Lords Sitting of 4 July 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14).
Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:—
MILLWALL DOCK.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
BLACKPOOL, IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  WALKER AND WALLSEND UNION GAS (ELECTRIC LIGHTING) BILL.
    LOWESTOFT PROMENADE PIER BELL.
    Committee to meet on Friday next.
CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL.
  MIDLAND AND SOUTH-WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  Committee to meet on Thursday next.
INVERNESS HARBOUR BILL [Lords].
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to, with an Amendment; and Bill returned to the Commons.
ROCHDALE CANAL BILL [Lords].
Reported with Amendments.
DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  DUBLIN CORPORATION (MARKETS) BILL.
  Leave given to the Select Committee not to sit To-morrow until Twelve o'clock.
LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS AYS BILL.
Moved, that the Order made on the 9th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 27th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.
DERWENT VALLEY WATER BILL.
Moved that the Order made on the 9th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 27th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed, the Committee to be proposed by the committee of Selection.
TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
WARRINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
REFORMATORY SCHOOLS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
FISHGUARD WATER AND GAS BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
BURY CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  BURY CORPORATION WATER BILL [Lords].
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
MILTON CREEK CONSERVANCY BILL.
The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.
    Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROSIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (No. 2) BILL.
    Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  DARWEN CORPORATION BILL.

    LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN (NEW RAILWAYS) BILL.
    LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
    BROMPTON AND PICCADILLY CIRCUS RAILWAY BILL.
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2.) BILL.
    WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
    DERWENT VALLEY WATER BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, that the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select
    1392
    Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; viz.,

    E. Abingdon,

    E. Lauderdale (chairman),

    E. Mayo,

    L. Llangattock,

    L. Wandsworth;

    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: the Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Twelve o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

GREAT WESTERN AND GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANIES' BILL.
Leave given to the Select Committee not to sit again until Friday next.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (1898–99).
  I. Associations constituted under the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897;
  II. Associated schools and amounts of aid-grant paid;
  III. Unassociated schools and amounts of aid-grant paid.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Returns of accidents and casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ended 31st March, 1899; in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act (1871), 34th and 35th Victoria, chap. 78; together with reports of the inspecting officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into.

  TRADE REPORTS (1899) ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 2305. Roumania;
  No. 2306. Turkey (Damascus);
  No. 2307. China (Chefoo);
  No. 2308. China (Kin Kiang).

  LIQUOR LICENSING LAWS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Final Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners appointed to inquire into the

  1393
  operation and administration of the laws relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors; with a general index to the previous reports, evidence, &c.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  COLONIAL FORTIFICATIONS ACT, 1877.
  Representations, dated 3rd July, 1899, of Secretary of State for the Colonies and Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, that it is expedient that certain properties held in trust for the defence of the colony of New South Wales should he transferred to the Government of that colony; and draft of an Order in Council for giving effect to above representations.
  LAND REGISTRATION (ENGLAND).
  Land Transfer Rules, June, 1899.
  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  List of all pensions granted during the year ended 20th June, 1899, and charged upon the Civil List.

  SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS FUND) (SAVINGS BANKS FUND) (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES FUND).
  Accounts for the year ended 31st December, 1898.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from the Committee of Selection for the Standing Committee, that the Committee have added the Lord Wandsworth to the Standing Committee; read, and Ordered to lie on the Table.
  YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL [Lords].
  Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 153.]

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DEFECTTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) HILL [Lords].
  Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments: The Report of the Amendments made in Committee
  1394
  of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 154.]

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT (1879) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments; The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 155.]
  EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BELL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order) with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
  Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved—
  "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Vice-President of the Council.)
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 3a, accordingly, with the Amendments.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I suppose the Amendments which the noble Duke has proposed are all drafting Amendments, but no notice whatever has been given of them, and they are not on the Paper.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): In reply to the noble Marquess, I think I can safely say that all the Amendments I have proposed are drafting Amendments, with the exception, possibly, of one which has been suggested to me on behalf of the County of Middlesex. At present there appears to be some doubt whether the County Council of Middlesex would be entitled to be heard before the Commissioners upon a proposal which has been embodied in the Bill. It refers to the question of compensation for any part of the County of Middlesex which may be taken away.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I think it is worthy of notice that the noble Duke now proposes to give to the County Council of Middlesex the right to be heard, which he refused to give to the London County Council. I do not think the noble Duke is treating the County Council of London justly.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The case is quite a different one. The County Council of London has the right to be heard before the Commissioners and the Committee of the Privy Council in any matter in which it is interested. What the noble Lord opposite desired was that the London County Council should be heard in cases in which that body was not interested.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The London County Council is interested in every scheme promulgated under this Bill, which applies to the County of London. All the proposed boroughs are within the County of London, and, moreover, the London County Council is obliged to find the money for the expense of the schemes.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I have not the slightest doubt but that the County Council will be heard in every case where it can show that it is interested. What we refused to give to the London County Council was power to express its opinion in matters in which it was not interested.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I have placed upon the Paper an amendment to Clause 22, which provides that the election of churchwardens for the ecclesiastical parish remaining attached to a mother church shall be vested in the inhabitants of such ecclesiastical parish. I should be glad to know if the noble Duke the Lord President has any remarks to make upon this Amendment. I shall then he able to judge whether or not it will be necessary for me to move it.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Instructions will be given to the Commissioners to the effect that their general policy ought to be to vest the appointment of churchwardens in the inhabitants of the ecclesiastical parishes. I trust that that will satisfy the right rev. Prelate,
  1396
  because it is considered that the Amendment which he proposes will cause inconvenience, chiefly in consequence of the indefinite meaning to be attached to the expression "Mother Church."
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am quite satisfied with what the noble Duke has said. I believe that if the instructions to which he has referred are given, my object will be achieved. I do not propose, therefore, to move the Amendment.
  The Earl of PORTSMOUTHhad the following Amendment upon the Paper:
  "After Clause 23 to insert as new clause: 'The members of borough cooncils, borough treasurers, and town clerks, during the time that they hold office under this Act shall enjoy exemption from service on all juries.'"
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The Earl of Portsmouth, I understand, is not in his place to move this Amendment, but it could not he accepted in its present. form. I am willing, however, that an Amendment in the following terms should be inserted—
  "Members of a council of a borough, and the town clerk and treasurer for the time being of a borough, shall be exempt from serving on any jury summoned in the County of London."
  The noble Earl's Amendment would make them exempt from serving on juries no matter where those juries were summoned.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Is there any precedent for such an exemption? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack can inform us.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I confess that the acceptance of ally such Amendment as the one which the noble Duke has read comes upon me by surprise. I entertain considerable doubt in regard to it as a matter of form, and it seems to me entirely outside the purview of this Bill, in addition to which it is an alteration of the general Jury Law which I think requires consideration.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I had received advice in a contrary sense to that expressed by the noble and learned Lord; but if the noble and learned Lord is of opinion that this Amendment is not with-

  1397
  in the scope of the Bill, I will not move it.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

QUESTIONS.

  LONDON SCHOOL BOARD AND REHOUSING OF DISPLACED PERSONS.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the action of the London School Board in respect of the site for a proposed school in Bethnal Green, known as the Wood Street site, whereby, although more than twenty houses occupied by persons belonging to the labouring classes are taken, the Standing Orders of the House of Lords as to the re-housing of persons displaced are evaded; and, if so, would Her Majesty's Government, in view of the growing seriousness of the overcrowding problem in East London, take steps to prevent such evasion in the future. The question I have ventured to put on the Paper raises considerations which, I think, are worthy of your Lordships' attention, and I trust Her Majesty's Government will be able to satisfy me and your Lordships that they will take some action in the matter. My question in effect suggests—in fact, it states—that the London School Board have deliberately—I, personally, think wilfully—ignored the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House. The Standing Orders to which I refer provide that, when the London School Board acquire land compulsorily, or otherwise, for the purpose of erecting a Board School, there should be in the Bill which they submit to Parliament a clause compelling them, if they acquire more than 20 houses, to submit a scheme to the Home Secretary for the re-housing of the labouring classes displaced. I will, with your Lordships' permission, read the clause to which I refer:
  "The Board shall not, under the powers of this Act, purchase or acquire in any parish in the Metropolis, as defined by the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, 20 or more houses which, on the 15th of December last were, or have been since that day, Or shall hereafter be occupied either wholly or partially by persons belonging to the labouring class as tenants or lodgers unless and until:—
  "(a) They shall have obtained the approval of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to a scheme for providing new dwellings for such number of persons as were residing in such houses on the 15th day of
  1398
  December last, or for such number of persons as the Secretary of State shall, after inquiry, deem necessary, having regard to the number of persons on or after that date residing in such houses and working within one mile therefrom, and to the amount of vacant suitable accommodation in the immediate neighbourhood of such houses, or to the place of employment of such persons, and to all the circumstances of the case; and
  "(b) They shall have given security to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State for the carrying out of the scheme."
  It seems to me perfectly clear by that clause that if the School Board acquire more than 20 houses, the Standing Orders compel them to submit a scheme to the Home Secretary for re-housing the people displaced. A question was addressed in the other House to the Home Secretary in nearly the same words as my question, which I had intended to ask on Friday last, but which, at the request of Her Majesty's Government, I deferred until to-day. The Home Secretary, in replying to the question in the other House, said he had been informed by the School Board that the facts were as stated in the question, and that no obligation to re-house arose under the Statute. I contend that the necessity did arise. The interpretation which the School Board have put upon the Act is that, if they acquire a site consisting of more than 20 houses, and do not take in any one year the whole number, they by that means can evade the Act. The instance which I am going to refer to is known as the Wood-street site, in the parish of St. Matthew's, Bethnal Green. It contains 21 houses, and prior to 1895 the London School Board acquired the whole of these houses. They did not, however, schedule the whole of them in the Bill which they promoted in that year. They scheduled 13 in 1895, leaving the remaining eight houses to be scheduled in 1896. As your Lordships will see by the plan, this is a square block of buildings, and the Home Secretary, when the Bill of 1896 came before him, obviously did not notice that the 13 houses scheduled in the Act of 1895 were part of the same site as that upon which the eight houses stood which were scheduled in the Act of 1896. The property was taken over in the early spring of this year, and all the tenants were ejected at one given moment. I think that is an important fact, because it shows that there was no special reason why the School Board took 13 houses in one year

  1399
  and eight the next. If this was an isolated case there might be some explanation from the London School Board which might be satisfactory, and which would show that they had not deliberately tried to evade the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House. It is not, however, an isolated case. I could quote many instances to your Lordships which would show that this is a policy which the London School Board has adopted in order, in my humble opinion, to evade the Standing Orders of this House. In 1896 they acquired a site for a School Board consisting of 46 houses. It that year 11 houses were scheduled in their Bill. In the following year they scheduled 19 houses, just the number to escape the notice of the Home Secretary, and they had so far succeeded in deceiving the Home Office that when the Home Secretary replied to a question asked in the House of Commons, he said he understood there were no reasons why the School Board should rehouse the people displaced, because they did not acquire twenty houses. There is no problem which is so difficult to deal with as the housing of the working classes, and there are no evils of so grave a character as the evils resulting from overcrowding. It seems to me that Her Majesty's Government should be able to answer this question and tell us whether the action of the London School Board is legal, and, if it is legal, whether it is a fair and equitable interpretation to be put by a public body upon the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House, and whether in the face of the facts which I have ventured to put before them, they will take steps to prevent the recurrence of such a proceeding.
  LORD BELPER: I am afraid I cannot give a very complete answer to the whole of the remarks which the noble Earl has made, although I can answer the question placed upon the Paper. The noble Earl has already stated the fact that the attention of the Government has been called to this matter by a question which was put to the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the other House. That question was asked on Friday last, and the answer which the Home Secretary then gave was that he would communicate further with the London School Board in reference to the matter, and, if necessary, with the Education Department. The communications are still going on, and, as the Home Office is not
  1400
  fully informed of the whole of the details, the House will understand that I cannot express any definite opinion, upon it. I believe the facts were that the scheme of the London School Board was presented to the House in the two Provisional Orders—one in 1895, and the other in 1896—and that in neither of them were twenty houses taken. The attention of the Home Secretary was not called to the fact that these two Provisional Orders might be said to refer to one scheme. It is not, of course, for me to express any opinion, on the imperfect information which the Home Office has at present, as to what might have been the reasons why the scheme was presented in two Provisional Orders instead of one. I can, however, assure the noble Earl that the Home Office is fully alive to the importance of the point which he has brought before the House, and that it will be their duty, after they have had the fullest information from the parties concerned, to form their opinion on the case and to consider what steps may be necessary in the future—if the facts are as alleged—to ensure that the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House should be strictly conformed with. I cannot go further into the matter until the correspondence has come to an end.
  LORD REAY: My Lords, the indictment of the noble Earl is really directed as much against the Education Department as it is against the London School Board, because it refers to Bills which have been promoted in Parliament by the Education Department. There are two culprits—the School Board and the Education Department, if culprits they are. The School Board cannot act in this matter without the sanction of the Education Department. With regard to the Wood Street site, I will explain to your Lordships how that matter stands. In 1895 power was taken to purchase thirteen houses, Under the Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Act of 1895 the rehousing obligation only applies to houses which are purchased or acquired under the powers conferred by the Act. There was no clause in the Act of 1895 such as appeared in the later Act of 1896—that the obligation should also apply to houses which were taken by agreement. Of the thirteen houses for which powers were conferred by the Act of 1895, seven were

  1401
  purchased by the School Board by auction. Therefore the obligation of rehousing under the Act of 1895 only applies to six houses. Under the Act of 1896 power is given to take eight houses. Add eight to six and you get fourteen. Therefore the London School Board were well within the limit of twenty houses so far as the Wood Street site is concerned. As regards the answer given by my noble friend on behalf of the Home Office, I need hardly say that he will find the School Board ready in every way to meet the just demands of the Home Office for rehousing in these cases.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I did not quite follow the noble Lord who has just spoken, and who is the Chairman of the London School Board, in his remarks as to there being a difference between the Act of 1895 and the Act of 1896. So far as I can see, they are substantially the same.
  LORD REAY: The noble Earl will see that Sub-section 12 of Clause 3 of the Act of 1896 does not occur in the Act of 1895.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I did not know that the London School Board had acquired eight of the houses on this site by auction; but the point I raised is whether it is legal to acquire a certain number of houses one year and others the next year on the same site, and by that means avoid housing the people displaced. The noble Lord who has defended the School Board has referred to one instance. I have deliberately stated that the School Board has adopted this policy in more than one instance. In the face of this fact, I look forward with some hope to Her Majesty's Government taking action to prevent the School Board, and the Education Department as well, pursuing this course in the future.
  House adjourned at five minutes, after Five of the clock, to Thursday next, at half-past Ten of the clock.