Lords Sitting of 23 June 1874

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Intoxicating Liquors * (130); Juries (Ireland) * (131); Municipal Privileges (Ireland) * (132); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act (1863) Amendment * (133).
Second Reading—Wild Birds Law Amendment (100); Herring Fishery Barrels * (104); Canadian Stock (Stamp Duty on Transfers) * (124).
Committee—Married Women's Property Act (1870) Amendment * (85); Board of Trade Arbitrations, Inquiries, &c. * (103).
Committee—Report—Holyhead Old Harbour Road * (83).
Third Reading—Harbour of Colombo (Loan) * (101); Tramways Provisional Orders Confirmation * (50); Powers Law Amendment * (89); County Courts * (129); Public Health (Scotland) Supplemental * (106); Land Tax Commissioners Names * (102); Bar Admission Stamp * (105); Churches and Chapels Exemption (Scotland) * (114), and passed.

WILD BIRDS LAW AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 100.)
(The Earl De La Warr.)
WILD BIRDS LAW AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 100.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  EARL DE LA WARR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the principal object of the Bill was to extend to the nests and eggs of wild birds the protection that was given to the birds themselves during the breeding sea-on by the 35 & 36 Vict. c. 78, the Wild Birds Protection Act. The Bill proposed to repeal that Act altogether, and to replace it by more extended provisions. It therefore enacted by the first clause that any person who should wilfully kill, wound, or take any wild bird, or should take any eggs from the nest of any wild bird, or destroy the nest or the eggs, or who should sell or offer for sale any wild bird recently killed, between the 15th March and the 1st August, might
  288
  be taken before a magistrate, and for the first offence be reprimanded, and discharged on payment of costs, and for every subsequent offence should be punished by a fine not exceeding 5s. and the costs. The clause permitted the owners and occupiers of land to destroy upon their own land at any time of the year all wild birds other than those mentioned in the Schedule to the Bill or in the Preservation of Sea Birds Act, the 32 & 33 Vict. The Schedule added to the Bill contained the names of some wild birds, the omission of which from the Schedule of the former Act had occasioned some comment.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl De La Warr.)
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLexpressed the obligations of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to the noble Earl who had brought forward this Bill. He trusted this Bill would prove but the commencement of legislation for the protection of all animals, whether wild or domestic, from cruelty and ill-treatment. He could not but think this was a matter in which we were behind some continental nations.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the Bill before their Lordships would require considerable modification.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that some years ago he had promoted the passing of a measure somewhat similar to that before their Lordships. In some of its details the present Bill would require modification, and he hoped that such Amendments as might be required would be introduced in Committee. In particular the list of wild birds mentioned in the Schedule would require careful revision—particularly in the way of addition.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYconcurred with the view of the noble Earl. The raison d'être of this Bill was simply the preservation of wild birds in the pairing and breeding season, and anything that went beyond that would be out of the reach of fair legislation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORhoped that their Lordships would hesitate a little before they introduced to familiar acquaintance with the criminal law of the country the juvenile population of the Kingdom—or make that which was a moral offence punishable by the

  289
  criminal law, but which it would be utterly impossible to convince any boy was a moral offence, and as such deserving of punishment. They should also determine the principle upon which they would legislate on such subjects. He thought that the principle upon which legislation should proceed in protecting certain birds was either that they were rare or that they increased the supply of human food, and that for these reasons it was wise to protect them from indiscriminate and wanton slaughter. He ventured to think, however, that the Schedule of this Bill included many kinds which could not be brought within that category. Further, the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol) supported the Bill on a principle entirely different from that on which the noble Earl who had moved the second reading had based it, for the right rev. Prelate supported it on the ground that it was a measure for putting down cruelty to animals. But if that were to be the principle upon which they were to legislate, upon what ground was it that the Bill contained a section enabling landowners and occupiers of land to do the very thing which it was proposed to make criminal if done by anybody else? Their Lordships must be careful not to get into absurdities of that kind.
  EARL DE LA WARRadmitted that the Schedule, for which he was not accountable, would require careful revision.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

PAUPER CHILDREN.

  MOTION FOR RETURN.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, that when he recently called the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the very great mortality of pauper children in the St. Pancras Union, he referred to the question of Union district schools. In moving for the Return of which he had given Notice, his object was to ask the attention of their Lordships to the comparative advantages of Union schools—especially district Union schools—and the system of boarding out pauper children. He was aware that information on this subject had at different times been laid on the Table of the House; more especially since the Order bearing on this question issued by Mr. Goschen,
  290
  when President of the Poor Law Board, in the year 1870. The object of that Order was to enable Boards of Guardians to place out orphans and deserted children beyond the limits of the Union. Previous to this, it had been competent for Board of Guardians to place out these children only within the limits of the Union. It should be observed that these regulations applied only to orphans and deserted children; but although it was computed that there were upwards of 20,000 pauper children of this class in England and Wales, it appeared that not more than 2,500 were boarded out. In 47 Unions in England and Wales, in the year 1873, where the system of boarding out children was adopted, the Guardians, with very few exceptions, expressed satisfaction at the results, and thence it might be inferred that it was from the want of encouragement and support that the practice was not more general. It would doubtless very materially assist if the views of the Local Government Board were better known, and if Boards of Guardians were put in possession of facts founded upon the experience which had been acquired. It had been found that the evils arising from the massing together of children, and especially of pauper children—not always the most healthy—were very great. He had an instance before him of a case which had occurred in the Kingston (Surrey) Union—he believed in the year 1872. The Board of Guardians sent some of the children to the district schools at Penge; but they reported that the result was most unsatisfactory. They did not find fault with the arrangements at Penge, but they gave as their opinion—he believed these were the words—that it was "the natural consequence of massing together so large a number of children of the pauper class;" and it was further stated that "many of the children who had been sent to the Penge district school healthy and strong returned in a deplorable state to their homes after a few weeks stay at the school, suffering from ophthalmia and cutaneous diseases." The Board of Guardians afterwards tried the boarding out system with success. It had also been recently stated, with reference to the large school at Anerley, that the Croydon Board of Guardians had had great difficulties to contend with in consequence

  291
  of persistent ophthalmia affecting the children. There were many other instances of the evils in a sanitary point of view of bringing together large numbers of children. He might here mention that this system of boarding out children received the sanction of the late President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Stansfeld) in 1873. That right hon. Gentleman said—
  "The reports which we have received on the children generally are favourable as to their health, appearance, and management, and exhibit a satisfactory result in this respect of the system of boarding out orphan and deserted pauper children under the immediate supervision of committees who voluntarily undertake the duty."
  Then, as regarded the moral aspect of the question, he should desire to say one word. It was, unhappily, a certain fact that a Union-house education exercised a very injurious influence upon the future moral and social character of the children. He had before him a reliable statement to the effect that in one instance out of 80 girls educated in a Union school, scarcely one escaped moral degradation in after life, and he feared it was not a solitary instance. It could not be doubted that these evils would be greatly-mitigated if orphan and deserted children were placed under the bettor influences of home and domestic life. Then, with reference to the question as affecting the ratepayers, it could not, he believed, be shown that the ratepayers derived any advantage from having large Union or district schools. The subject was recently discussed at the Lancashire Sessions at Preston, and it appeared that the cost of each child at the Swinton District School, near Manchester—stated to be one of the best of the class—was 6s. 4d. a week, and at the Leeds Schools 7s. 7d.; whereas in England the average on the boarding out system seemed to be about 5s., and in Scotland, where it was very general, it did not much exceed 3s. 6d. or 4s. Similar facts, he believed, had appeared in Returns made to the Local Government Board, showing that the average cost of a child in a district school was nearly 10 s. a week, and that on the boarding out system it did not exceed 5s. This system, which had prevailed in Scotland for many years, had been attended with great success. There it was not confined to orphans and deserted children only, and it was stated
  292
  that upwards of 7,000 were placed out to be boarded and taken care of. Mr. Henley, in a Report to the Poor Law Board in the year 1870, on this system as practised in Scotland, said—
  "Boarded out children certainly acquire a more robust constitution, and apparently greater mental activity, than children reared in an ordinary workhouse, and these two points strike at the very root of pauperism, as the majority who fall upon the rates do so from mental or physical weakness."
  He ventured to think that the facts to which he had thus briefly referred, which were only a few out of many, would recommend the system to more general adoption if the advantages in a physical, moral, and economical point of view were better known, and if it was more fully sanctioned by the Local Government Board.
  Moved, That there be laid before the House—
  Return of the number of orphan and deserted pauper children boarded-out on 1st of July 1874 in different Unions in England and Wales, distinguishing those boarded-out under the regulations of the Local Government Board from those placed out within the Union but not under those regulations; also the number on the same day of pauper children in each of the district schools at Anerley and Hanwell, showing in both cases the average cost per week of each child to the ratepayers; and also a statement showing the average cost per week of a pauper maintained in a workhouse in the Metropolis and also in the other Unions in England and Wales.—(The Earl De La Warr.)
  LORD WALSINGHAMsaid, there was no objection to the production of the Return moved for his noble Friend. He thought, however, that his noble Friend was mistaken as to the scope of the last of the Acts relating to the boarding out of children. Under the provisions of that Act all children charged on the rates, except the children of able-bodied paupers, might be boarded out. His noble Friend recommended the boarding-out system as being economical as well as possessing the other advantages which he had described it as possessing. The Guardians throughout the country were not in general slow to avail themselves of what would effect a saving, and he did not think it likely that they would have overlooked that consideration in this case.
  Motion agreed to.

LICENSING ACT, 1872.

  ADDRESS FOR RETURNS.
  LORD ABERDAREmoved an Address for Returns relating to the working of the Licensing Act of 1872. The noble Lord said that his object in moving for these Returns was not to make a speech, but that their Lordships should be fully informed as to the working of the Licensing Act of 1872 before they were called upon to consider the Intoxicating Liquors Bill now about to be brought up from the other House. The first three documents were at the Home Office at the time of the late Government, and he thought they ought to have them as well as those more recently received at the Home Office on the same subject; so that they might be in a position fully to judge of the working of the Act of 1872, and the effect it had had in securing public order.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for—
  Return of reports to the Home Secretary by the mayor of Manchester, the stipendiary magistrate of Hull, and the chief constable of Blackburn on the working of the Licensing Act of 1872; and of such other reports by local authorities, stipendiary magistrates, or chief constables on the same subject, not being of a private character, made to the Home Office during the years 1873 and 1874.—(The Lord Aberdare.)
  THE DUKES OF RICHMONDsaid, he was as anxious as the noble Lord that the fullest information should be before the House on this subject. He would take care that every document that could assist their deliberations should be on the Table of the House. There could be no possible objection to giving the Returns asked for.
  Motion agreed to.

INDIA COUNCILS BILL.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY—who had given Notice to call attention to some statements published under the name of Lord Sandhurst, with respect to the conduct of Business in this House—said: My Lords, on Saturday morning I noticed in the newspapers a letter under the signature of Lord Sandhurst, which began in the following words:—
  "The India Councils Bill has passed through the House of Lords in an unusual manner, which has precluded a sufficient discussion of
  294
  really very important matter. I have, in consequence, through no fault of my own, been unable to state my objections to the Bill as it now stands—objections which, I venture to think, carry some weight with them, and may be worthy the attention of the House of Commons when the Bill is read there a second time."
  My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord is necessarily absent on this occasion—that imposes some restraint on me, but I cannot help expressing my regret that the noble Lord, whose oratory we always listen to with such pleasure and attention, should have thought it right to sit silent through all the proceedings on this Bill, and should then fire off his eloquence for the House of Commons. It is very hard that we should be deprived of the eloquence of such a distinguished ornament of your Lordships' House; but I think we have still more cause to regret this if, when he thinks he has reason to complain of the manner in which Business is transacted in this House, he should communicate his dissatisfaction to the newspapers. In my opinion the proper place to object to the way in which Business is transacted here is, for a Peer, the floor of this House. Here such objections can be stated; here they may be answered and any misapprehensions cleared up. I will venture to trouble your Lordships with a few words on this matter—not because I think you would imagine that I had taken any improper advantage, but because these matters excite great interest and attention in India, and I am afraid that if I did not answer the statements of the noble Lord it might be supposed that they were admitted. My Lords, there was nothing unusual in the way in which this Bill passed through the House. I suppose, from his saying that he was unable to express an opinion, the noble and gallant Lord imagines that it was carried through with unusual speed. Lord Sandhurst has not been long in this House; he never was in the other House of Parliament; and the distinguished command he holds has prevented him from giving close attention to our proceedings:—otherwise he would have found that for an India Bill this measure remained remarkably long before your Lordships' House, and received a great deal of attention. I have taken the trouble to look at the time which other India Bills have been before your Lordships. Since the Mutiny Bill there have been three such Bills.

  295
  First, the Government of India Bill, which transferred the Government of India from the Board of Directors of the East India Company to the Crown. That Bill was one fortnight before the House. Next, there was the India Councils Bill, which established the present Legislative Council under which all Acts concerning India become law. That was before your Lordships 21 days. Lastly, there was the Government of India Bill Amendment Bill of 1870, which made some very important alterations in the mode of legislation, and which contains the clause by which the Natives of India are admitted, under certain conditions, to the covenanted service of that country. That Bill was before you 14 days. This unfortunate little Bill, which, although associated with considerable questions of policy is of itself a minute legislative change, was before the House 24 days; and therefore, according to all the precedents it was not conducted through the House with unusual speed. Then, as to the question of discussion, it is no easy matter to get an India Bill discussed in a full House. If you put it down first on the Notice Paper nobody comes down; if you put it last everybody goes away. I put this Bill in a place which I thought gave it the greatest possible chance of being discussed—between two ecclesiastical Bills. The evening began with the Church Patronage (Scotland) Bill, and ended with the Bishops Public Worship Regulation Bill. I trusted to the first to bring down a House, and to the last to keep it here. I venture to ask whether any ingenuity could have devised a more fortunate position for securing in favour of an India Bill the full attention of your Lordships? I have no reason to complain personally of Lord Sandhurst's letter, inasmuch as he gives his assent to the main provisions of the Bill; but then he writes to the papers to discuss and condemn a clause which he seems to think is contained in the Bill. The fact is that on Tuesday the Bill was read a third time and passed, and the clause to which he objects was struck out before it passed. But on Saturday the noble Lord wrote to the newspapers giving an elaborate condemnation of the clause that had already been executed. That shows the inconvenience of extra-Parliamentary discussions of these matters instead of
  296
  on the floor of the House. There was a good deal to be said in favour of the noble Lord's views as to that clause. It was criticized here by other noble Lords—especially by Lord Napier—and in consequence of the objections taken to it, but without any pressure, I withdrew it. Lord Sandhurst would have been fully justified in discussing it, but he should have discussed it in this House. I have only troubled your Lordships on this subject, because Lord Sandhurst's misapprehensions printed in The Times might affect some persons in India, although not your Lordships; and also because I wish to protest against so distinguished a Peer reserving for the House of Commons speeches which are due to us.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I think the noble Marquess is quite right in drawing attention to this matter, so as to prevent any misapprehension on this subject in India; I am, however, afraid that certain of his remarks may unintentionally convey the impression that your Lordships were inattentive to measures affecting India. I therefore wish to remind him that of the measures to which he referred two came up to this House from the other House of Parliament, where they had engaged the attention of that House and the public, and although the various stages were taken at short intervals, they were very amply debated.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.