Lords Sitting of 29 June 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL.
    WOKING WATER AND GAS BILL.
    Committee to meet To-morrow.
  NORTH-WEST LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  Re-commiteed: The Committee to meet To-morrow.
  BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL.
  The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on the 15th instant discharged; and Bill committed.
  SCUNTHORPE URBAN DISTRICT GAS AND WATER BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  CORK CORPORATION (FINANCE) BILL.
  Reported without Amendment.
  PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Reported with Amendments.
  BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 23rd instant and Monday last discharged; and Bill committed.

  SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES (NEW LINES) BILL.
  Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the
  942
  Table: The orders made on the 13th instant and Monday last discharged; and Bill committed.

  EAST LONDON WATER BILL.
  Report from the Select Committee That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
  The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS BILL.
  The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL [Lords].
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  KENSINGTON AND NOTTING HILL ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.
    BARRY RAILWAY BILL.

      LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (NEW RAILWAYS) BELL.
      LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
      Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  GROSVENOR CHAPEL (LONDON) BILL [Lords].
    HAMPSTEAD CHURCH (EMMANUEL, WEST END) BILL [Lords].
    Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  BRYNMAWR AND WESTERN VALLEYS RAILWAYS BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  BARTON-ON-SEA WATER BILL [Lords].
    LANARKSHIRE (MIDDLE WARD DISTRICT) WATER BILL [Lords].
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.
      Committed to a Committee of the whole House.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16) BILL.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.
  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
  House to be in Committee To-morrow.
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
  House in Committee (according to Order); the Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made; further Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL [Lords].
    Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bills to be read 3a To-morrow.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 18) BILL.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 19) BILL.
      PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
      Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 149.)
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  Report of the Right Honourable Sir Herbert Maxwell, Baronet, M.P., F.R.S., and P. H. Pye-Smith, Esquire, M.D., F.R.S., the delegates of Her Majesty's Government at the International Congress on Tuberculosis held at Berlin on the 24th, to the 27th May, 1899.

  TRADE REPORTS.
  I. Annual Series:

  No. 2296. Morocco (Tangier and District).

  No. 2297. Japan (Hakodate). No. 2298. Peru.

  No. 2299. Norway.

  No. 2300. France (New Caledonia).

  No. 2301. Denmark.

  II. Miscellaneous Series:
  No. 506. Turin Exhibition of 1898.

  MINT.
  Twenty-ninth Annual Report of the Deputy-Master for 1898.
  Correspondence relating to recent land legislation in Ceylon.

  INDIA (RAILWAYS).
  Administration Report on the Railways in India for 1898–99.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  Fifty-third Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION BOARD (IRELAND).
  Rules and programme of examinations for 1900.

  PUBLIC RECORDS (WAR DEPARTMENT).
  Fifth Schedule, containing a list and particulars of classes of documents which have been removed from the office of Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the War Department, and deposited in the Public Record Office, but which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITION.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDS) ACT, 1872.
  Petition for amendment of; of the Urban District Council of Mytholmroyd, in the County of York.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
  THIRD READING.
  Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Dudley.)
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I do not wish to stand in the way of the Third Reading of this Bill, but before it passes into law I should like to call attention to what I regard as the very serious principle which the Bill involves. Your Lordships may recollect that in the year 1882, when the Act was passed, a very short time was allowed before the purchase clause came into existence under which the local authority could take over the property of the under-
  946
  takers. As a result, no one could be found to put money into the electric lighting industry. In 1888, however, the period in the purchase clause was extended to forty-two years. As a result of this security, a large quantity of capital was put into the electric lighting industry, not only in London, but throughout the kingdom. After that Bill had passed your Lordships' House it went back to the House of Commons, where certain words were proposed to be inserted on the motion of Sir George Campbell. The insertion of the words was opposed by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, who was then President of the Board of Trade, and also by the ex-President, the late Mr. Mundella. Without any further discussion the House adjourned, and when the House again had the matter before it the words were inserted without any discussion whatever. The words provided that, notwithstanding any existing Provisional Order, another Provisional Order or licence might be granted in the area to which the Bill referred. After the Bill had received the Royal assent, the Board of Trade instituted a public inquiry as to the best method of carrying out its provisions. The inquiry, which lasted, I think, eighteen days, was held at Westminster by Major Marindin, whose report resulted in the laying down of the principle by the Board of Trade that certain areas should be allotted to each undertaker, that there should be two undertakers to an area—this implied a limited competition—and that the current supplied to the consumers in that area should be varied—that is to say, one should be the alternating system, and the other the direct system. It was also laid down that, in the event of the local authority of the parish or area desiring to undertake the work itself, it should receive preference at the hands of the Board of Trade; and since that time, when a local authority has once started the supply in an area, no private company has been allowed to compete with it. During the whole of the inquiry it was never understood by the engineers or promoters of companies, or by those who were financially interested in them, that at any time a local authority would be allowed to compete against the existing company. Until the present time this has never been allowed. I have always considered competition a desirable thing; it keeps

  947
  down the price, and obviates, to a certain I extent, what are considered to be the evils in relation to the gas and water supplies of London. But I maintain, and I am supported by all interested in electric lighting in the contention, that it has not been hitherto contemplated, where a local authority is put in the position that it can, if it desires, purchase the undertaking of the company supplying its district at the end of forty-two years, that the local authority should obtain an order to supply the district, and in that way depreciate the property which it might purchase at a later date. I feel that I am not expressing myself very well, but it is extremely difficult to put a matter of this kind clearly before your Lordships. I do not object to competition upon an equal basis, but I do not regard, and I am borne out by the experience of others; the competition of a local authority as fair competition. I will explain why it is not fair competition. First of all, it is easy for a local authority to get capital cheaply on the security of the rates; secondly, it has a long period in which it can make a sinking fund; and, thirdly, it has no dividends to pay to shareholders. As to the technical part of the question, the local authority is not compelled to give notices in the same way as a company. When an electric lighting company desires to supply light to a house, it has to give no less than thirteen different notices, and these notices extend over a period of thirty days. The local authority only has to give notice when it proposes to disturb the mains of a gas or water company. Immediately it receives an order, the local authority can instruct its men to connect the house at once, whereas the rival company would not be able to do this within thirty days. Again, there is nothing to prevent a local authority from selling the current at cost price, or even below cost price. They can by that means reduce the price charged to the consumer to such an extent that the company could not exist, as the whole of the customers would naturally desert the company in order to take the cheaper supply. I have very great doubts in my own mind whether this is not the line of conduct which will be adopted in the present case under this Bill, because the local authority refused to accept a clause binding them not to supply current below cost price. The local authority also refused to pur-
  948
  chase the undertaking of the company at a price regulated by the amount of expenditure that had been incurred by the company. I cannot help thinking that, if this Provisional Order is allowed to pass without a serious protest, it will be followed to a large extent by other local authorities, who will apply for Provisional Orders to supply districts in which companies have large spent a large sum of money and have commenced working, and in that way defeat the clause which provides for purchase at the end of 42 years. Therefore, I would venture to ask the Board of Trade to say what I fear they cannot say—namely, that they will not make a precedent of the principle contained in this order, but will obtain an instruction from Parliament in another year as to how they should act, in order to prevent the grievous injustice which will arise from the passing of Provisional Orders of this kind.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The EARL of DUDLEY): My Lords, if I may say so without disrespect, there is probably no member of your lordships' House who is better qualified to give an opinion upon a matter of this kind than the noble Earl who has just addressed you. I have listened with the greatest attention to the arguments put forward, but I am bound to say that I think the procedure he has adopted in making this protest on the Third Reading of the Bill is a little unusual, and also a little inconvenient. The Bill has already passed through the House of Commons in two sessions, and when it came before the Committee of this House the opposition of the company in which the noble Earl is interested was withdrawn, but a protest is now raised at the eleventh hour. Of course, I do not deny the right of the noble Earl to take that course, but I think it is a little different to the general principle under which Private Bill Legislation in this House is conducted. My noble friend seems to think that this Bill contemplates a serious change in the policy which has governed the granting of Provisional Orders for electric lighting, and that there is no precedent for a local authority being granted an order to supply electric light in a district where a company is already supplying it. There is a precedent in the case of Newington, and I believe the company in which the

  949
  noble Earl is interested was there supplying electric light. It is true that no opposition was offered on that occasion, but still the precedent is the same. The Vestry in that case was, as proposed here, given the power to compete with a private company. My noble friend also Seems to think that the Board of Trade have in some way introduced a new principle into this Bill by giving this power to the Vestry, but I would remind the House that in 1888 an Act was passed which distinctly authorises the Board of Trade to grant such power, and with the permission of the House I will just read the last words of the section:
  "The granting of authority to any undertakers to supply electricity within any area, whether granted by licence or by means of a Provisional Order, shall not in any case hinder or restrict the granting of a licence or Provisional Order to the local authority, or to any other company or person within the same area."
  Those words clearly contemplate not only competition in different districts, but competition by a local authority. My noble friend seems to think that the danger of giving such a power to a local authority is that there is no security that they will supply electricity at cost price, and he said, I think, that they would not be under the same obligation as a company to make a profit. I cannot help thinking, however, that the ratepayers of a certain district would protest very strongly if their local authority contemplated supplying electricity at the cost of the rates, the effect of which would be that the general ratepayer would have to pay for the electricity used by a certain few. I do not believe a case has ever arisen in which a local authority has attempted to take such a course as that feared by my noble friend. The noble Earl also thinks that this Bill will be made a precedent, and that other local authorities will step in and apply for orders. The granting of Provisional Orders under such conditions must, of course, depend upon the circumstances of each case. What the Board of Trade has to remember, first of all, is that it has been undoubtedly laid down that competition is a good thing, and that, if the existing company is not performing its work thoroughly and well, the Board of Trade should grant an Order to a competing company so that a supply should be assured. Therefore, if ill the future a
  950
  local authority promotes a Provisional Order asking for power to supply electricity in a district in which the supply is already sufficient, that fact will, of course, weigh very materially with the Board of Trade, but in the case we are now discussing this was not so. The noble Earl will, I think, hardly deny that serious allegations were made before the Committee of the House of Commons against the company with which he is connected. I believe it was stated that, although his company had been in possession of their Order for nine years, none of the mains had been laid in any of the streets comprised in the compulsory area, notwithstanding the fact that by the Order the company were under the obligation to lay the mains in the compulsory area within the space of two years. A case of that kind would, at any rate, afford a strong reason for supposing that competition was desirable and justifiable. It has been proved in other districts that, before the inhabitants will use electricity to a very great extent, facilities must be given, and its utility must be demonstrated in an easy and tangible way. You cannot expect people to ask to be supplied with electricity unless the lamps in their streets and some of the shops are lighted by electricity, so that they may see the advantage of the light. Therefore, I think that on all grounds the Board of Trade have been perfectly justified, in view of the Act, and in view of the inquiry which Sir Francis Marindin made, in granting the Order in this case. To safeguard themselves the Board of Trade embodied this Order with another one—that of Marylebone—in a separate Bill, in order that Parliament might have every opportunity of considering these Bills, which are practically on all fours, and of deciding whether they would accept the principle or not. The House of Commons threw out the Marylebone Order, but on two occasions endorsed the Bermondsey Order, and, this being so, I think it would be a very strong step for your Lordships' House to take at this stage to throw it out.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not ask the House to throw out the Bill.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I think the fact that the House of Commons has twice accepted the Bill is sufficient proof

  951
  that the noble Lord need not fear that by it any dangerous precedent will be set up.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed.

  SUMMARY JURISDITION ACT (1879) AMENDMENT BILL.
  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD PENRHYN: My Lords, the object of this Bill, which has come up to your Lordships from the House of Commons, where it met with no opposition at all, is to include the offence of obtaining money, etc., by false pretences in the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, so as to enable trifling cases, with the consent of the accused, to be dealt with summarily, as may at present be done in trifling cases of larcency. As the law now stands, magistrates are obliged to send small cases of false pretences for trial at quarter sessions, and the persons charged are sometimes kept a long time awaiting trial. In Carnarvonshire, not long ago, a man was charged with obtaining less than 2s. worth of beer by false pretences. He was committed for trial on 26thJuly, and was in gaol awaiting his trial until 20th October following, when he was immediately acquitted. This, I think, illustrates the hardship that may sometimes be inflicted.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: So far as I can tell, this is a very desirable Bill, but I cannot help remarking that there was great difficulty in hearing what the noble Lord said, owing to the position he took up.
  LORD PENRHYN: This is the first time I have attempted to introduce a Bill in your Lordships' House, and I hope I may be forgiven if I did not speak as clearly and as well as I ought to have done.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, I can say, on behalf of the Home Secretary, that this hits his entire approval. It seems only reasonable, where very small sums are
  952
  involved, that, with the consent of the person accused, the magistrates should be able to deal with the ease summarily; but it is very desirable to guard against the possibility of justices allowing charges for false pretences to be used for the purpose of enforcing mere debts. On behalf of the Home Secretary, I shall have to move an Amendment in Committee, providing that the accused shall be informed by the magistrates what, in law, false pretences are, so that there may be no chance of his pleading guilty to a charge on which he is not liable to be convicted.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill, read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  POOR LAW ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords.]
  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HARRIS: My Lords, several causes have contributed to induce the Local Government Board to introduce this Bill. The Departmental Committee on Poor Law Schools urged the Government to give Guardians of the Poor larger powers over children supported out of the rates than they possessed under the Act of 1889, and a Bill to that effect has been twice introduced into the House of Commons by Mr. Flower. That Bill has been supported by communications to the Local Government Board from over 200 Boards of Guardians, but as the Bill is not making progress, the Local Government Board have thought it wise to introduce a Bill themselves in your Lordships' House. The Act of 1889 gave guardians power, where a child was maintained out of the rates and had been deserted by its parent, to retain the child under their control until sixteen years of age in the case of a boy, and eighteen years of age in the case of a girl. Where, too, a parent had been imprisoned for some offence, such as cruelty to a child, the child might be taken under the control of the guardians. The Bill which I am now asking your Lordships

  953
  to read a second time enlarges those powers, and enables guardians to take charge of a child in cases where they are of opinion that by reason of mental deficiency, habits, or mode of life, the parent is unfit to have the control of it, and in cases where a parent has been sentenced to imprisonment in respect of any offence against any of his or her children. Under the Act of 1889, guardians could only take control of the child whose parent was suffering imprisonment for cruelty in respect of that child, but under this Bill the guardians will be able to take charge of any of the children of such a parent, and of the children of a parent who is permanently bedridden or disabled, or is the inmate of a workhouse, and consents to the guardians having control. They may also take charge of a child whose parents, or, in the case of an illegitimate child, the mother of the child, are or is dead. These are the alterations in the Act of 1889 which this Bill proposes. Your Lordships will understand that it applies only to those children who are being supported out of the rates, and that the guardians may at any time rescind the resolution if they think it will be for the benefit of the child that it should be so rescinded. A court of summary jurisdiction, if satisfied, on complaint made by a parent, or, if there is no parent, by a guardian of a child, that there was no ground for the resolution, has also power to determine the resolution. As I have already informed your Lordships, the Act of 1889 applies to boys up to the age of sixteen, and girls up to the age of eighteen. Clause 2 of this Bill will make it apply to children of both sexes up to the age of eighteen, and, if the children consent themselves, within three months of arriving at the age of eighteen, they may be kept under the control of the guardians up till the age of twenty-one. Clause 3 provides a penalty in cases where persons endeavour to tempt children away from the control of the guardians. The object of that clause is to prevent undesirable relatives, who are not fit to have the control of children, from endeavouring to tempt children away. In Clause 4, which relates to rather a different subject, power is given to the guardians to visit those young persons for whom they have obtained situations as servants, and whom they have apprenticed, wherever they
  954
  may be, up to the age assigned. Under the present Act they can only visit the children if they are still in the situation that was first found for them. Under this Bill they can be visited so long as they are within the union, or within a short distance of the union, whether they are in the place of first service or not. Clause 5 provides that Section 4 of the Pauper Inmates Discharge and Regulation Act, 1871, shall be amended by increasing the power of guardians to call for a longer notice of discharge where a pauper is constantly in the habit of discharging himself without sufficient reason from the workhouse. Under the present Act, where a pauper has discharged himself from a workhouse twice within a month, he has to give 72 hours' notice when he desires his discharge. The Bill proposes that where a pauper discharges himself more frequently without sufficient reason the guardians may call for a still longer notice—namely, 168 hours. In such a case it will be necessary for a direction to be entered in the minutes specifying the name of the pauper to whom it applies. These are the provisions of the Bill. They have been strongly supported by various bodies, including a large number of boards of guardians, and I trust that, under the circumstances, your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I have no reason to say anything against the principle on which this Bill is founded, but I think some of its provisions will require careful consideration in Committee. I may not understand the Bill correctly, but it appears that its provisions are to take effect when one parent has misbehaved. The husband may have run away and deserted a child, but the mother may remain and be perfectly fit to take care of it. I certainly think the Bill will have to be scrutinised hereafter, probably in the Standing Committee, but the general object is an excellent one. I feel very great doubt as to Clause 4. This clause provides that, when a young person has been placed cut in service from a workhouse, the visits to that young person which the guardians may make shall not only continue during the time that the young person is in the

  955
  service to which he or she was first sent, but shall continue afterwards when the child shall have gone to another situation.
  LORD HARRIS: Within the union.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Of course. It seems to me that if there is one thing more desirable than another it is to remove, as soon as possible, from children who have gone out into the world all recollection of their having been paupers. I think this provision in the Bill is open to considerable objection. If a child goes back to the guardians and is again placed out by them, it is perfectly reasonable that they should continue to visit, if they think it necessary; but if a young person has obtained another situation without the intervention of the guardians, and has thereby become disconnected with Poor Law administration, it is not to the advantage of the child that it should continue to be visited by the guardians. Nothing has a more deleterious effect upon a child than to ticket it as a pauper, and I think this clause of the Bill will require very careful consideration in Committee.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I rise to support the Second Reading of this Bill, which appears to me to be more important and more far-reaching in its beneficial consequences than perhaps may be suggested by its title or by a hurried perusal of its contents. The fact that we have five Bills under our consideration in one week, three of them in charge of members of the Government, dealing with questions affecting the education of the young is not without significance as showing the interest which is at present being taken in exceptional educational problems, and I am quite sure that in no one of the matters with which these Bills deal is legislation more urgently required, though perhaps the circle within which it is to work is small, than in the cases to which the present Bill refers. Anyone who is familiar either with the administration of the Poor Law as regards children going out from workhouses into the world, or with the management of institutions, unconnected with the Poor Law, which exist for kindred objects, will know how real is the need which this Bill is intended to meet. I, for one, desire to express my gratitude to Her Majesty's
  956
  Government for having taken in hand a measure which has been struggling for several years ineffectually to obtain a hearing in the House of Commons, and which I hope will now rapidly become law. It is impossible to exaggerate the distressing character of the cases which occasionally come before those who have taken charge, as far as they can, of children during this particular period in their lives. In a number of cases, children who, have been taken away from evil homes and looked after until they arrive at the age when they are old enough to earn something for themselves, have been at the first moment taken back by their relations to those homes where everything that has been learned is unlearned. If the peril is great in the case of boys, it is ten times greater and more terribly in the case of illegitimate girls of fifteen or sixteen, who are taken back under the control of a mother who is far from-having their true welfare at heart. This Bill will give wider powers to Poor Law authorities as to children whom they are able to protect, and will prolong the protection which is thus given. At present, as the noble Earl stated, desertion by the parent is a necessary preliminary too the child being taken by the guardians; but under this Bill, whether the parent has deserted the child or not, if the guardians are of opinion that the child is in unfit keeping they will be able to take it away. A parent who is unfit either owing to mental deficiency or evil habits of life may now be relieved, if I may use the word, of the responsibility of taking care of the child, and the guardians may undertake that duty, charging the cost to the parent, the understanding being that this refers only to, children who are under the Poor Law. All legislation of this kind is subject to two dangers. Either that we may be sentimentally relieving very poor parents of a control which we ought rather to help them themselves to exercise, or, on the other hand, our sympathy for children in an unhappy home may lead us to interfere illegitimately with the rights of control which parents ought to have. It seems to me that the Bill safeguards us from any probable difficulty under bath these heads. In the first place, if such parent considers he or she is unjustly treated by the child being taken away, the parent will have the right of appeal to the court, who will decide

  957
  whether the guardians have been justified or not in the action they have taken. I think the force of public opinion is at present so strong with regard to the rights of parents that even in the case of parents other than those whom we should desire to see in charge of children, we need not fear that their interests or rights will be unduly interfered with. No provision in the Bill is more important than that which extends the age during which the protection of the guardians may last. At present girls become free from the control of the guardians on reaching the age of eighteen, and boys on reaching the age of sixteen; but under this Bill both sets of children will be under the control of the guardians till the age of eighteen, and if, three months before that, when they are perfectly able to judge for themselves, they desire to remain for three years longer under the protection of the authority which has taken charge of them hitherto, they will be able to do so. The Bill, which is drawn on eminently practical and wise lines, does not yield merely to a sentimental cry, but meets a real need, and I trust your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  On question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  MANCHESTER CANONRIES BILL [Lords].
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL [Lords].

    COMMITTEES.
    House in Committee (according to Order).
    Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
    Clause 6:—
    LORD NORTON: My Lords, I wish to draw attention again to this clause, which is one of those provisions by reference, which is ab utely unintelligible without having the Act to which it refers before your Lordships. The House is called upon to pass this clause in the dark.
    LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but I have thought his suggestion a good one, and have prepared an Amendment, setting out in exact terms the effect of this clause.
    LORD NORTON: Under those circumstances, my Lords, I shall not make any further objections at this stage.
    Clauses 6 to 19 agreed to.
    Bill reported without Amendment, and recommitted to the Standing Committee.

  FINE OR IMPRISONMENT (SCOTLAND AND IRELAND) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
QUESTIONS.

  ESTATE DUTY ASSESSMENT.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, I beg to ask H.M. Government whether, in assessing the value for estate duty of property sold after the death of a testator, the Treasury is justified in refusing to deduct the costs of the sale from the purchase-money. This question is one of no very large or important nature, and it in no way affects the principle of the Finance Act of 1894. It merely affects in one particular point the method of administration of that Act. As the House is aware, on a succession being created the property of the deceased person is valued, and the value reckoned according to the Act, which says:
  "The value of any property shall be estimated at the price which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, such property would fetch in the open market if sold at the time of the death of the deceased."
  The valuation having been made, and, we will assume, the duty having been paid on that valuation, it may happen that the successor may sell some of the property. In a case of that kind the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, if the purchase money of the property is in excess of the valuation, claim to be entitled to receive estate duty on the excess. I assume that, on this principle, if the purchase money was less than the valuation, the successor

  959
  would be entitled to a reduction on the amount paid. The ways of the Inland Revenue, however, are rather remarkable, and I am afraid an applicant would not have much chance of obtaining a reduction. I think, parenthetically, it is a question whether there should not be some time limit after which further claims should not be made; but my point is that the value of the property sold is clearly the price it fetches, less the costs of the sale. In all transactions of life that principle is, or ought to be, acknowledged, but the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or the Treasury refuse, in estimating the value of the purchase money for the purpose of paying estate duty, to deduct the reasonable costs of sale. This action is, in my opinion, unjust and inequitable. The ease is stronger in regard to works of art and matters of that kind. We will assume that a not very remarkable collection of works of art is lying in a country house. The value of a collection in that particular place would be probably less than the valuation OH which the duty has been paid, but if the works are brought to London and sold they would probably fetch a much larger price. On paying duty on that larger sum it is only fair that the successor should be allowed to deduct from the purchase money the cost of the commission in respect of the sale, which would probably be 10 or 12½ per cent., and also the cost of conveyance to London. It seems to me that this is so obviously a fair and equitable claim that it can hardly be resisted, and I trust that the noble Lord who will answer for the Treasury will give us some hope that the practice which at present prevails will be altered, or, at any rate, that the question may be considered by the Committee, which I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer said would sit in the autumn, to deal with questions arising in reference to the Finance Act. I think the scope of that Committee might be somewhat enlarged to enable them to consider the point to which I have called the attention of the House to-night, and which deals not with the principle of the Act, but with the mode of administration. In almost all cases the amount of duty claimed under this practice would be so extremely small as not to be worth anyone's while to protest against it. The Inland Revenue Commissioners, as we all know who have dealings with them, have a keen sense of the duty resting upon
  960
  them to extract every penny they can for the revenue of their country, and the attempt of any individual to protest against the injustice to which I have referred would be absolutely futile, and would never be undertaken. Therefore the only way of bringing a small matter of this kind before the public is to call attention to it in your Lordships' House.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, it is not for me to say what the law should be, but simply to say what the law actually is, and the answer to my noble friend's question as to whether the Treasury is justified in refusing to deduct the costs of the sale from the purchase money seems to me to be in the affirmative. The estate duty is imposed upon principal value of all property which passes on death (Section 1, Finance Act, 1894), and the "principal value" is to be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of the Commissioners such property would fetch if sold in the open market at the time of the death of the deceased"—Section 7(5). There is a special rule laid down for valuing agricultural property—see the proviso to Section 7 (5)—but that proviso contains no provision for allowing the costs of sale. The analogy of the probate duty was preserved as far as possible in the new estate duty. Under probate duty law the grant and the stamp duty on the grant covered the gross assets of the deceased, and no costs of administration or realisation of any kind were ever allowed against probate duty. The idea seems to be that as the property exists at the moment of death so the estate duty falls upon it with only those deductions which are expressly authorised by the Act. No deduction of costs of sale is expressly authorised by the Finance Act, 1894, except in Section 7 (3), which runs as follows:
  "Where the Commissioners are satisfied that any additional expense in administering or in realising property has been incurred by reason of the property being situate out of the United Kingdom, they may make an allowance from the value of the property, on account of such expense, not exceeding in any case 5 per cent. on the value of the property."
  It may therefore be inferred that, except in the particular case referred to in Section 7 (3), no such deduction was intended. Consequently, as no such deductions were made against probate duty, and the

  961
  Finance Act, 1894, contains no express enactment enabling such deductions to be allowed, they are invariably refused.

  CEYLON—CONDUCT OF MR. RAMANATHAN.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I desire to ask the Under Secretary for the Colonies whether the Ceylon Government has dismissed Mr. Ramanathan from the office of Solicitor-General, or has ordered the prosecution for libel of the newspaper which accused him of fraud. In March last I suggested to Her Majesty's Government that it was incumbent upon the Ceylon Government either to dismiss Mr. Ramanathan or prosecute the newspaper which had accused him of fraud. No Government which respects itself can allow an officer holding so high a position as that of Solicitor-General to be accused of fraud. It will not be a sufficient answer for the noble Earl to say that the newspaper was an insignificant one, and was not worth notice, because the Ceylon Government, through its Attorney-General, prosecuted the same paper a short time ago on account of libelling the daughters of a police court clerk at Galle. The Indian Government either prosecutes, or orders its officials to prosecute, and pays the costs, in one case I know of, where the official lost the suit. In the case of Mr. Ramanathan there is an accumulation of offences. Since March last he has published a book which he might have dedicated to the Secretary of State, but which, if it had been dedicated to the Under Secretary, would have been a gross insult. It is entitled "A Commentary on St. Matthew." The Madras Standard calls it a Travesty of St. Matthew. Mr. Ramanathan speaks of Christ as a Yogi—he probably used the word in its spiritual sense only, which means a person who seeks Yoga, or communion with the Deity. But as a Hindu he ought to have known that a Yogi is a person who goes about with hardly any clothes, with his hair matted down his back, and his body covered with ashes. Anglo-Indians who have seen them would think this term highly disrespectful to Christ, and I think, as a matter of taste only, it is not fitting that a Solicitor-General of a Christian Government should, whilst in office, write a book of that kind. I cannot conceive how the noble Earl the Under Secretary can refrain from either insisting upon Mr.
  962
  Ramanathan's dismissal, or else parting company from the Colonial Office.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, the Secretary of State has received no information from the Acting Governor of Ceylon respecting Mr. Ramanathan of the nature indicated, and that gentleman could not in any case be dismissed from office without the authority of the Secretary of State. Mr. Chamberlain's attention has been called to articles in a Ceylon newspaper, in which Mr. Ramanathan is accused, not of fraud, but of champerty, and I will ask for a report on the subject. So much for the answer to the exact question asked by the noble Lord, but I cannot let the matter drop there. Mr. Ramanathan is a distinguished Tamil gentleman who occupies the important and honourable position of Her Majesty's Solicitor-General in Ceylon. I wonder if the noble Lord who put this question on the Paper has thought what the feeling of that responsible gentleman will be when he sees that the journals of your Lordships' House have been used to convey such gross insinuations against his character. It does not seem to me to be a fair use of Parliamentary questions to put on the Paper a notice containing such imputations merely on information picked up, I know not where or how, and without there being a shadow of foundation for them. On behalf of the office which I have the honour to represent, and which is the guardian of the interests of Her Majesty's servants serving in the colonies, I altogether protest against such use of the privilege of Parliamentary questions.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: The noble Lord has had three months' notice of this.

  THE PALIAMETARY DEBATES.
  LORD HAWKESBURY: I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether arrangements can be made by which peers may be supplied with copies of The Parliamentary Debates in the same way as Members in the House of Commons.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I am afraid the question is one of finance. The House of Commons votes

  963
  for the benefit of its own members the money to purchase the publication of Hansard. I am informed that the House of Commons has not extended that liberality to the House of Lords. I understand that no change can be made in the present year, because no Estimate has been voted. I presume the matter will be for the consideration of the authorities of the Treasury during the coming recess.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six of the clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.