Lords Sitting of 5 May 1898

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter past Four of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Queen's consent signified; Reported from Select Committee with amendments.
  POWELL DUFFRYN STEAM COAL COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported with amendments.
  HARTLEPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL.
  Reported with an amendment.
  NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Order made on 25th April last appointing certain Lords Select Committee to consider Bill, discharged.
  BELFAST HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  Queen's consent signified; Reported from Select Committee with amendments.

  CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from Select Committee, That Committee had not proceeded with con-
  342
  sideration of Bill, opposition thereto having been withdrawn; Read, and ordered to lie on the Table: Orders made on 7th March and Thursday last discharged; Bill committed.

  MILFORD DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from Select Committee with amendments.
  SAINT THOMAS AND ST. SAVIOUR, SOUTHWARK BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from Select Committee, That Bill on being reported should be referred to Chairman of Committees, in order that certain proofs and consents may be given in respect thereof; Read, and agreed to; Bill reported from Select Committee, with amendments, and re-committed.
  KNOTT END RAILWAY BILL.
  Read second time, and committed: Committee to be proposed by Committee of Selection.
  ENFIELD GAS BILL.
  Read second time, and committed.
  BUCKIE (CLUNIE) HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  Read third time; Passed, and sent to Commons.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS) BILL.
  Brought from Commons.
  CORPORATION OF LONDON (FOREIGN CATTLE MARKET, DEPTFORD) BILL.
  Brought from Commons; Read first time, and referred to Examiners.
RETURNS, ETC.

  EDUCATION.
  Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to order of the 18th of March last), and to be printed. [No. 62.]
  Presented by Command, and ordered to lie on the Table.

COMMERCIAL, 1898.
No. 3. Correspondence relating to Sugar Bounties;
No. 4. Suez Canal; Returns of Shipping and Tonnage, 1895, 1896, and 1897:
Presented by Command, and ordered to lie on the Table.

TRADE REPORTS, 1898.
I.—Annual Series: Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance:

No. 2,068. Greece (Piræus);

No. 2,069. Turkey (Trebizond and Sivas Vilayets):

No. 2,070. France (Pondicherry and Karikal);

No. 2,071. Portugal (Mozambique);

No. 2,072. China (Foochow);

No. 2,073. China (Ningpo);

No. 2,074. Brazil (Pernambuco);

No. 2,075. Italy (Leghorn).

II.—Miscellaneous Series: Reports on Subjects of General and Commercial Interest:

No. 455. United States (Report on the Trade between the United States and China):
Presented by Command, and ordered to lie on the Table.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
Return of Proceedings, for the month of February, 1898:
Presented by Command, and ordered to lie on the Table.

LAND LAW ACTS AND LAND PURCHASE ACTS (IRELAND).
Royal Commission of Inquiry into the procedure and practice and the methods of valuation followed by the Land Commission, the Land Judges' Court, and the Civil Bill Courts in Ireland, under the Land Acts and the Land Purchase Acts: Volume II. Minutes of Evidence:
Presented by Command, and ordered to lie on the Table.

UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877.
Statute made by the Governing Body of Pembroke College, Oxford, on the 7th December, 1897, making an addition to Clause 16, Statute VI., of the College Statutes: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. [No. 63.]

COMMONS ACT, 1876.
Report by the Board of Agriculture upon an application for a Provisional Order for the regulation of Runcorn Heath and Runcorn Hill, Cheshire:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

JOURNAL COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the One hundred and twenty-ninth volume of the Journals (60 and 61 Vic.), with an Index, was ready for delivery; Read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and the said Volume ordered to be delivered in the same manner as the preceding volumes of the Journals have been delivered.
NEW BILLS.
  ATTENDANCE OF CHILDREN AT SCHOOL (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
  To further amend the law of Scotland with respect to the attendance of children at school; Presented by the SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR); Read first time; and to be printed. [No. 64.]
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS) BILL.
  Read first time; and to be printed. [No. 65.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  LUNACY BILL.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which is substantially the same as last year. The state of business then obliged me to say that I should drop all opposed clauses in the hope of passing the rest without occupation of time. That course, nevertheless, did not secure its passage, and this year the Government propose that it shall not be dropped, but passed, after full consideration of all that may be said on the clauses. The main occasion for the introduction of the Bill was a feeling that the power to make urgency orders for the detention of persons supposed to be of unsound mind should be safeguarded. While thinking this object of great importance, it is no less important to avoid doing anything which will interfere with the promptest treatment in proper cases. When it was first proposed, more than 10 years ago, to make the order of a justice a necessary condition of the detention of a person as a lunatic, a special exception was made in cases of urgency; and in deference to learned representations which I received I extended this exception so as to operate for seven days. I have been convinced by experience, and particularly by a recent case which created some public excitement, that it is desirable to shorter the period during which an urgency order may be used, and to exact very strict compliance with the rules as to the conditions and the evidence upon which any such order is obtained and acted upon.
  346
  The rest of the Bill deals with points of detail, which are entirely for Committee, some of them somewhat minute matters of administration. There is no doubt a question of principle involved in them. That is clear from the observations which have reached me respecting some of the clauses. The question is, where are you to draw the line between local freedom of action and central control? The provision and administration of asylums is one of those matters which are thought to be best provided by each county for itself, but a Central Lunacy Commission has been appointed to maintain uniformity in the principle upon which the treatment of lunatics is to proceed. On the one hand it is felt that the advantages of local action are lost if they are hampered or stereotyped by too much interference in detail; on the other hand, it is futile to provide a Board of Control if they have no real power. The exact line is difficult to draw. Indeed, it is the best course, if possible, to trust to discretion, ability, and mutual confidence to work out a system of this kind in a practical, common-sense, and business-like manner. Unfortunately, cases appear to arise occasionally showing that the intentions of the Acts relating to lunacy administrations are not everywhere realised, and some steps have to be taken by way of remedy. In illustration of this I will mention two points in the Bill arising on Clauses 18 and 20. I will deal with Clause 18 first. Under the existing law the plans for asylums have to be approved of by the Secretary of State, but he has no power to interpose where the buildings are subsequently used in a different way from that to which his consent was given, and cases have frequently arisen where that has been done to an extent which practically nullifies the substance of his control. A clause has been introduced with the object of making the Secretary of State's approval effective, so that the arrangements of the asylum shall continue to accord with that approval until other arrangements are similarly approved. The clause has been criticised as interfering with the necessary freedom of working an institution whose requirements cannot be absolutely scheduled, and which will do better with the

  347
  utmost latitude for meeting contingencies as they arise. Now, this appears to be a case where it is impossible to controvert the principle of the clause, but I shall hope to hear it most freely debated in Committee from a practical point of view, and I shall be ready to accept any Amendments which will prevent any interference, or ground for apprehension of interference, with local administration. I will next refer to Clause 20, relating to pensions. When Parliament gave power to the counties to charge their funds with the expense of a pensions system for asylums' officers, it never occurred to anyone that the power would not be universally used, and used liberally. It has been very generally and satisfactorily acted upon, but not, I regret to say, everywhere. There is no class of public servants (as they aria entitled to be called) who deserve more consideration in this respect than the attendants of asylums, not only in their own interest, but in the interest of the unfortunate persons of whom they have charge. The principle of the clause is one to which I attach great importance; but here, again, I am most desirous that the House should consider in Committee any Amendments which may be proposed to give the best shape to this proposal. I have myself suggested a minimum scale by way of illustration, but I am quite prepared to learn that better details can be inserted in the Bill. These are not the only clauses upon which I have reason to believe that Amendments will be proposed well worthy of consideration; but I have only to repeat that I invite discussion and assistance in Committee and in pressing, as I shall press, for the passing of the Bill this year. I trust that it will prove, in its final shape, to be a workable and acceptable Measure in the opinion of all who interest themselves in the subject. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I. should like to say a few words with reference to the last point touched upon by the noble and learned Lord—namely, with regard to pensions to officers of lunatic asylums. It is quite true that at present a very great difference of opinion exists in various parts of the country with regard to this
  348
  matter. In some parts considerably larger pensions are given than those provided under the present Bill. In the West Riding they take an opposite view with regard to superannuation allowances. They hold that the Asylums Committee ought to retain the discretion hitherto vested in them of deciding the question as to whether there should be any pension or not, and as to the amount of that pension, and that it should not be made compulsory upon county councils to spend their money in this manner if they do not think fit. For my part I think that is a reasonable contention, and that where there is such difference of opinion it is undesirable that you should lay down a strict rule by Act of Parliament. Speaking generally, and not upon this point exclusively, I may say that I have always thought it a mistake to enforce expenditure upon county councils by Act of Parliament. At the present moment a very large portion of the money expended by county councils is not directly expended by the county councils themselves, but they are bound to meet the demands which are made upon them by outside bodies. I venture to submit that it is undesirable to increase the number of cases in which that occurs, and that it is only reasonable that county councils should ask that this matter should be left to their discretion, it being quite manifest that there is a very great difference of opinion upon it. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be willing to omit the clause from the Bill at a subsequent stage.
  LORD THRING: The county councils are by no means agreed upon the question as to whether pensions should or should not be given. This is one of the questions upon which there appears to be no general agreement whatever.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, when we consider the authority which the county councils possess throughout the country, and their representative character, I think it is extremely undesirable, unless a very strong necessity arises, to do otherwise than to leave them a free discretion with reference to the expenditure for the

  349
  maintenance of lunatics. It is very desirable that the county councils should feel that they have entrusted to them the real business which comes under their control, and that they are largely responsible for the manner in which they conduct that business. If this clause is passed you will diminish that responsibility. If you go too far in laying down what they shall do you will weaken the authority of the county councils very seriously, and the result will be that you will not get men of the same position and the same knowledge to take part in the management of the various matters which come under the administration of the county councils. I am afraid there has, to some extent, lately risen in the country—I observe it in speeches that I have read—a desire, which I very much deprecate, that lunatic asylums should be placed under the direct control of the Government. I should regard that as a great calamity. We could not do worse than increase the functions of the Government with regard to local affairs. The Government having successfully established very useful and important bodies throughout the country for the management of local affairs, I feel very indisposed to limit in any way the discretion which these bodies now enjoy.
  Bill read a second time.

  PARISH CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Parish Churches (Scotland) Bill. I need occupy but a very few minutes of your Lordships' time in explaining the provisions of this short Bill. The principal object which we have in view is to adapt the ecclesiastical arrangements of parishes in Scotland to the changes which have taken place, and which to a considerable extent are still taking place, from time to time, owing to the large extension of towns, and to the migration
  350
  of the population from one portion of a town or district to another. In some towns of Scotland the divisions of parishes, and the sites of the churches which belong to them, have become extremely unsuitable to modern requirements. I think perhaps the most conspicuous instance of this is to be found in the city of Edinburgh. At the Reformation I believe the population of Edinburgh consisted of 50,000 persons. Even in the middle of last century the whole area of the city, which was comprised within the city walls was not more than half a mile square, but that small area was divided into ten parishes, each parish having a church. All but one of these churches still remain, that one having been not very many years ago removed under a special Act of Parliament to an outlying district to which the population had gone. Under Clause 2 of the Bill it will be competent, as opportunity arises, to remove some of the churches in the Old Town to localities to which the inhabitants have removed. The same thing is true, although not to so great an extent, of the city of Glasgow. There are at least five churches in districts which were at one time residential, but are now occupied almost entirely by warehouses and business premises. These churches might, with great propriety, under proper regulations and restrictions, be removed to the districts to which the population has gone. The third clause of the Bill provides for the case of parishes quoad sacra, the endowments of which have been provided from funds subscribed voluntarily in recent times. I am afraid I cannot say that many of these churches possess much architectural beauty, and their loss would not be severely felt. Some of them are in districts from which, owing to the working out of minerals or other cause, the population has either already removed or is likely soon to do so. It is proposed to give power, where a church is no longer required in such a place, to remove the endowments to another locality, within

  351
  the same Presbytery, or adjoining thereto, so that endowments given for the benefit of the district will not be removed to a distance. Provision is also made for consulting the wishes of the original subscribers to the endowments. The last clause of the Bill deals with those few churches in Scotland in which there still exists a most peculiar arrangement which is known as collegiate charges. That means that in the parish there is a church in which two ministers preach—one in the morning and one in the afternoon. In fact, they are joint ministers of the parish. Human nature, being what it is, this is not an arrangement which usually leads to harmony, and the only matter for surprise in regard to this arrangement is not that we should now propose to seek power to amend it, but that it should have continued so long as it has. There are 21 of these collegiate charges, and it is proposed that upon each occasion of a vacancy occurring in a collegiate charge the arrangements may be revised in the interests of the church and parish. The machinery for carrying out the provisions of the Bill is partly to be used at the discretion of the ecclesiastical authorities, but under the final decision of the Courts of Teinds. I cannot conceive that there can be any real objection to the proposals contained in this Bill, which I now move be read a second time.
  Bill read a second time.

  COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.] AND COPYRIGHT (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
  Select Committee appointed consisting of the following noble Lords:—

  L. Chancellor (Earl of Halsbury).

  V. Knutsford.

  L. Herschell.

  L. Hatherton.

  L. Thring.

  L. Tennyson.

  L. Farrer.

  L. Monkswell.

  L. Welby.

  L. Hobhouse.

  L. Pirbright.

  The Committee to appoint their own chairman.
  House adjourned at 4.55.