus be altered without the assent of Parliament, and as a remedy against that possible contingency an arrangement was made by the First Lord of the Treasury—his late lamented Friend Mr. W. H. Smith—and by himself that there should be a Joint Committee of
1016
both Houses on which there should be an equal number of Peers and Members of the House of Commons, and that they should have the supervision of the work done by the Treasury draftsmen. That system had gone on for a considerable time, and perhaps their Lordships would allow him to tell them what had happened. It was the duty of the draftsman—which was attended to with admirable efficiency—not to attempt to alter the law, but to photograph it as it was and bring it as far as possible into the language of the present day. The necessity for that was apparent when they considered they were putting together statutes which might have been passed at an interval of a century. The business was most carefully done in the first instance. Then came the work of the Committee. The draftsman attended with the Bills that had been consolidated, and the Committee examined, word by word and line by line, everything that had been done in the way of alteration. The alteration was chiefly of phraseology. In the particular case now under discussion he had had considerable difficulty in altering the language with reference to postal packets, because a statute that was appropriate in the days of the mail coach was not so in the time of the postal packet. He gave that as an example. When an alteration of the law seemed to be involved, a Committee, composed of an equal number of Peers and Members of the House of Commons, considered whether an alteration of the law was desirable. He did not believe a system could be devised which was more careful in theory or practice. An enormous amount of trouble had been taken by the draftsman in the first instance, and the Joint Committee of both Houses in going through this statute of 93 clauses. It was not a very lively or exciting occupation to go through ancient statutes and boil them down into a modern statute, and it would not be possible to get Members of the House of Commons or of their Lordships' House to go through this laborious and careful work if it was afterwards to be cast aside at the instance of any one Member who thought he would take an opportunity to amend the law where he thought it defective. If that system were pursued it would be absolutely

1017
impossible be pursue this must useful work. It was not respectful to the Members of either House who had taken part in this laborious work. Lord Thring, who was familiar with the whole system of Parliamentary drafting, rendered invaluable service in seeing that the law was not altered; also the Chairman of Committees, and his noble and learned Friend Lord Herschell. Whether any other system of doing this work could be contrived, or whether the gentleman (who was not one of the six Members who gave their assistance) could do it better or not, the whole system must break down if Amendments were to be made on Bills of this kind, and it was hopeless to attempt anything like consolidation. This Bill of 93 clauses was not to become law because of this objection. It only showed what mischief might be done. If the practice was not suppressed by the action of the House and in another place, he for one would hesitate to ask his noble Friends to waste their time in work which might be rendered perfectly useless. He regretted that Mr. George Howell, who was formerly a Member of the House of Commons, was not a Member now, for he was most earnest and useful in this work. He ought also to say that the Irish Members who had attended had rendered useful assistance. So it was not a question of any political Party or any side of the House, but whether it should be in the power of some one person to set at nought all the efforts made in the useful work of legal consolidation. The House of Commons should take means to prevent so gross an abuse.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid he desired to say a few words in hearty concurrence of what the Lord Chancellor had said. He himself did not think, whoever had stopped this Bill or been the means of its being abandoned from a desire to bring about certain alterations in the law, could have realised how much valuable work he had been the means of throwing away, or how much injury was done without any compensating advantage. The consolidation of the statute law had been of the highest value. The public had learned to appreciate it and feel its value. All consolidation was absolutely and utterly impossible if they attempted to amend the law when a Consolidation
1018
Bill was passing through Parliament. Consolidation was only possible on the understanding and condition that when anyone wanted to amend the law it should be first consolidated that they might, know what it was. That seemed not only desirable, but the common-sense and reasonable course, because they were, in a much better position to make an Amendment of the law when it had been clearly and accurately defined by being brought together in a single statute. Consolidation Bills could never be passed unless that understanding was carried out, and when a Joint Committee of the two Houses had expended a great deal of time and labour over what was not particularly exhilarating, that of consolidating the statute law, it was hard that they should find their time and labour thrown away because some individual (or more than one) thought there was something in the law that needed alteration. To his mind, if such a practice was to continue, it suggested the serious question whether there ought not to be some provision against it, and whether it ought not to be put out of the power of individual Members—while it was open to them to suggest that the law was not properly represented in the Consolidation Bill in the form in which it was—to attempt on the Consolidation Bill to procure an Amendment of the law. Unless there was either a kind of honourable understanding that Consolidation Bills should be allowed to pass without any attempt to make a substantive Amendment of the law, or means were taken to prevent the labours of the Committee such as sat on this Bill—being thrown away, it was perfectly certain that Members of this and the other House, whose time was often of great value, would not be induced, and could not be expected, to allow their time to be wasted and their efforts frustrated when they exerted themselves to bring the law on a particular subject into a satisfactory state.
LORD THRINGsaid he had been so long interested in the statute law that he might be allowed to add a few words to those of his noble and learned Friends. If this Bill was to be abandoned in the way it had been it would put an end, absolutely, to all improvement in the statute law. It was a point of the greatest possible importance. The only

1019
mode of bringing English statute, law, good as it was in substance, bad as it was in form, into available form in some degree resembling the Codes of the Continent, was the system of consolidating Bills without Amendment. The effect of this consolidation was to bring together numerous statutes, sometimes the contents of 50 or 60, in an intelligible form. That form was, as far as it could be, a mere photograph, as the Lord Chancellor had said, of the existing law, and it would be fair and reasonable for any Member in either House to object to the Bill on the ground that it was not a proper photograph. But if the fad of some Member who wished to alter the law as to the parcels post or something else was to be permitted, no Bill could be passed at all. When he first served on the Committee, it, was agreed by the Lord Chancellor and everyone connected with it that, by passive agreement between the two Houses, no Amendment should be moved in a Bill except Amendments showing the Bill had not been fairly and honestly done. If the Government did not put their foot down in the House of Commons and say they would bring their majority to bear, and declare that no Amendments should be moved on a Bill except Amendments impugning the accuracy of the consolidation, the whole system would fall to the ground. With regard to the labour bestowed on the Bill, it would not become him to plead any vexation at his labour being thrown aside. It was not that. He had for 25 years been engaged in preparing Acts of Parliament, and, in his opinion, it was a miserable thing that the fad of one or two Members should nut be crushed by the Government, but that, they should be allowed to put an end to the only system of codification that, could improve the law of England.

GOVERNMENT OF NORFOLK ISLAND.
THE EARL OF BELMORErose to move—
"That an humble address he presented to Her Majesty that copies or extracts of all correspondence relating to the proposed changes in the government of Norfolk Island he laid before the House when completed."
The noble Earl said he understood there was no objection in principle to what he
1020
asked for. When he last brought the matter forward he pointed out that, when the constitution of the island was established 40 years ago, it was determined that the island should be self-governing and administereed upon temperance principles. For four years he was Governor of the island, so he took great interest in it. From information he had received from the noble Earl the Under Secretary for the Colonies, he was convinced that some change was necessary. The administration of justice did not exist, and what, went, on was a farce. Some reform was necessary, and in carrying this out he hoped no more changes would be made than were really needful.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid it was true that the question of the future administration of Norfolk Island was now under consideration. Although very small, it was a very interesting little territory, and great care would be taken to do nothing, if possible, against the reasonable wishes of the inhabitants. It was necessary not only to look back upon the past history of the administration of the island and to read the Dispatches of past Governors—including one written by the noble Earl himself some; 25 years ago but to consider also the position of the Australasian colonies in connection with this small community. The views of these colonies were not unanimous on the subject, and a correspondence had necessarily ensued. That correspondence was not completed, but when it was he would undertake to lay all the Papers on the Table of the House. If the noble. Earl would be satisfied with that assurance, perhaps he would not press this particular Motion.
THE EARL OF BELMOREhad no objection to this proposal, as it was immaterial to him in what shape the information was presented. He would withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL.
To be read 2a To-morrow.—(The Earl of Dudley.)
House adjourned at Twenty minutes past. Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Two o'clock.