Lords Sitting of 28 April 1899

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Woolsack at Four of the clock.
REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
  Earl of CLONMELL—Lord CLARINA.
  Reports made from the Lord Chancellor, That the right of Rupert Charles Earl of Clonmell, and Lionel Edward Baron Clarina, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland hat been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  PEER SAT FIRST.
  The Lord Hillingdon—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for additional provision in the
  Workington Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]
  ought to be dispensed with, and leave given, to the Committee on the Bill to insert the additional provision:
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for additional provision in the
  Portsmouth Corporation Bill [H.L.]
  ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the additional provision:
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Metropolitan Water Companies Bill
  ought to be dispensed with:
  Read, and agreed to.

  YORKE ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
  Judges' Report received: Bill presented, and read the first time.
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (PILOTAGE) BILL [H.L.]
  Committee (which stands appointed for Monday next) put off to Thursday next.
  ILFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (RATES) BILL.
  Committee to meet on Monday next.
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (FINANCE) BILL [H.L.]
  Committee to meet on Thursday next.
  CLAY CROSS WATER BILL.
  Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
  CLYDE NAVIGATION BILL [H.L.]
  The Queen's Consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with amendments.
  TOTLAND WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Reported with amendments.
  RAWTENSTALL CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
    BURY CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
    Report, from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Dundonald be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Kinnaird; read, and agreed to.
  GLASGOW AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    CALEDONIAN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
      PAISLEY AND BARRHEAD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
      Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee adjourned this day at half-past Twelve o'clock, and pray leave not to sit again until Wednesday next at Twelve o'clock; read, and leave given.
  NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ABERAVON, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
  Committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
  BROUGHTY FERRY GAS AND PAVING ORDER BILL [H.L.]
  House to be in Committee on Monday next.
  BARTON-ON-SEA WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  SOUTH HANTS WATER BILL [H.L.]
  The Queen's Consent signified; and Bill reported specially from the Select Committee with amendments. (Costs awarded to two Petitioners.)
  GLASGOW AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    PAISLEY AND BARRHEAD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
      CALEDONIAN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
      Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Barnard be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Methuen; read, and agreed to.
PETITIONS.
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDS) ACT, 1872.
  Petition for Amendment of; of Little-borough Urban District Council; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  TITHE RENT-CHARGES.
  Petition for redress of grievances; of Incumbents of Parishes in the Rural Deanery of the Diocese of Worcester; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Scotch code of regulations for evening continuation schools; 1899.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Return for the quarter ended 31st March 1899.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 21st April 1899, declaring that David Pollock, rural postman, Post Office Department, Ardrossan, was appointed without a civil service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his department.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883 (PROCEEDINGS).
  Account showing the receipts and expenditure on account of bankruptcy proceedings during the year ended 31st March 1899.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  COMPANIES WINDING-UP ACT, 1890.
  Accounts showing receipts and expenditure on account of proceedings under the Companies Winding-up Act, 1890, during the year ended 31st March 1899.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE AND POLICE COURTS (ACCOUNTS).
  Accounts showing the sums received and expended for the purposes of the Metropolitan Police, Police Pension Fund, and Metropolitan Police Courts, during the year ended 31st March 1899.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  FEE FUND OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
  The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid on the Table the Annual Account of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords; the same was ordered to lie on the Table, and to be referred to the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That this Bill be, read a second time."—(Lord James of Hereford.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Lord JAMES of HEREFORD): My Lords, the Bill which I now ask your Lordships to read a second time is one of not very general applicability, but it is one of considerable utility. Its general object is to enable the different water companies that exist in London to connect up with each other, so that in case of deficiency in the supply of one company, the over-abundant water of the other may be conveyed into the area supplied by the deficient company. That is the general purpose of the Bill, but its immediate necessity and urgency result from the deficient supply, especially of last year, of the East London Water Company. Your Lordships, of course, are aware that for 16 weeks this company was unable to fulfil its obligation to maintain a constant supply of water, and great inconvenience was caused thereby. Such a state of things ought not to be tolerated in the metropolis if it can possibly be avoided, and it can be avoided. To a certain extent, the inconvenience was mitigated by the efforts of the New River Company, and the Southwark and Vauxhall Company, which supplied between them about 11 million gallons of water per day to East London. But that was not enough, and, as I have said, for 16 weeks a constant supply was not afforded to the consumers
  798
  within the East London Company's area. The object of this Bill, whilst, of course, it is general in its terms, is to prevent a recurrence of such an incident, and it is proposed to give the Local Government Board power to call upon the different companies to effect works of intercommunication. The companies will now have the obligation cast upon them of giving the necessary assistance in cases of emergency to prevent a deficiency in the water supply occurring in the future. I am sure the general principle of the Bill must meet with the approbation of your Lordships, although there were those in the House of Commons who felt it to be their duty to prevent the new powers being granted under the present conditions of the water controversy to the existing companies. This Bill was, however, permitted to be read a second time without a Division being taken upon it. Having stated the general object of the Measure, I do not intend to enter into any discussion of the details, because I do not think, in the first place, that those detailed provisions do more than necessarily carry out the object of the Bill, and because from the nature of the Bill it is somewhat peculiar in its construction. The Bill will go to a Select Committee, because it takes powers which affect private property. This Bill was referred to the Hybrid Committee by the House of Commons, where a variety of interests appeared by counsel and discussed the details of the Bill. The details in the Bill now before your Lordships are those as framed by the Committee of the House of Commons. So far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, the Government are carrying out the suggestion made by the Royal Commission, presided over by Lord Llandaff, in their interim report. As this Bill must go to a Select Committee, where all those who are interested can appear by counsel, state their case and give evidence, I do not intend at this stage to enter upon any question of detail. Of course, if your Lordships think it right to touch upon any matter of detail, I will endeavour to give an explanation in my reply.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid his noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, in commending this Bill to their Lordships, had rested his case largely upon the old

  799
  classic grounds that the Bill was such a small one. The noble Lord also said the Bill would go to a Select Committee. He was glad to hear those announcements from the noble Lord. He agreed with the principle, at any rate, of the Bill, but had some criticism to make. The noble Lord said this Measure was only in the nature of a palliative remedy, and that it was not intended to be any settlement of the great controversial questions of the water supply of London. He agreed that the palliative measures necessary could be effected by means of a very small Bill, but this was not a very small Bill. So far from being confined to the objects stated by the noble Lord opposite, the Bill contained powers of a much wider character, which, if purchase were not effected in the next seven years, amounted almost to a scheme for the amalgamation of the eight metropolitan water companies. There were three special points to which he would direct their Lordships' attention with regard to the provisions of this Bill. First of all there was a want of limitation as to the class of works to be executed under the Bill, a want of limitation with regard to the amount of capital to be raised under it, and a want of limitation as to the time which the Bill was to be operative. Then, too, there was transferred to the Local Government Board, for the purpose of the Bill, the power to decide how much capital was to be issued by these companies, instead of leaving it, as had always been the case, to Parliament; and, further, the Bill was a departure from all recent Parliamentary practice with regard to the issue of new capital by water companies, inasmuch as the new capital was not to be subjected to any charge for a sinking fund. The only limitation he could find in the Bill was in paragraph A of the first clause, but it was possible under that clause for the companies to submit schemes for any works for the supply of water so long as they did not go to a new source for that supply. Under clause 3, unless the undertaking of the company was purchased within seven years of the passing of this Bill, any capital raised under the Bill could be added to the capital which would have had to be taken into consideration in the case of any future purchase. It was rash to assume that a Measure for the purchase
  800
  of the London water companies would be got through all its stages and receive the Royal Assent in seven years, and, therefore, he contended that the proposal in the Bill was a departure from all recent Parliamentary practice, because it had been the evident intention of Parliament, both in that House and in the House of Commons, that no new issues of capital by the water companies should be treated as part and parcel of any additional sum to be paid by the community when purchase was effected. The usual practice had been that when a water company required new capital it applied to Parliament for powers to issue a definite sum; but in this Bill there is no reference at all to the fixing of a definite sum. The amount of new capital which any company would be allowed to issue under this Bill was left to the arbitration of the Local Government Board, and this was, in his opinion, a most extraordinary innovation. The Bill would give the companies power, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, to issue £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 worth of new capital without applying to Parliament at all. Three schemes were put before the Royal Committee for effecting this intercommunication between the eight companies. The Royal Commission expressed the opinion that scheme No. 3, which was estimated to cost £64,000, would, if carried out, afford the necessary measure of aid to the East London Water Company in the event of a recurrence of drought; but they were satisfied that further consideration would probably result in the elaboration of some better arrangement for obtaining the object in view. There was not much doubt but that the scheme would cost £100,000, and he held that this was a sufficient amount to warrant the sanction of Parliament being necessary. If the amount was limited to £100,000 they might look with greater complacency on the proposal. With regard to the absence of any limitation, of time, it would only have been reasonable, as this was avowedly a Measure meant to remove a temporary difficulty, to include in it a time to which the operation of the Bill should be limited. To leave to the Local Government Board the power of deciding both as to the works which were to be carried out by new capital under the Bill and to decide as to the

  801
  amount of new capital to be raised by the several companies was, he ventured to say, an innovation. This was a subject which had up to the present been left to the decision of Parliament, and he regretted that for the purpose of this Bill the power was to be transferred from Parliament to the Local Government Board. Again, the proposal that the capital to be issued under the Bill should not be subjected to any charge for a sinking fund was a departure from all recent Parliamentary practice. Ever since 1886, Committee after Committee of both Houses had, in all cases where power to issue new capital was granted to the water companies, insisted that the whole of the new capital should be subject for a charge for a sinking fund. It had evidently been the intention of Parliament that in the case of new issues of capital by the water companies they should not be allowed to make commercial profit out of such new issues, and that whatever commercial profit was gained from them should be put into a fund for the general benefit of the water consumer. The Controller of the Finance Department of the London County Council had calculated what the amount of the sinking fund was at the present time, and what it was likely to be. At the present moment it was not much, having only been in operation since 1886; but the Controller of the Finance Department of the County Council stated that up to the end of 1897 the amount of authorised capital now subjected to the sinking fund was £6,320,000. He estimated that when the sinking fund arrangements operated in full, say in 1915, the annual instalments paid to the fund would amount to £120,000 a year. The fund at present was not large, as only a small portion of the capital had come under its operation; but it would grow, and was estimated to amount to £1,780,000 in 1915, and to upwards of £5,000,000 in 1930. It was argued, he believed, that in the ease of the capital under this Bill it would not be right to subject it to the charge for a sinking fund, because the capital would not be a profit-earning capital. But who was to decide, in taking the capital of great concerns like these, what part was profit-earning and what was not? It seemed to him an extraordinary thing that, after 13 successive years, during which Parliament had imposed this con-
  802
  dition on the new issue of capital by these companies, Her Majesty's Government should come forward in the 14th year—he supposed they had caught the infection from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and propose to make a raid on the sinking fund which had been established for the benefit of the water consumers of London. There were other points with regard to this Bill which he would not do more than just touch upon. There was the question of how far it was just that the water consumers in a particular district, who took water from a company at a low rate, should be obliged to pay a higher rate for water supplied under the provisions of this Bill by another company. He hoped the matter to which he had referred would receive the very careful consideration not only of the Committee to which the Bill was to be sent, but of their Lordships' House. He did not dispute the wisdom of the decision arrived at by the Government, that the whole of the London Water question should be sent to a Royal Commission; but he would point out that those who thought fresh sources of water should be acquired, or that purchase should be adopted with regard to the present companies, were required to hold their own hands until after the Report of the Royal Commission. That being so, he thought it was only fair that equal justice should be meted out to all, that the Government should hold a perfectly equal balance between the two parties in this question, and not by any accident in the provisions of the present Bill give an advantage, as he held this Bill clearly did, to the one side—namely, to the water companies.
  EARL COWPERsaid everyone must be glad Her Majesty's Government had taken up this subject without delay. He did not rise in any way to oppose the Bill, but to call attention to one particular section which would, he thought, have an effect not intended by its introducers. He referred to the second section of the first clause. He had been informed on good legal authority that this section gave considerably more power than was necessary for the purposes of the Bill. He believed the section was intended merely to give the companies who were ordered by the Local Government Board to supply

  803
  water to other districts in times of necessity the power of connecting their mains with-those of other companies; but it seemed to him to go further than that, and to give them power to sink wells, to construct works, and take water outside their own districts altogether. In Hertfordshire fears were widespread among the people that the water companies could, under this Bill, buy lands in the county, sink wells, and drain the watershed of the district. He would be very sorry to put any obstacle in the way of a Bill which was intended to remedy distress caused by an insufficient supply of water in the poorer districts of London, but he trusted he would get a satisfactory declaration from the Government that the injustice to which he had referred was not possible under the Bill.
  *THE EARL OF VERULAMendorsed every word uttered by the noble Lord who had just spoken, and said that in Hertfordshire the flow of the streams in his neighbourhood had seriously decreased during the last few years. Anyone seeing the lines of farmers' carts fetching water from the rivers would realise that this was a real danger. He trusted the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would rectify in Committee any mistake made in the drafting, in order to protect Hertfordshire from the danger to which the noble Lord had referred.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Lord JAMES of HEREFORD: I am glad to be able to assure the noble Earl and the noble Lord who has just spoken that the fears of the people of Hertfordshire are groundless. I do not quite appreciate myself how any anxiety could have arisen, for I can find nothing in the Bill which would give powers to any water company to tap any fresh source of water supply. I have consulted the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, and they are equally clear that there is no power under this Bill to take any water from Hertfordshire, or from any other source that is not now drawn upon under existing powers. Hertfordshire may be quite sure, therefore, that, so far as the Law Officers can see, there is no risk whatever of the danger to which the noble Earl alluded. It may be necessary to lay down a main or pipe, but that will be, if I may use the term, a per-
  804
  fectly dry operation, and simply for the purpose of connecting the mains of one company with the mains of the other company supplying the area in which there is a deficiency. I do not think the representatives of Hertfordshire would object to the soil being broken for the purpose of laying a pipe if they have a guarantee that no water shall be taken. It is our intention that no water shall be taken from any area in or out of the metropolitan water area which cannot be taken now, and provision shall be made to make it certain that neither Hertfordshire nor any other county outside the area can be in any way affected by the powers of this Bill coming into operation. I will not follow my noble Friend with regard to the details of the Bill. I look forward with some apprehension that it is possible that I may have to take part in the proceedings of the Select Committee, and it is possible that my noble Friend will also take part in those proceedings. We shall then sit judicially, and if we enter into a Debate here upon the details of the Bill it may be supposed that we had prejudged the various questions that will be raised before us. I feel tempted to reply to the noble Lord, but for the reason I have given I do not think it will be well to do so. My noble Friend's principal argument was that there ought not to have been a clause prohibiting the sinking fund, and my noble Friend suggested that we had been inspired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As a, matter of fact we were inspired by the Royal Commission, who recommended that as the money raised under this Bill would not yield revenue to the companies they should be exempt from the obligation of the sinking fund clause. I agree that if they are to get no remuneration we should not make them contribute towards a sinking fund when they have no profit out of which to contribute. You are here dealing with money compulsorily expended for the purpose of humanity, and to prevent the recurrence of the state of things which existed in East London last summer, when the district supplied by the East London Water Company was 16 weeks without a constant supply. This is an emergency Bill, and it has been thought that a safer and a better plan would be to leave the working of it to a Government Department. It is impossible to define the exact works to be

  805
  carried out, and no general scheme can be laid down. In the same way, what can be the utility of limiting the expenditure? The Local Government Board will see that it is as little as possible, and the companies will have nothing to gain by spending money in this direction. They will, of course, wish it to be as little as possible, but no one can foresee what may be the expenditure required. We have thought that in this matter the Local Government Board may safely be trusted to look after the public interests. I agree with my noble Friend in saying that this is not a Party question. One Party may be in the Local Government Board to-day and another to-morrow. Surely we may trust our public men to perform their duty to their fellow citizens, and surely it is better to give discretion to a public body rather than to fix specific limits that may be unsuitable to the condition of affairs that may arise. All the points that my noble Friend has raised can be discussed in the Select, Committee, and in the Committee of this House. The details of this Measure are so framed that a great public good will be accomplished.
  Question put.
  Bill read a, second time and committed, the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN CHURCHES BILL.
  House in Committee.
  Bill reported without Amendment, and recommitted to the Standing Committee.

  COPYRIGHT (ARTISTIC) BILL.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That this Bill be read a second time."—[Lord Monkswell.)
  *LORD MONKSWELLsaid that this Bill and the Literary Copyright Bill, the Second Reading of which their Lordships had already passed, entirely covered the ground taken by Lord Herschell's consolidating Measure of last Session. This Bill came before their Lordships' House with very great authority. It had the
  806
  earnest support of the whole body of the Royal Academy, and also of numerous other bodies of great eminence interested in artistic work. In 1879, soon after the Report of the Royal Commission was issued, the Royal Academy issued a manifesto on the subject of artistic copyright, and, in the main, this Bill was based upon the contentions that were put forward in this manifesto. Changes had, however, been made in order to safeguard the owners of pictures and to provide that the copyright of the artist should be subject to such conditions that it could never possibly be a grievance to the owners of pictures. The Bill was also largely based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission, though in one important particular it went contrary to those recommendations. The first clause in the Bill was of considerable importance, because it gave to American artists the same rights that English artists had in America. Under the present law English artists who produced and published works in America had the copyright in America, although they were not resident there, but an American artist who wanted to get a copyright here had to be resident in Her Majesty's dominions. This clause proposed to give a copyright for works of art made by any person in America provided only they were registered in England. The term of copyright for original artistic work would be the same as that proposed in the Literary Bill for literary copyright—namely, a life and 30 years. In the case of a work of fine art, made by one person from the design of another, of a cast from nature, and of a photograph the term of the copyright would be 30 years. The Bill further proposed to extend artistic copyright so as to make it perfectly clear that to imitate one form of art by another was an infringement of copyright. This was a provision on which artists laid great stress, and it was recommended by the Royal Commission. With regard to registration, the law at present was that an artistic work might be registered at any time, but it was impossible to sue without registration, or in respect of anything done previous to registration. The Bill proposed that registration should be required only on the assignment of copyright from the original author of the work. While the artist retained the copyright he had power to

  807
  sue without registration. The registration law was made more stringent than it was at present. In future, the registration of artistic copyright must take place within six months after it had been acquired, or such time as a judge may deem reasonable. Failure to get the copyright registered within that time would involve the absolute forfeiture of the copyright. The Bill also gave power to search for and to seize unlawful copies in houses or shops, and to seize unlawful copies hawked about the country. He now came to the part of the Bill which the artistic world deemed to be of supreme importance, and it was a matter upon which the Royal Commission was almost equally divided. By a majority of one, he believed, the Commission decided to confer the copyright of a work of art, in the absence of any agreement, on the buyer of the work. The law at present in force, and which had been in force for 37 years, was that when an artist sold a work of art, as he nearly always did, without any stipulation as to copyright, that copyright ceased to belong to the artist, but it did not belong to the purchaser. That was to say, it lapsed altogether, and anyone who could get a sight of the picture was at liberty to reproduce it to his heart's content and to the replenishment of his pocket. A counter proposal, that in the absence of any agreement the copyright should belong to the artist and not to the buyer, was unanimously adopted by the artists. The Royal Academy, in their manifesto, strongly combated the conclusion at which the Commission had arrived, and complained with not unnatural warmth that, while several literary men were included in the Commission, not a single artist sat on it. It was reasonable to suppose that if an artist of eminence had sat on the Commission his arguments might have turned some votes in a, direction contrary to the decision of the Commission. During the last 20 years events had happened that had greatly strengthened the cause of the artists. The experience of 37 years conclusively showed that this matter was one of great importance to artists and to art, and it ought to be settled one way or the other by law. The change proposed by the Commission would make bargains infinitely more difficult on the part of artists than at present, because the
  808
  artist would then have to bargain to retain something the law gave to the purchaser. The artists wished to retain the copyright, not only because it was a question of money, but chiefly in order to prevent bad reproductions of their pictures. The experience of the last 20 years had shown that cheap and common reproductions were calculated absolutely to stop high-class reproductions, and without this protection of copyright high-class reproductions would cease to be made. Very few artists made money out of their copyright, but they were able to insist, in the cause of art, upon the reproductions being creditable reproductions. The purchaser, if the provisions of this Bill were carried, would lose nothing. The reservation of the right of the artist was safeguarded as to make very little difference to the purchaser. The purchaser would get what he got now; the difference was that a right which everybody thought ought to exist would continue to exist. It was said that the purchaser ought to get the copyright; but did the ordinary purchaser want copyright? The ordinary purchaser bought a picture in the first place to look at it; secondly, to show it to his friends; and, thirdly, to talk about it. The ordinary purchaser did not get copyright now, and he had never heard that there had been any agitation to give it to him. He had spoken of the ordinary purchaser, but no doubt there were other purchasers who thought a great deal about copyright. There were the engravers, photographers, and others, who naturally always bargained for copyright. The artists proposed to subject their copyright to reasonable restriction in the interests of these purchasers, but they suggested that no replica should be made of any picture likely to be confounded with the original picture, and it was proposed that the artist should not be allowed to exhibit a replica that was made before the picture was bought. As to portraits, the owner would continue to enjoy practically the same protection that the law now gave. The artist would hold his copyright subject entirely to the good will and pleasure of the owner of the portrait; what he got was only the control over any reproduction that might be authorised by the owner of the portrait. An eminent Royal Academician told him two or three years ago that he

  809
  never made a sixpence by the copyright of his pictures, whilst he had devoted an enormous amount of time and attention to giving advice as to the best method of reproduction. It seemed clear that in the interests of art artists should have as far as possible the copyright. He hoped the House would endorse the unanimous opinion of the artists and send the Bill to the Select Committee that had been appointed to consider the Literary Copyright Bill. They would, in course of time, have the views of that Committee before them, which would guide them in their ultimate decision. But he thought it his duty, in justice to the Royal Academy and to art in general, to lay before the House the nature of the grievance under which the artists considered they suffered, and the remedies they proposed. He felt a peculiar pleasure in being permitted to champion the cause of art, inasmuch as many members of his family had been imbued by a keen love of art, and some of them had been proficient in the practice of it.
  Question put.
  Bill read a second time, and referred to the Select Committee.

  THE CROMWELL STATUE.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSasked whether Her Majesty's Government would cause a rough model of the proposed statue of Cromwell, and the pedestal, to be put up, actual size, on the selected site. He pointed out that the height of the statue, with the pedestal, would be 33ft., and inasmuch as the statue of Lord Beaconsfield, close by, was, with the pedestal, only 20ft. high, and the statues of Lord Palmerston and Sir Robert Peel a little less, there would be a great want of proportion between these three statues and the proposed statue to Cromwell. The monument would also, he thought, impair the architectural effect of Westminster Hall. In view of these considerations he urged the adoption of the practice in vogue in France and America, a practice which had recently been adopted in this country in the case of the Boadicea monument—namely, that a model should be erected in the first instance, in order that the public might
  810
  judge of the artistic effect of a monument before they were finally committed to it. He had no objection to the site if the statue was not too big, but he thought the public ought to have the opportunity of seeing it in rough model before it was finally placed up. He would give the House a case in point. The Committee appointed for the erection of a monument to Sir John Millais, of which he (the Earl of Wemyss) was a member, decided that the statue should be placed at the Tate Gallery, and a question arose as to whether it should be placed inside or outside the Gallery. It was agreed that the statue should be erected outside, and two places were suggested, one being a position half way up the steps going into the Gallery, and the other in the garden. As the Committee could not come to any decision as to which site should be selected, they caused rough models to be made and put up on both sites. When this was done the Committee saw at once that if the statue were erected on the steps it would spoil the building, and eventually the statue was placed in the garden, but the pedestal and statue were reduced in height. He hoped the Government would favourably consider the matter to which he had called attention.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY):I am afraid it is not part of my functions to administer consolation to the wounded artistic feelings of the noble Lord.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: They are not wounded.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Well, they appeared to be, judging by the energy which he brought into his complaint. The noble Earl is aware this is a public monument in a very peculiar position. It was originally intended, I believe, to be erected by the agency and at the cost of Her Majesty's Government in the time of the noble Lords opposite, but out of deference to the patriotic feelings of the Irish Members it was found necessary to abandon that scheme, and instead of that the Government summoned from the "vasty

  811
  deep" some mysterious donor who was content to take upon himself a responsibility from which they shrank, and who was not afraid of the wrath of the Irish Members. I am told that he has been the cause of the production of a fine work of art by Mr. Thorneycroft, but I do not see exactly how the Government can gratify the wish of my noble Friend. There is a proverb, "You must not look a gift horse in the mouth," but my noble Friend wants to look the gift horse all over, not in the mouth only, and to put it through certain evolutions and operations in order to satisfy himself—
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Satisfy the public.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Of course, people always think of the public first—to satisfy the public and himself that it is in its general character suitable to the site it is to occupy. But we are not at liberty to do so; it is not our statue. The noble Lord must go to his conjurer the wise woman again to find out the mysterious donor and ask from him permission to do what he proposes. I do not venture to prophesy whether that permission will be obtained. There is no doubt something attractive and plausible in the suggestion that before anything in the artistic or architectural way is erected in this metropolis a model of it should be offered for the criticism of the public and the noble Lord; but I have doubts whether this would tend to a satisfactory conclusion. I have an impression that in art, as in diplomacy, it is better to trust to the fait accompli, and when the statue is once put up, one school of critics, at all events, will accept it with great enthusiasm and another will submit to it with great resignation. But if you put it up to be examined six months before, critics will have left nothing of the statue by the time their work is finished. These are only my own humble and personal criticisms on the suggestion of my noble Friend. My official answer to the question is, we cannot promise to do as he wishes because the statue, or rather the model, is not ours so to deal with, and until
  812
  the noble Lord has procured us that permission we cannot further consider his suggestion.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid he was sorry he could not accept this as a reasonable answer. The name of the donor could surely be obtained from the sculptor, and, in fact, the name was known. The Government were not powerless; the Board of Works claimed and exercised full authority in such matters. A man could not even measure Lord Beaconsfield's statue without permission from the Board of Works—nothing could be done without the permission of the Board of Works—and who were the Board of Works but the noble Marquess and the Government? The Government would be neglecting their duty to London if they did not take every possible means before the erection of the statue to have the general effect shown. The Government or the Board of Works surely would not accept any work of the kind offered.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: My noble Friend says I am saying the Government are bound to accept anything anybody proposes to offer.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: No; I asked that.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: No, for generally we pay for statues ourselves; but in this case we have accepted the statue and promised to set it up in a certain place, and it is not open to us now to say whether it is in the interest of artistic London to depart from that promise.

  PARISH CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That this Bill be read a third time."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That, this Bill do pass."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to.

  BODIES CORPORATE (JOINT TENANCY) BILL [H.L.]
  Third Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Monday next.

  LUNACY BILL [H.L.]
  Third Heading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Monday next.
  House adjourned at fifty-five minutes after Five of the clock