Lords Sitting of 2 July 1874

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Civil Bill Courts (Ireland) * (146); Statute Law Revision (No. 2) * (147).
Second Reading—Leases and Sales of Settled Estates (93); Conjugal Eights (Scotland) Act Amendment (126).
Committee—Alkali Act (1863) Amendment (115).
Report—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act (1863) Amendment* (133).
Third Reading—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4)* (97).
Withdrawn—Cruelty to Animals Law Amendment (137).

LEASES AND SALES OF SETTLED ESTATES BILL.
(The Lord Chelmsford.)
LEASES AND SALES OF SETTLED ESTATES BILL.

  (NO. 93.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD CHELMSFORD, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the object of the measure, which had come up from the Commons, was to remove restrictions in the way of the exercise of a very useful jurisdiction conferred on the Court of Chancery by the Act of 1856. Before the passing of that Act, persons in possession of settled estates were obliged to come to Parliament for a Private Act before they could deal with them. The Act conferred power on the Court of Chancery to authorize leases and sales of such estates under certain conditions. But there was this great drawback on the utility of that statute, that it required that the consent of "all parties" interested under the settlement should be obtained before the required powers should be granted. The result had been great inconvenience in many cases, owing to the factious opposition raised by some parties whose consent was requisite. This Bill proposed to authorize the Court of Chancery to dispense with the concurrence or consent of any such persons as were by the Act of 1856 required to concur in, or consent to, any application for the exercise of the powers of the Act.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chelmsford.)
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, it seemed to him that the Bill was simply
  856
  a solicitor's Bill altering the general law of the country and attacking the sanctity of settlements for the convenience of a very few individuals who found themselves inconvenienced by some special circumstances. He would therefore move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  An Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Marquess of Bath.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had no difficulty in approving the object of the Bill so far as it confined itself to the repeal of those clauses of the Bill of 1856 which related to consents. That Act simply conferred on the Court of Chancery jurisdiction to introduce a power which ought to be contained in every well-drawn settlement—namely, the power of sale and exchange and granting leases. So far, therefore, there was no invasion of the sanctity of settlement. But what had happened under the provisions of the Act which required the consent of all parties? Why, every one having any interest under the settlement, whether that interest was large or small, distant or proximate, certain or doubtful, had the right to step in and prevent the action of the Court. Accordingly, persons whose interests were minute and fragmentary, and to whom no injury could by possibility be done by the lease or sale, being armed with the power given them by that Act, used it for the purpose of preventing the action of the Court where it would have been beneficial, their object being to make bargains and extort money—he did not think the working of a useful Act of Parliament should be impeded in that way, and therefore he regarded the object of this Bill as a beneficial one. He thought, however, that the Bill as drawn was too sweeping in its terms. He would point out in Committee some Amendments which he thought necessary. He would suggest, for instance, that a clause should be introduced to require the Court not only to serve notice upon every one interested, but also to require of each of them a statement as to whether he assented or dissented, or whether he submitted his rights to the Court. A clause might also be introduced providing that the Court, in considering whether it should act, should have regard to the number of assents

  857
  and dissents respectively, and to the amount of the interests of those persons who did not consent. But he would not place any impediment in the way of the Bill.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he had laid the Bill on their Lordships' Table in the same shape as that in which it had come up from the other House; but he partly concurred with his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and would introduce the Amendment his noble and learned Friend had suggested.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn: Then the Original Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS LAW AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 137.)
(The Earl of Harrowby.)
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS LAW AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 137.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, the object of the measure was to extend the provisions of the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 92—the well-known Act for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—to all animals, wild as well as domestic. The more humane spirit of modern times had put an end to numerous brutal sports in which our ancestors had taken delight—such as bull-baiting, badger-drawing, and cock-fighting; and Acts had been passed by which domestic animals had been placed under the protection of the law. Still, however, there was a great deal of cruelty perpetrated upon animals which did not come within that description, and it was the object of this Bill to extend to wild animals the same protection that was given to domesticated animals. Surely, the very same motives which induced us to interfere in the case of the latter were of equal force in reference to the former. The Bill did not apply to the necessary acts done in fishing, hunting, shooting, or other sports—the habits of sport were too intimately connected with manly exercise to make it practicable to include them in this legislation—nor did it apply to the destruction of vermin. Those words also of the 1st clause which made applicable to wild, equally with domestic animals, the 29th clause of the
  858
  principal Bill, would have to be considered in Committee. The legislation he now proposed was not only in accordance with the more enlightened temper of the times, but was also in accordance with the feeling of the people of the United States and of the Continental nations, who, having followed the example of this country in giving protection to domestic animals, had now generally extended it to all dumb animals. He hoped their Lordships would give their consent to this Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
  VISCOUNT PORTMAN, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, he sympathized most entirely with his noble Friend who had introduced the Bill, and his supporters, in the desire to put an end, by every possible means, to cruelty to animals. It was to the Bill and not to its objects he objected. The Bill was one of the most extraordinary ever laid on the Table of their Lordships' House. It was a worthy companion of the Wild Birds' Bill, which they had before them the other night which he had persuaded the House to reject. The first enacting clause was to the effect that, from and after the passing of the Act, the provisions of the 29th clause of the original Act should be applicable to wild as well as to domestic animals.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYintimated that he intended to withdraw the clause and substitute another for it.
  VISCOUNT PORTMANsaid, that he must take the Bill as he found it, and so consider it. The 29th clause was the Interpretation Clause of the Act. It stated that a "Justice" should be taken to mean "a justice of the peace." If this Bill passed, was it to be taken to mean "a wild justice of the peace." The next definition in the 29th section of the Act was that of "constable." Was it to be "wild constable" under the Bill? Then came a list of the domestic animals, which included bulls, cows, asses, &c, and in this Bill they had only to deal with the animals named in the 29th clause of the Act, so that any other animals of the animal kingdom, so called, were not included, for the 1st clause did not say all animals but all the provisions of the 29th clause, and in the interpreta-

  859
  tion of statutes it must be limited to subjects ejusdem generis. There might be wild original cats; but the only other wild animals, as named in the Act, that he knew of in England, were the wild cattle in Chillingham Park. Then consider Clause 2. Look at the word "treatment." What was it? It was not cruelty in the abstract or in the view of the sensitive, but it was the cruelty defined in the clause of the Act. How, then, could it apply to fishing? Then, as to hunting, ferriting rats or rabbits or the destruction of vermin. Why were they to be exempted from the definition of cruelty? If cruelty under the Act was practised, surely such cruelty should be as much punished in such matters as in any others. The Act already provided for cruelty to badgers and such like in a separate clause. As one who had enjoyed the sports of the field all his life, he denied that they involved any such cruelty as was contemplated by the Act of Parliament, and he regarded the exemptions in the Bill as an insult to sportsmen. If any new law was wanted, which was very doubtful, let his noble Friend bring in a well-considered and well-digested measure, and it should have his support.
  An Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Viscount Portman.)
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYwas understood to say that "fish" were undoubtedly included in "animals." If his noble Friend repudiated the exemption of field sports, the second clause could be struck out in Committee.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he understood the position of the matter to be, that the noble Viscount (Viscount Portman) objected to Clause 1, because it gave a false notion of what was really meant to be done; and his noble Friend who had introduced the Bill (the Earl of Harrowby) had expressed his intention to withdraw it; and, consequently, the first thing which they would have to do in Committee would be to erase the clause. Then his noble Friend now proposed to strike out Clause 2, exempting field sports. When that was done, very little more would be left of the Bill than its Preamble. He would, therefore, suggest to his noble Friend that, as their Lordships were all agreed that cruelty to animals—wild as well as tame
  860
  —should be put down, he had better withdraw the Bill, and re-introduce it in a form which would deal with the matter more thoroughly and practically.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, the Bill had been drawn by a Gentleman whose name, were it known, would command universal respect. But the simple question before the House was, whether their Lordships were prepared to extend that protection which was already given to domesticated animals to all animals whatsoever. There had been a large amount of small criticism on the two clauses of which the Bill consisted. The promoters of the Bill had thought it would be more convenient that the word "animals," restricted in its meaning by the Interpretation Clause of the original Act, should be extended to all "animals." The word included every living creature; it included "fish" equally with the noble Viscount and the noble Earl. The question submitted to their Lordships by the Bill was no other than this—whether or not the Legislature would extend the protection of the law to all God's creatures—to the fish of the sea, to the fowl of the air, and to every living thing that moveth upon the earth, over whom God had given man the dominion? Was it fitting that England, which had been the first to legislate upon this Christian principle, should now stop short, and be content to fall behind Prussia, Saxony, the Cantons of Switzerland, and the United States, where all animals were protected by legislation against the cruelty of man? If the noble Viscount (Viscount Portman) thought that the exemption of acts done in pursuit of sport should not be excepted from the Act, he could move to strike out the clause in Committee. As the law at present stood, frightful acts of cruelty were committed which the magistrates were unable to punish. He had recently received information of a case in which a man was charged before a magistrate with having hung living rats before a fire to roast them, yet the offender who was guilty of that most frightful sin had to be discharged, because, although he had trapped the rats and had had them some time in his possession before he roasted them, yet they could not be regarded as domestic animals. All that the magistrate could do was to express great indignation that such a cruelty should be allowed to re-

  861
  main without punishment in this civilized country. There had been great difficulty in convicting a man who had been guilty of the common practice of putting out a chaffinch's eyes, in order to make it sing better. It was clear that something should be done to remove the doubt whether these poor captive creatures should be considered animals, and entitled to the protection of the law. He earnestly asked their Lordships to give the Bill a second reading, and to aid the promoters of it in amending its provisions in Committee.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was not with any disposition to smile at this proposed legislation that he rose to make a few observations upon the Bill; but he desired to ask what it was the Bill was intended to do? The one enacting clause proposed to extend the existing law to wild animals. But had his noble Friends who supported the Bill looked at the provisions of the Act now in force? That Act contained numerous provisions, relating, amongst other things, to the conveyance of animals by railway, the slaughtering of animals, and the registration of all animals which were kept in certain places; and there were Schedules to be filled up with descriptions of such animals, their age, sex, and so forth; and this Bill proposed to extend that law to wild animals of every description. The Act contained a reference to a "pound," or receptacle "of the like nature," for animals. Now, he had some idea of what a "pound" was, but not of a receptacle "of the like nature." He was told that the term would include a space of ground surrounded by an enclosure, and in which rats or rabbits were hunted. It was also said that any person who kept animals in these places without sufficient food and water should be liable to penalties, and if for 12 hours they were without those things another person might supply them and recover the value thereof from the person impounding the animals. That might produce results of a very singular description. The terms of the Act of 1849 were, for the most part, inapplicable to wild animals. Now, if they took from the Act the few words which were applicable to wild animals, and enacted that any torturing of those animals should be liable to punishment, that might be sufficient. Then, to omit all reference to chasing, hunting, shooting, and fishing would be
  862
  tantamount to saying that, in some respects, torturing wild animals would be permitted. He would suggest the withdrawal of the Bill for the present, and that another Bill should be introduced which should simply apply to the torturing of wild animals, and he would recommend the use of the words to be found in the Act now in operation.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHpointed out that under the Act in force there was a provision under which a penalty of £5 was imposed for "torturing." If they passed this Bill it would, in effect, extend the game laws. It would be difficult to define the meaning of the word "vermin." He had heard pheasants and partridges called vermin, and gardeners called thrushes, and farmers called sparrows, vermin; but what would be vermin under this Bill?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he thought the noble Earl would act wisely in following the advice of the noble and learned Lord, and withdraw the Bill. At the same time, he hoped the promoters, after this discussion, would endeavour to frame another which would meet with more success.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYproposed, after what had taken place, to withdraw the Bill.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that it was the part of a good Judge to enlarge rather than narrow his jurisdiction, and thought as the 3rd section of the Act applied to baiting animals of a wild as well as of a domestic nature, magistrates need not have scrupled to convict those who tortured such animals, although of a wild nature, as were completely in the power of those who subjected them to agonies from which they could not escape. If once wild, they were thoroughly reclaimed, and ought to be under the protection of the law till an amended Act should be passed.
  The said Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn; then the original Motion and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

CONJUGAL RIGHTS (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 126.)
(The Marl of Aberdeen.)
CONJUGAL RIGHTS (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 126.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was to afford additional legal protection to women whose husbands had deserted them, so that their after-acquired property should be secured to them; and this he thought the Bill did in a very simple and effectual manner. He was sorry to say that the instances in which wives were deserted by their husbands in Scotland were much more numerous than might be supposed; and to show the hardships to which women who had been so deserted were subjected, he might mention that in one particular case a woman who had carried on a small business after she had been deserted by her husband, having unfortunately lost her house by fire, the husband returned and claimed and obtained the whole of the insurance money, and this reduced her again to poverty. As the law at present stood, there was no redress in such cases except by means of an application to the Court of Session, and that was a process which was too expensive to be made use of by the poorer class of people. The Bill gave power to the Sheriff to adjudicate in such cases, and thus it would provide a simple and effective remedy in all such cases. The noble Earl concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion agreed, to; Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ALKALI ACT (1863) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 115.)
(The Lord Walsingham.)
ALKALI ACT (1863) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 115.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to, with Amendments.
  THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTHmoved to insert after Clause 5 the following clause:—
  "If any person considers that any alkali work is carried on in contravention of the Alkali Acts of 1863 and 1874, or either of them, and that he is injuriously affected thereby, he may present to the Local Government Board a memorial in writing complaining thereof, and thereupon the Local Government Board, unless there appears to them good reason to the contrary, shall direct the Inspector to make a special examination of and report on the work, and if it appears to the Local Government Board on the
  864
  report that there is reasonable ground for the complaint, they shall direct the Inspector to take, and the Inspector shall thereupon take, proceedings for the recovery of a penalty accordingly."
  He thought this provision would give further protection against the injury which persons who resided in the neighbourhood of alkali works now suffered. It in no degree interfered with the principle of the Act of 1863, and he was afraid that without it the Act would not be put in force at all. Practically the Act of 1863 was a dead letter, because the parties most interested were unable, and in many cases unwilling, to put it in motion themselves.
  LORD WALSINGHAMsaid, he quite agreed that it was desirable to make the Bill as effective as possible, and that pains should be taken to see that the remedies given to prevent the serious nuisance complained of should be made as effective as possible. He had no doubt that there had been a great escape of these noxious gases in contravention of the Act; some of which were preventable, though others might be due to accidental circumstances. But he considered that the clause proposed by the noble Earl was unnecessary, and that it was in some respects objectionable. It was unnecessary, because at the present time if any person felt aggrieved, he could, under the Act of 1863, make a complaint to the Local Government Board, and request that an Inspector should make an examination of the works and report the facts to the Board. If it were made compulsory upon the Board to take action against any owner of works, that would imply that there was a want of energy in the Department, and to that implication he took exception as the Local Government Board was at present constituted. The action of the Board should not be made subject to the dictation of private individuals. Moreover, it seemed to him that the clause would be utterly useless. Suppose a case should be brought before the Local Government Board. They would naturally enquire of their Inspector, whether there was any just cause of complaint—he would not be willing to admit that any illegal nuisance had escaped his notice; but if he did admit it, and a special Inspector was sent down, the managers of the works would have had ample notice during

  865
  these preliminary proceedings, and would take care that, at least, on the occasion of this special inspection, nothing was going on in contravention of the Act. He hoped the noble Earl would not press the clause.
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTONcontended that there ought to be more Inspectors and more frequent inspections, and that the law should be made in many respects more stringent, for at present it was almost a dead letter. The alkali works had largely increased in numbers, and the staff of Inspectors which was sufficient when the Act was passed was quite inadequate now. In that part of the county in which he lived, these alkali works were carried on very extensively, but the parties most usually affected by them were too poor to go to law.
  LORD WINMARLEIGHfelt bound to state that the Act of 1863 did not meet the requirements of the case, so far at least as some districts in which these works were carried on were concerned; for though the Act had now been in operation for about 10 years the evils complained of had gone on extending from year to year, until a portion of that part of the country with which he was connected had been devastated by these noxious gases. The difficulties in the way of proceeding Under the Act were, he believed, the main cause—the Act had in truth become a perfect nullity. He believed that the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl would at least tend to force upon the Inspectors a greater attention to the duties imposed upon them by the Act. He had no complaint to make against them; but if the clause should be agreed to, and it became known that parties aggrieved could come before the Local Government Board for redress, it would have a great effect in checking this nuisance. He thought that the attention of the Government could not be directed to any subject of greater importance than this, because if the evil went on very serious consequences must ensue to a large portion of that part of the county with which he was connected.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that no noble Lords were more competent to speak from personal knowledge of the subject than his noble Friends who had just spoken—the noble Earl who had moved the clause (the Earl of Ravens-
  866
  worth)and the two noble Lords who were connected with Cheshire and Lancashire; but he wished to point out that the clause was unnecessary, and would fail to accomplish the object for which it was intended. So far as it proposed to give to the Local Government Board more powers than it now possessed, it was no doubt advantageous; but he wished to know how, if the clause should become part and parcel of the Act, a jury would be in a better position for awarding compensation for injuries suffered from the operation of these works than at present?
  LORD WINMARLEIGH: The probability would be that the parties would not have to go before a jury at all.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: There was nothing in the clause to lead to that supposition. At present, if the Local Government Board thought it expedient, it might take proceedings in any matter of complaint, and every man aggrieved could now come to the Board and point out in what respect he suffered from any works. His noble Friend who was connected with Cheshire (Lord Egerton of Tatton) said there were not enough Inspectors; but this clause would not help him; for it did not deal with that subject at all. Moreover, it implied a slur upon the Board—and that he objected to—it implied that supervision was not properly carried out, and that it should be put into an Act of Parliament that the Inspectors should do their duty. He did not think that the clause would in any way be beneficial, and therefore he hoped his noble Friend would not press it on their Lordships.
  THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTHsaid, he would not press his Amendment against the wish of the Government, but at the same time, he knew that much importance was attached to it by the parties who were suffering damage from these works. They required more power to make their grievances known to the Government. The clause would give them greater protection, and at the same time it in no degree interfered with the principle of the Act of 1863. He had hoped that the Government would have accepted the clause, as it would have given the sufferers from these works more power to make their complaints known to the Local Government Board; but he could not press it if the Government thought it objectionable. At the

  867
  same time, he might express a hope that the Local Government Board would pay more particular attention to the enforcement of the Act than they had hitherto done.
  LORD DENMAN, having been in every county in England, referred to the state of South Shields, in which vegetation was quite destroyed, and to Liverpool, where a Judge had been made ill, on circuit, and the air in the Judge's Lodgings was insupportably bad. He wished for prevention rather than damages, and would support the noble Lord's Amendment if it were pressed.
  LORD WALSINGHAMadmitted that the clause of his noble Friend did not affect the principle of the Bill. The Department which he represented would see that more care was taken in this matter than had formerly been taken. He hoped the new Act would be more effective than the old one in diminishing these noxious vapours.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clauses 7, 8, and 9 agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHmoved to add a proviso, giving the Small Debt Court the summary jurisdiction and the Sheriff Court summary jurisdiction on matters of complaint under this Act, for the purpose of giving a cheap and efficacious remedy to the poorer classes of persons who might be injured by noxious gases proceeding from alkali works. The noble Duke mentioned in illustration that in the neighbourhood of Glasgow there was a cemetery situated near some extensive alkali works, in which the trees planted for ornament, and the shrubs placed on the family graves were blasted and withered by the noxious vapours almost as soon as they were planted. Of course the poor people to whom they belonged could not venture to bring any action against the alkali works company, because they knew very well that they would be forced into ruinous expense. If, however, they could bring an action in the Sheriff Court or the Small Debt Court, and it was enacted that it should be disposed of without appeal, they would have a speedy and cheap remedy for the injury inflicted upon them.
  LORD WALSINGHAMsaid, he could not consent to the addition proposed to
  868
  be made to the clause by the noble Duke, because, in the first place, it would be somewhat of a breach of faith on the manufacturers, who had consented to be put under statutory penalties ant liabilities, but had not consented tha the common law should be made more stringent upon them—which would be the effect of this proviso. This was the first occasion upon which the point had ever been brought forward. There might be many cases which would involve points which had never come before the Court before—for instance, whether certain things were or were not an infringement of the Act, for which damages might be given; and on such points as that the manufacturers would have as much right to appeal as any other portion of Her Majesty's subjects. He was at a loss to know on what ground they were to make the common law more stringent than it was at present. There was another reason why he could not admit the Amendment—because it would create a distinction between the administration of the law in Scotland as compared with its administration in England and Ireland; and if they withdrew the right of appeal from Scotland in such cases, there would soon be a, demand for its withdrawal from the English and Irish Courts. Moreover, it would create an invidious distinction between manufacturers and other classes of the population.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he was sorry that the decision of the Government was adverse, but he rather thought that if people restricted the damages within the amount that could be tried within the Small Debts Court it would effect the same object. He was not quite certain upon that point, but of this he was sure, that it was desirable to give the people injured by these noxious exhalations a cheap and effectual remedy.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow.

EDUCATION—EFFECT OF SCHOOL LIFE ON THE SIGHT.

  QUESTION.
  LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDONrose to ask the Lord President, Whether

  869
  his attention had been called to the effect of school life in developing short sight, and whether anything could be done to avert the evil? He said that the prevalence of short sight in Germany, where education had been compulsory for a long time, had recently attracted serious attention, and it was found on investigation that the percentages of children afflicted with short sight ranged between 1 and 2 in rural and primary schools, between 3 and 9 in urban schools, between 9 and 44 in normal schools, between 12 and 55 in secondary schools, and equally high among the small numbers who attended the upper schools and Universities. The causes were found to be the unnatural positions which children were induced to assume, from the inconvenient forms of desks and seats, and the defective lighting of rooms; and steps were now being taken to remedy and avert the evil in Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, and America. Now, that elementary schools were becoming universal in this country, he apprehended a similar evil, if we did not pay proper attention to the lighting of schoolrooms and to their furniture.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that nothing could be more important than the preservation of the powers of sight among our working population; but since he had had the honour to hold his present office, nothing had been laid before the Department that could lead them to suppose that any deterioration of sight had been observed among the children that attended the board schools. If the noble Lord would send them any information he possessed, it should be studied, and if he would supply a model seat and desk they should be exhibited at South Kensington; but, if mistakes had been committed in the schools already built and furnished, it was rather late to correct them, especially in the matter of lighting, which depended to a great extent upon the site chosen for a school. If the regulations of the Department in any way tended to promote the dreaded evil, the Department would gladly correct them, and generally call attention to the subject.
  LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDONsaid, he had not meant to give the impression that prevailed at present, but thought there was great danger that it would prevail if they stimulated educational efforts and compulsory education.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that the question had never been brought to the attention of the Educational Department; and, according to the admission of the noble Lord, it was rather what he anticipated or dreaded would ensue in consequence of the development of elementary education throughout the country. It would be much to be regretted if one of the results of the spread of education should be the prevalence of short-sight. He was unacquainted with the statistics quoted by the noble Lord, but should take care that if these statistics were sent to the Department, they should have its attention. With respect to the question of light, the board schools were provided as well as they could be under existing circumstances; but the noble Lord must remember that they were obliged to get sites to build schools where they could, in populous places, and this question of light was very often a matter of compromise. The Inspectors would take care that the board schools were not injurious to health in any respect, whether from bad drainage, ventilation, or want of light.

STATUTE LAW REVISION (NO. 2) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for further promoting the, revision of the Statute Law by repealing certain enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 147.)
House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, 'till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.