Lords Sitting of 10 August 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—County Officers and Courts (Ireland) (Pensions) * (244).
Report—Labourers (Ireland) (No. 2) * (241–245).
Third Reading—River Thames (No. 2) (238); Metropolitan Police Staff Superannuation * (222); Public Works Loans * 234); Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) *; East India Army Pensions Deficiency* (239), and passed.
Withdrawn—Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) * (190).

RIVER THAMES (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 238.)
(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
RIVER THAMES (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 238.)

  THIRD READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Adjourned debate on the Motion for the third reading resumed (according to Order).
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, after line 18, at end, to add—"Provided that nothing in this Act, or in any bye-law made there under, shall be construed to deprive any riparian owner of any legal rights in the soil or bed of the river which he may now possess, or of any legal remedies he may now possess, for prevention of anchoring, mooring, loitering, or delay of any boat or other vessel."—(The Earl of Abingdon.)
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEexpressed his acceptance of the Amendment.
  Bill read 3a.
  On Motion, "That the Bill do pass?"
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that rowing men objected to the Bill on the ground that it would give a statutory sanction to obstructions which ought not to be legalized. Those who desired to set up these obstructions ought to take their chance at Common Law.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEsaid, he felt confident that when the Act should come into operation obstructions would diminish instead of increasing.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ARMY—FIELD ARTILLERY AND SMALL ARMS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSasked the Under Secretary of State for War the
  1526
  following Questions:—Whether the muzzle velocity of the 40-pounder gun is 1,108 feet per second, equal to an extreme useful range of 4,000 yards; whether at the time when these guns were made, about 25 years ago, the muzzle velocity of the 12-pounder field piece was 1,170 feet per second, with an extreme useful range of about 3,000 yards; and, whether the muzzle velocity of the 9-pounder field piece was 1,057, equal to an extreme useful range of about 2,500 yards; whether the extreme useful range of the best German, French, and Russian field pieces is not now about 5,000 yards; whether the range of the new British field pieces is not also about 5,000 yards; whether it is not the fact that in the late Afghan War the 40-pounder gun proved of little service for battering purposes owing to its slow velocity; whether, seeing that the range of the 40-pounder gun is inferior to that of the new Foreign and British field pieces, he will consider the practicability of increasing its power and range; whether any steps are being taken to give an improved bayonet, and to attach a repeating arrangement to the Martini-Henry rifle? The noble Earl said that the advance in scientific artillery had been such that the 12-pounder and 16-pounder were now more efficient field guns than the weightier 40-pounder. He thought that if the suggestions contained in the Questions were right, it was time to bring home the responsibility for our armaments to the proper quarter, and rouse those entrusted with these matters to a proper sense of their duty. If it could be possible to restore to the 40-pounder, by some change in its construction, greater relative power as compared with the lighter pieces, the safety of our shores would pro tanto be increased. With reference to his Question about bayonets, he wished to explain that, in order to compensate for the shortness of the Martini-Henry, the regulation weapon was now three inches longer than, it was formerly. On several occasions in the Soudan, notably in the attack on General M'Neill's zereba, the bayonets bent and twisted. A Question had been asked in "another place" on the subject, and a very strange answer was given—namely, that the bayonet when used for stabbing must either twist or break. That was a very sad state of

  1527
  things, for bayonets were made for the purpose of stabbing men in warfare. Why have such a bayonet? He would remind their Lordships that some years ago a Committee recommended a sword bayonet of a totally different form, which was an admirable cutting weapon, and one which also made a first-rate bayonet for stabbing purposes. There was also the American trowel bayonet, which might be tried. With reference to the desirability of attaching a repeating arrangement to the Martini-Henry rifle, it was sufficient to say that one of the chief improvements in the art of martial destruction was the invention of the repeating arm, which contained in the stock or elsewhere a certain number of cartridges. The Swiss weapon, he believed, contained 11 cartridges. When the whole magazine was expended, it then became a simple breech-loading rifle. If money was to be spent in providing superior firearms for our Army, it would be bettor to do so in attaching this arrangement to the existing arms than in the construction of any new arm.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of DUNRAVEN)(who replied) said, he regretted that the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for War (Viscount Bury), who, unavoidably, from a domestic cause, the death of a near relative, was not in his place, not only on account of the cause, but because he would have given the noble Earl information which it was not in his (the Earl of Dunraven's) own power to give. He would, however, give the noble Earl the best answer he could; but it was not in his power to go into very full details. The noble Earl seemed to attribute most importance to his seventh Question, as to attaching a repeating arrangement to the Martini-Henry rifle. He saw the force of the noble Earl's observations; but, up to the present, all the repeating arrangements were liable to the defect of getting more quickly out of order than other arms. But the whole matter, both as to adopting a repeating arrangement to the small arms as well as that of the best form of bayonet, had at present been referred to the Small Arms Committee, and was occupying their attention at present. As to the first Question, the noble Earl was substantially correct. The muzzle velo-
  1528
  city of the 40-pounder was 1.180 feet per second, and its range at 10 degrees elevation was 3,650 yards. As to the second Question, the muzzle velocity of the 12-pounder rifled breech-loading field-piece was 1,239 feet per second, and its range at 10 degrees elevation was 3,350 yards. The muzzle velocity of the 9-pounder rifled breech-loading field-piece was 1,055 feet per second, and its range at 10 degrees elevation was 3,100 yards. As to the third Question, the ranges of the present foreign field-guns at 10 degrees varied somewhat; but they averaged a little over 4,000 yards. As to the fourth Question, the range of the new 12-pounder at 10 degrees was about 4,380 yards; 9-pounder, 3,250; 13-pounder, 4,280; and 16-pounder, about 3,650. Fifthly, he thought the noble Earl was mistaken in what he had said upon this point; for the 40-pounder used in the late Afghan War was the muzzle-loading gun, and the Report stated that so far as it was tried, its power and accuracy were satisfactory. Sixthly, the modern guns, no doubt, showed a great improvement on those of 25 years ago; but, at the same time, the 40-pounder rifled breech-loading gun introduced in 1859, so far from being obsolete, was still a very useful and accurate weapon. Since that date far more powerful guns had been brought into the Service, and it was considered more satisfactory to use such guns where necessary than to increase the power of the old guns, which could only be done at a comparatively large cost.

THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS,
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in rising to call attention to the systematic misdescription of this Kingdom in State Papers, especially those relating to foreign affairs, in which it is given the name of Great Britain instead of its proper title the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; and to ask the Prime Minister, Whether he will give instructions to have this error corrected in the future, as it is one which is calculated to lead to misconception and wound the just susceptibilities of the people of Ireland? said, that nothing had tended more to make the Irish peo-

  1529
  ple discontented with their lot, and Great Britain odious in their eyes, than the thought that they were not like England and Scotland, a self-ruling Power, but were ruled by a foreign and malignant Power, as they called England. Nothing could be more absurd than such a notion; but it was entertained by the majority of those in Ireland who had lately been admitted to the franchise. They were perfectly convinced that, were it not for the malign influence of England, they would be what they were firmly persuaded they were once—a great, powerful, and contented people. Of course, their Lordships all knew that that was very far from being correct. So far from being governed by England, the Irish people had absolutely the same rights and privileges as their fellow-subjects of the United Kingdom. They were fully represented in the Imperial Parliament, for they sent a somewhat larger number of Representatives to the other Chamber than they were strictly entitled to. But, as long as they entertained their present belief, it was impossible for them to be content with the Union or loyally to cooperate with their fellow-subjects in the other Island, and nothing was more calculated to foster this delusion than the constant practice of ignoring Ireland when describing this Kingdom and its Possessions. Great Britain was only a part of the United Kingdom, a larger part than Ireland certainly, but still only a part; and if a part were put for the whole, the correspondence he held in his hand might just as rightly have been intituled "Correspondence with Ireland" as with "Great Britain." For himself, he could not imagine what difficulty there could be in using the correct appellation "the United Kingdom." "Great Britain" was a false description, and for that reason alone the Government ought to set the matter right, because it tended to make foreigners think that Ireland was a kind of English Poland, instead of its being, as it really was, on a footing of perfect equality with England, and invested with many privileges which England did not possess. If only the people of Ireland could understand their true position in this great Empire, which the genius of Irish statesmen and the valour of Irish soldiers had so much aided in creating, Ireland would become in
  1530
  heart, as it had long been in right, an integral portion of the United Kingdom.
  After some remarks from Lord WAVENEY,
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This is a very difficult Question to answer, because I do not entertain the views which my noble Friend (the Earl of Milltown) has expressed with regard to the facility with which an alteration in the vocabulary respecting this title could be carried out. On the contrary, I see very great difficulties in it. "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" is not a term which lends itself to literary manipulation. For example, if we wanted to convert it into an adjective, would the adjective be constructed by the termination "ish;" and, if so, where would the "ish" come in? Should we have to say "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Irelandish?"
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he did not ask for an adjectivial alteration; it was the alteration of the substantive which he wished to bring about.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But in constructing sentences you will always find one expression for the adjective, and another wholly different for the substantive; and in this case, of course, it would be difficult to have one expression for the adjective and another for the substantive. That, however, is not a new difficulty. We had it many years ago with respect to Scotland, when we were forbidden to use the word "England" only, because that was a reflection on that great country; but the Scotch, I believe, have been set at ease by the consideration that it is they who annexed England, and not England who annexed Scotland, and that they have acquired the right to use the word "England," and make it their property. But whether Ireland has annexed England or not as yet I do not know at present, and will not say; but I believe that that annexation has not yet taken place, and, therefore, there is some difficulty in consenting to the alteration proposed by my noble Friend, to whom I would point out that if we yielded to his demand and made the change he suggests we should be opening the sluices—letting in the thin end of the wedge—to a great variety of similar things. By agreeing to it we should only expose ourselves to

  1531
  still larger demands from more powerful populations—demands which it will be even still more difficult to resist. After all, India, the Colonies, Australia, and Canada are all bound up by every Act of this "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland;" and if we wish to be accurate we ought to include every one of those places in every inscription of that compound adjective. On the whole, I think my noble Friend ought to have addressed his Question to the head of the Education Office, for I am wholly incompetent to deal with the difficulties it raises. If that Department will furnish me with the necessary substantives and adjectives in the English language which are suitable for the expression of my noble Friend's ideas it will give me great pleasure to consider them. I will only say that if anything would reconcile us to the literary difficulties which he threatens to introduce and impose upon us in the art of writing despatches it would be the prospect he holds out that we should, by making the change, avoid injuring the just susceptibilities of the people of Ireland. There would also be the hope that anything we can do in the matter would lessen the difficulties of government in Ireland, as to which there is no object which the Government have more at heart; and if my noble Friend will aid us with his linguistic and grammatical acquirements' in that great enterprize he will deserve the thanks of us all.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that "Great Britain" was wrong, and "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" was right, according to the Act of Union. That was the form he desired should be used, instead of the former.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE DEPRESSION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY— CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMISSION. —OBSERVATIONS.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (The Earl of IDDESLEIGH), in rising, according to Notice, to make a statement with regard to the proposed Royal Commission for inquiring into the extent, nature, and probable causes of the depression now or recently existing in various branches of trade and industry, said: Your Lordships are aware that it is the intention of the Govern-
1532
ment to issue a Royal Commission for the purpose of inquiring into the extent, the nature, and the probable causes of the depression now existing, or which has recently existed, in. various branches of trade and industry. Although no Questions have been put in your Lordships' House on the subject, still, no doubt, it is right that before the close of the Session the Government should state what is their intention in issuing this Commission, and what progress has been made in bringing it into existence. I notice that several Questions have been put in the House of Commons; but it has not yet been found thoroughly possible to give a full answer to them. I would now say, in the first place, that your Lordships are well aware that for several years—for the last 12 years, we may put it—there have been from time to time very heavy and serious complaints made from different parts of the country of the depression of trade; and not only have these complaints been made in different parts of the country, but the feeling has found expression in various ways in an authoritative form. More than once, Chancellors of the Exchequer, in bringing forward their Budgets, have referred, especially within the last two or three years, to the continued depression which has such a detrimental effect upon the Revenue of the country; and Motions have been made upon the subject in the House of Commons. Under the circumstances, it seemed to the Government to be a right and proper and desirable thing that an inquiry should take place to get as far as possible at the real facts of the case, and to ascertain what this depression is, and how it is working, and what is the probable outcome of the present state of things, if nothing is done. It may also be desirable that the various suggestions that have been made for meeting and remedying the depression should be examined somewhat critically; and for that purpose the Government thought it would be desirable to appoint a Commission of rather an extended character. It is not so much a Commission for the purpose of deciding or settling upon a policy, as a Commission for the purpose of ascertaining the facts, and collating and criticizing and examining them. The decision as to what policy should be pursued is a matter for the Government

1533
of the day and for Parliament. What is now principally desired is to obtain information which may guide any Government which may be in power in the formation of a policy. Of course, for that purpose it is important that we should get the assistance of men of the most different positions and different views and opinions in the country who might in any way assist us in obtaining correct and proper information. The first object we have in view, therefore, is to discover a sufficient number of men who would be willing and able to give us assistance in that direction. I may mention that before this Commission was decided upon a very powerful and interesting speech was delivered by a man of high position—I mean Mr. Goschen—at Manchester. Mr. Goschen entered largely into the question and the condition of trade; and it did appear to me, when I undertook, at the request of my Colleagues, to take the Chair on this inquiry, that it would be very much to our advantage if we could get Mr. Goschen's assistance on the Commission. I, therefore, addressed him, before anybody else, for the purpose of consulting him upon the subject. Mr. Goschen, however, on considering the matter for a short time, replied that, for various reasons with which he need not trouble me, he could not undertake the duties of a Commissioner. That sort of answer did not encourage me to proceed much further. I proceeded, however, to draw up the best list I could of Gentlemen to be asked to serve on the Commission, and when I had drawn it up I put myself into communication with some Members of the late Government, who had taken an interest in questions of this character, and who would, I thought, be willing and able to give assistance. I was particularly anxious to get the assistance of Mr. Shaw Lefevre and Mr. J. K. Cross, the late Under Secretary of State for India. I had several communications with Mr. Shaw Lefevre and Mr. J. K. Cross; but, unfortunately, I was unable to persuade these Gentlemen to join the Commission. Mr. J. K. Cross, I am sorry to say, besides other things, was prevented by the state of his health from undertaking the task; and I was unable to persuade Mr. Shaw Lefevre that it would be safe and proper for him and some of his Friends to join
1534
in the inquiry. Mr. Shaw Lefevre did not like some of the names proposed; he did not like the appearance of the Commission; and he declined, and other Members of the late Government also declined, to join in the undertaking. I very much regret that this is the case; because, whether it is on account of the action of the Members of Her Majesty's late Government, or for any other reason, I have certainly failed to obtain the co-operation of a good many Gentlemen whom I was earnestly desirous to enlist in this cause, and who I think would have rendered good service. I do not know that I should do any harm in mentioning the names of those to whom I have applied, but who are unable to attend. They are—Sir Hussey Vivian, M.P., who on account of other engagements was unable to serve; Mr. Slagg, the Member for Manchester; Mr. Hibbert, M.P.; Mr. Goschen, M.P.; Mr. W. E. Forster, M.P.; Mr. Shaw Lefevre, M.P.; Mr. J. K. Cross, M.P.; Mr. Courtney, M.P.; and Mr. Norwood. M.P. All those Gentlemen, many of whom would be of very great advantage to us in conducting this inquiry, declined to serve on the Commission, and I am extremely sorry that it is so. However, we have gone on as well as we could in the difficult circumstances in which we were placed; and I have now, I will not say absolutely completed the list, because there are still one or two from whom I have not yet received answers, and it is not quite fair to judge of the Commission unless you give their names as a whole. Still, I think I should be doing right if I were to give the names of those who have accepted. My noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Dunraven) has undertaken to serve with us on the Commission. I will take the others alphabetically, though they will come in rather a miscellaneous order. First, there is Mr. Aird, who is a partner in the firm of Messrs. Lucas and Aird, who are large employers of labour, and will have the means of obtaining a great deal of information. Then comes Sir James Allport, the late general manager of the Midland Railway, whose position naturally gives him great opportunity of affording us information, and telling us where we can find the right persons to examine out of the Midland district. Then there are Mr. Lionel Cohen, who

1535
is a Gentleman of large financial knowledge; Mr. Corry, M.P., a shipowner of Belfast; Mr. Jackson, the Member for Leeds; Mr. David Dale, of Darlington, who was strongly recommended on account of his connection, with the iron trade; Mr. Ecroyd, M.P. for Preston; Mr. W. Fowler, the Member for Cambridge, who has had large banking experience; Mr. Henry H. Gibbs, whom we invited on account of his financial knowledge, and on account of his services being especially valuable in connection with the possibility of the monetary question being one of those to be inquired into. We have, also, Mr. Houldsworth, the Member for Manchester (I should have taken the Liberal Member, Mr. Slagg, but find him unable to accept); Mr. Jamieson, the President of the Scotch Society of Accountants, a man who knows as much of Scotland as any man, and who rendered great services in the winding-up of the City of Glasgow Bank, has accepted the invitation; Mr. Neville Lubbock, who is connected with the sugar trade, and a brother, I believe, of Sir John Lubbock; Sir Louis Mallet—I think I may mention him as being likely to join, although he has not definitely accepted; Mr. Muntz, the Member for North Warwickshire; Mr. Arthur O'Connor, a Gentleman of great ability, as those who have seen him in the House of Commons are well aware; Mr. Pearce, of Messrs. Elder and Co., the Glasgow shipbuilders; Mr. Inglis Palgrave, who is, or was till lately, editor of The Economist, and has paid much attention to financial questions; Mr. C. M. Palmer, the Member for North Durham, who is a large shipowner; Professor Bonamy Price, and Mr. Storey, the Member for Sunderland. Those are the Gentlemen who have consented to serve on the Commission, and I will also endeavour to get one or two working men to join the Commission. Mr. Birtwhistle, Secretary to the Weavers' Association, will, I believe, serve, and I am endeavouring to get another. That is the position in which the Commission stands, and I have invited the Gentlemen I have named to meet me at a preliminary meeting in the course of this week in order to consider how we are going to work. I propose to lay before them a Paper which I am about to lay on the Table—it is a Memorandum upon the course of
1536
the inquiry, the objects we have in view, and the manner in which that inquiry can best be carried out. It will depend upon these Gentlemen how far it may be desirable to accept, and how far to modify, that programme. I believe, on the whole, it will be found most convenient to put out a well-selected body of questions, to have them distributed as widely as possible, and then, having received replies to those questions, and taken official evidence, we shall be much guided as to the nature of the rest of our inquiry. It seems to me there are large and important questions upon which we may easily do good work. Among others, it will be found that our information with regard to the home trade of the country is very imperfect, though our information with regard to foreign trade is tolerably good. I believe we shall be able to obtain considerable improvement as to the mode of collecting information about our home trade by the labours of the Commission. I hope the Commission will work in the spirit in which it is appointed. It is not appointed in any Party spirit to support any foregone conclusion. It is appointed for the purpose of investigating a state of things materially affecting the people of the country, which has now continued long enough to make it really a matter of importance that we should inquire how far it is possible to guide the course of events, and prevent disasters with which we are threatened. I believe we are taking the wisest course in entering boldly upon a formal, but a large and comprehensive inquiry. There is a sort of disposition in some quarters to cry out that we are interfering with the doctrines of Free Trade. What the doctrines of Free Trade or the nature of the inquiry may be—these are questions which I do not think it necessary to go into now. If those doctrines are as sound as I believe they are they will be supported, and will come well out of any inquiry which may take place, and be strengthened by it. But I do not think you will improve the position which Free Traders seem to desire to take up by declining to go into an inquiry lest it should disclose some inconvenient results. They cry "Great is Diana of the Ephesians," as if that were all that could be said, and as if we were to abstain from altering or interfering with the established state of things. I

1537
hope and trust that what I have said may be understood as intended to represent the spirit in which we shall proceed; and although we have not met with that support from our Predecessors which I think we might reasonably have expected, yet I hope we shall receive the assistance of all classes in this great national undertaking.
EARL GBANVILLE: My Lords, believing that it is not desirable to appoint this Commission, and that it will lead to no actual or practical results, I entertain the same objections to its appointment which I expressed when the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dun-raven), who was then sitting on the Cross Benches, brought forward the subject at considerable length at an earlier period of the Session. At that time I offered what I thought was a complete and conclusive argument against the appointment of the Commission; for all that part of my speech was almost a verbatim repetition of what the late Earl of Beaconsfield said when an exactly similar Motion was raised some years ago. That noble Earl then denounced the idea of such a Commission, on the ground that it had no specific object, and that its labours were not likely to lead to any practical result. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Iddesleigh) has certainly not given us any definite object; on the contrary, he deprecates its having any pre-arranged objects, and says that it is merely for the purpose of collecting information. I cannot, however, quite forget the line taken up by the noble Earl opposite the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Dunraven). A personal and political Friend of mine said that the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) would never consent to tax foreign manufactures. I am not quite so sure about that. As I understand the distinction, the noble Marquess would desire to tax foreign manufacturers, in order to use it as a weapon to obtain Free Trade from other countries. In that he differs from the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, whose view was that we should have a new commercial system by which the Revenue should gain by the taxation of foreign manufactures. Of the two I rather prefer the view of the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State, because, after all, that is a new fiscal arrangement, which
1538
has some element of certainty about it; whereas the noble Marquess's plan has this great disadvantage, that it introduces uncertainty by its very character. It would create a new vested interest in this country, protected by the temporary means it proposes, which would have to be compensated when those means were withdrawn. With regard to the practical character of the Commission, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Iddesleigh) has mentioned a vast number of important subjects into which the Commissioners are to inquire, and I can conceive that such an Inquiry will last one or, more probably, two years. But, on the other hand, I have read in The Standard of this day a letter which purports to be an answer by the noble Marquess to a congratulatory Resolution from the Conservative Working Men's Association of Kirkdale. In the letter the Association is informed that Lord Salisbury trusts that when the General Election is over, it may be found that the efforts of the Conservative Government to restore peace to their country and a more healthy and prosperous condition to its trade may not have proved unsuccessful. I will not go into the question of restoring peace; but with regard to the question of restoring a more healthy and prosperous condition of trade, if the noble Marquess has got in his pocket the secret for bringing about that beneficent result in three or four months, what on earth is the use of proposing a Commission of Inquiry whose labours may probably last a year or two? No doubt, we must allow for a certain amount of laxity and latitude before an Election in the assurances given to constituencies; but if the noble Marquess can assure the working men of Kirkdale of the restoration of a more healthy and prosperous condition of trade, the position of the Government really appears to require some explanation. With regard to the composition of the Commission, the noble Earl opposite spoke with the utmost courtesy of those Gentlemen—some of them of great eminence—to whom application had been made to servo, but who had declined to do so; but yet the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at Bath, on Saturday, made something like a direct attack upon Gentlemen who had declined to serve on the Commission,

1539
and whom he accused of something like want of patriotic conduct, and of refusing to join because they did not believe that they could maintain those economical doctrines which they had supported all their lives. For my own part, I have no business to represent Mr. Goschen; but do your Lordships—does the noble Earl opposite—really believe that Mr. Goschen is a man who in any way shirks a public duty which he thinks he can efficiently carry out, or that he is a man who, at this moment, is likely to feel utterly unable to defend those economical principles of which he is one of the strongest supporters? As to Mr. Shaw Lefevre and Mr. J. K. Cross, can either the noble Earl opposite or any of your Lordships so think of either of those Gentlemen? I have had some communications with them on this subject, and so far from their having absolutely decided not to serve on the Commission, they were very ready to consider the question whether they should do so if they were asked; but they naturally wished to know what was to be the scope of the Commission, and, what they thought to be equally important, what was to be its constitution; and I think it is a source of some anxiety to them that they find it impossible to serve. I am talking rather offhand now; but I think these Gentlemen found that the list of names which the noble Earl submitted to them included seven or eight Gentlemen professedly Fair Traders, or, as I prefer to call them, Protectionists; that the large majority of them were Conservatives; and that the rest were composed of local Gentlemen representing trade and manufacture. I am not at all surprised that they did not think that was a right Commission, or one that would commend itself to the respect and confidence of the whole country; and I think they were equally right in thinking that the burden should not be thrown upon them of defending, whether they are right or wrong, the received and acknowledged doctrines which underlie our fiscal arrangements. I think they were right in the course they took; but, if it was not so, I should like to ask the noble Earl opposite to state how many Members of the present Government were asked to serve on another Royal Commission, with a very definite object, in reference to merchant shipping and
1540
shipbuilding, and how many accepted or declined the invitation? I must repeat that I am only concerned to show that no blame whatever attaches to those Gentlemen who, after a due and confidential consideration, determined that it was no part of their public duty to go into a Commission which they very much feared would not be satisfactory, and which would not command the confidence which it was so desirable such a Commission should enjoy.
THE MARQUESS or SALISBUBY: My Lords, the speech of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) would almost convey the idea that the question before the House was rather what my opinions were, than whether the appointments upon the Royal Commission were good. I am always much interested in and even complimented by any remarks of the noble Earl upon my opinions, although he may take objection to them; but I am bound to say I do not see what they have to do with the Royal Commission in question. I am not a Member of it, and I shall not have the slightest influence in guiding this Inquiry to its results. The noble Earl referred to something I said in a past debate. Now, it is a matter of perfect indifference to the objects of the Commission what opinions I may have expressed in some past debate. I may have expressed such an opinion as that to which the noble Earl has referred in some past debate. I do not remember it; but I gather from him that my offence in that debate was, that I recommended some measures which would have had the effect of causing a temporary increase in portions of the tariff, and, therefore, of creating a number of vested interests, and when that increase of the tariff was abandoned, those vested interests would, in some way or other, have claimed compensation. If the noble Earl is prepared to lay down, as a principle, that an increase of the tariff is always to be condemned, unless the Minister who recommends it will guarantee its permanence, I must leave him to settle his dispute with all the Ministers of Finance who have existed in this country during the present century. They have often made an increase of the tariff for a particular purpose, and with a definite, but limited, object, without any intention that the increase should be per-

1541
manent. I have never before heard that such a course was condemned on account of the vested interests which might possibly arise during the temporary existence of the tariff, which it was intended ultimately to reduce. There is another quotation which the noble Earl gave, I think rather laxly, from some letter which I was supposed to have written.
EARL GRANVILLE: I have the words written here.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not remember the words. No doubt, what I was referring to, when I expressed a hope that the influence of the present Government might be beneficial to the recovery of trade, was the hope that the principles upon which we shall advise Her Majesty to carry on the Government would have the effect of giving that confidence abroad and at home which is the very life of prosperity and industry in this country; and, we believe, through that means, and not through any special legislative measure, very definite and real benefit may be conferred, by a new system of policy, upon the trade and industry of the country. That was the idea which I probably had in my head when I was writing the words to which the noble Earl refers. But it is really fatuous to occupy time in considering what influence my individual opinions may have upon this important Commission. I will only say a word as to what is really the main question raised before your Lordships, which is, whether we are to think that these Liberal authorities, who have come to a kind of agreement to "Boycott" this Royal Commission, have fulfilled their duty as statesmen in so doing. Of course, we could not take any one man and say it is his duty to serve upon a Commission, for he may have other engagements; but when we find a considerable number of distinguished men of the same political colour refusing to serve, and when we know, what is a matter of public notoriety, that the word was passed along not to go on the Royal Commission, I think we have a right to inquire whether such an attitude towards the inquiry is justified by principles which generally actuate English statesmen; whether it would not have been, perhaps, more patriotic if they had put into their pockets all consideration of the fact that this Commission
1542
had been set on foot by their adversaries, or contained people with whom they might not agree; and whether it would not have been better to have addressed themselves in concert with other men, not only politicians, but men of business, merchants, and manufacturers, and men of great authority, to find out whether all the sufferings our people have been going through are really unavoidable, or whether there is not in it some cause which we may discover and lay before Parliament, and for which Parliament may find a remedy. It seems to me that this is so great an object that, considering the suffering that has been undergone, and is so general, considering that the interests of this country which are jeopardized are so serious and enormous, all those petty considerations of what Party has set the Commission on foot, or as to what partizans were upon it, should have been rejected by men of the character and position alluded to by the noble Earl. T was surprised to hear the noble Earl give, as a reason for their refusal, that they found the composition of it was such that they could not serve on it with advantage. If I understood my noble Friend (the Earl of Iddesleigh) aright, I believe it is the fact that these statesmen were asked in the first instance, so that it was impossible for them to say what the composition of the Commission would be, and to give that as a reason. If, in consequence of their refusal to serve, there was a very small admixture of the Liberal element on the Commission, I cannot think that that is an argument to justify their own abstention. Is their own abstention a justification of their own abstention? The Commission does not contain a large Liberal element, because they insisted upon staying away. Then they point to the Commission, and say there are no Liberal statesmen there. I am surprised the noble Earl should adopt such an argument. The Commission contains many representative men of all descriptions, and it is a matter of regret that it does not contain Liberal statesmen to any extent. The noble Earl has stated, as some sort of reproach, that the Commission contains men connected with business in various localities. I should have thought they were the men most wanted on a Commission of this

1543
sort to investigate trade questions, and to tell us where the evil is. My Lords, I believe that the Commission is very fairly constituted. There are on it, no doubt, a certain number—a small number—of those who are connected with the opinions described as those of "Fair Trade;" there are on it some stout champions of the orthodox doctrine of Free Trade; and there are on it a considerable number of Gentlemen with regard to whom you cannot say beforehand that they have any strong or preconceived opinions, but who will give their judgment and verdict according to the facts which are brought before them. There are some of the most eminent mercantile and industrial men in the country on the Commission, and I believe that their names will attract the confidence of their countrymen, who desire that the Commission should consist, not of illustrious statesmen, but of men who are competent to examine into the matter which is referred to them, and who will give a true, a fair, and an impartial verdict, untrammelled by any preconceived opinion, on the facts laid before them; and that I believe they will do.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in explanation, I would say that the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) has defended the one-sided-ness of the Commission on the ground, among others, that Mr. Shaw Lefevre and Mr. J. K. Cross, when asked to serve upon it, refused to do so before they knew who their Colleagues would be. At that time, however, they had not refused; but they naturally wished to know what the constitution of the Commission would be, and a long list of 17 or 18 names, most of which have been just mentioned by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Iddesleigh), was submitted to them, giving this enormous preponderance to Conservatives and Fair Traders on the Commission. The noble Marquess opposite is wrong in supposing that I spoke with contempt of the manufacturers of this country, of whom I am one; but it is the case that I have condemned the composition of the Commission as a whole; and even assuming that all the manufacturers on the Commission were neutral, there will still be an enormous preponderance of professed Fair Traders and of Conservatives upon it, for those who cannot
1544
be described as Free Traders may be assumed to come under one or other description.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (The Earl of IDDESLEIGH): I wish to make an explanation, in the first place, with regard to what the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) has said as to the composition of the Commission, when some of the Members of the late Government were asked to join it. They were at that time expressly told that no appointment had been made, and that no person had been spoken to on the subject, with the exception of my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Dunraven). When this matter was so put before Mr. Shaw Lefevre and Mr. J. K. Cross, I explained to them, and they were told, that we had made no other arrangements, and that it was quite possible to discuss the matter freely. When the noble Earl says that all who cannot be expressly named as Free Traders are to be taken as Conservatives and Fair Traders, I do not know on what ground he makes that statement. As regards half the Members of the Commission, at least, I do not myself know at this moment whether they are Fair Traders or not. The Members of the Commission have been appointed because they can give good information as to the trade of the country. I do not know, for instance, whether Sir James Allport is a Fair Trader or not; but a man of his intelligence and experience will be of great use in an Inquiry which is to give us good information as to the facts. The noble Earl assumes that everyone who was not put on the Commission expressly for the purpose of fighting the principles of Free Trade and of cross-examining the statements on the other side, is to be reckoned as a Fair Trader. I think that is a great error, and I extremely regret it. I do not desire by these observations to throw blame upon anybody, but I wish to explain the peculiar and difficult position in which we were placed.
EARL GRANVILLE: When the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Iddesleigh) first communicated with the two Gentlemen I have mentioned, it is no doubt true that the Members of the Commission were not actually appointed; but the noble Earl named those persons whom it was proposed to ask to join it,

1545
and I do not understand him to deny that that was so.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASUKY (The Earl of IDDESLEIGH): Yes, that was so; but they had not, either of them, been asked, and they knew nothing about it. If I had been asked to take off this Gentleman's name, for instance, and put on another, possibly I might have done so.
LORD DENMANsaid, Sir James Allport was the only one of the Commission known to him, and no man had done more for the working classes; and as the Commissioners would neither be paid for their time, nor have their travelling expenses, their gratuitous investigations ought to be treated with respect, and not with icy coldness and contempt.
Memorandum for the Royal Commission on the Depression of Trade and Industry; ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)
Memorandum laid before the House (pursuant to Order of this day), and to be printed. (No. 247.)

ARMY—THE ARMY RESERVE—END OF SERVICE WITH THE COLOURS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANasked the Under Secretary of State for War, For what length of time it is proposed to keep the Reserve men with the Colours? After the statements which had been made in Parliament as to their relations with Foreign Powers, it did not seem at all probable that the Reserve men would be called upon for active service; and it was, therefore, very undesirable to keep them with the Colours for no definite purpose. Considerable expense was thereby caused to the country, much hardship to the families of the men, and great inconvenience, in many cases, to their Civil employers—and this especially would have the bad effect of making employers of labour hesitate in future before taking Reserve men into their service. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Earl would be able to give some assurance that these men would shortly be dismissed to their HOLMES.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of DUNRAVEN), who replied, said, he
  1546
  was afraid he could not give a very satisfactory answer to the Question in the absence of his noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for War. Circumstances had changed very much for the better since the Reserve men were called out; but the time when they could be dismissed depended upon all kinds of political considerations, and it was impossible to say exactly what that date would be. Her Majesty's Government fully understood the inconvenience of these men being kept from their ordinary occupations, and they would not be detained a moment longer than the neccessities of the country and the requirements of the Service demanded.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) (No 2) BILL.
(The Marquess of Waterford.)
LABOURERS (IRELAND) (No 2) BILL.

  (No 235.) REPORT.
  Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendments read.
  Moved, "That the Report be now received."—(The Marquess of Waterford.)
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he would take advantage of that occasion to renew his protest against the further development of the original Act, which had more than verified the prediction he ventured to make as to its probable operation, founded, as it was, upon an unsound and dangerous principle, and applied to a state of society peculiarly ill-qualified at present to use it with fairness and discretion. He had predicted that it would be found generally unworkable, but, where applied, would give occasion for jobbery, favouritism, and spite.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he would divide the House on the Bill if he could hope for any support. So dangerous was the precedent of the Bill, that he should be anxious to divide against it by way of protest. He believed that action should be taken to prevent the dwellings of the labourers in Ireland being allowed to be in an unsanitary condition without resorting to exceptional legislation of this character. The action of the State should be negative, and not destructive. The principle of the Bill was, that some authority was to have the power to build and repair houses out of the rates, and. the State was to make advances in aid of this purpose.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, he must be allowed to explain that he had been misunderstood on a former occasion. The erection of houses was to be paid for out of the rates, without State aid. The Treasury was to make advances to be paid off in a certain number of years.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that if the Treasury was to mate advances, it could not be disputed that the State was to come forward. He therefore wished to know where the money set aside for the purposes of the Bill was to be obtained? He would also like to be informed why the same principle was not to be applied to England and Scotland? He would ask, was not the same principle capable of adoption in regard to the labourers in Scotland and England? The principle of the Bill was one that might extend very far; and in a very few months or years it might be applied not only to Ireland, but to England and Scotland, to country and to town.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, that the speech which they had just listened to ought to have been made in the year 1883, when the principle of the Bill was agreed to in that House. He maintained that the Bill was a necessity, and he desired to see it passed. The Act of 1883 certainly contained what was at the time a most novel principle; but as the Act had been kept continually dangling before the eyes of the Irish people, and as it was impossible that that Act could work in its present condition, it was right to pass the Bill in order that the principle recognized by their Lordships in 1883 might not be fruitless. Even from the point of view of his noble Friend (the Earl of Wemyss) the Bill was better than its predecessor, for it was more economical in its nature, that Act having proved to be unworkable in consequence of the enormous expenditure which it entailed. He (the Marquess of Waterford) was very much in favour of improving the housing of the Irish labourers. If their Lordships had soon the houses in which many Irishmen lived, they would feel strongly on the subject. He was very anxious that the Bill should pass, for he believed it would be a great boon to the Irish labourer; and, besides, it was cheaper to lease a piece of land than to buy the fee simple of it, and the Bill would save the rates instead of increasing them.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he had not merely protested against, but had moved the rejection of, the Bill of 1883.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 43; Not-Contents 5: Majority 38.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Report received accordingly.
  Clause 16 (Powers of the sanitary authority relative to purchase existing cottages, and allot land to existing cottages).
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD moved an Amendment to the clause, providing that the purchases of cottages or plots of land to be put in repair for the accommodation of labourers should be "by agreement."
  Amendment moved, in page 8, line 9, after ("may"), insert ("by agreement").—(The Marquess of Waterford.)
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNasked what provision was made for the protection of landlords? Who was to be the judge whether the cottage was in a bad state of repair or not?
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD, in reply, said, that the rules were very stringent as to the Court of Appeal. In the first instance, the Local Government Board would decide as to the adoption of the scheme when put by the local Sanitary Authority. The noble Earl, he was sure, felt confidence in the Local Government Board; but any landlord, not being satisfied, and who desired, could appeal to the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council. He (the Marquess of Waterford) thought that their interests were perfectly safe in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that bad sanitary arrangements in towns were much more injurious than in the country. The proportion of deaths from zymotic diseases, which were due chiefly to bad sanitary conditions, was one-third less in Connaught than in Ulster or Leinster, because, though the dwellings themselves were generally much worse, they were also generally more scattered. The sanitary condition of the rural districts in Ireland was not bad, though that of the towns was very bad; neither was the death-rate nearly so high among the labourers in that country as it was amongst the operatives in the great manufacturing centres in England.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingty.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Miscellaneous amendments of Act of 1883. 46 & 47 Vic. c. 60).
  LORD VENTRY, who had the following Amendment upon the Paper:—In page 9, line 42, leave out from ("The") to ("time") in line 43, and insert—
  ("The advertisements mentioned in section seven of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, may be published in one of the months of March, April, and May,")
  said, he did not intend to move it.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  On the Motion of The Marquess of WATERFOED, the following clause inserted after Clause 22:—
  (Set off of rent against rates.)
  "Any person indebted to a board of guardians in respect of poor rate for property situate in any union, to whom such board of guardians, in their capacity as sanitary authority, are indebted for rent for any land held by them for a term of years under this Act in that union, may set off against the sum so due by him for rates the sum due to him for rent as aforesaid."
  Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed, as amended. (No. 245.)

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Earl Beauchamp.)
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 242.) CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS' AMENDMENTS.
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (Earl BEAUCHAMP), in moving that the Commons' Amendments in the Bill be considered, said, that they were not nearly so formidable as they would appear to be from their bulk on the Paper of Business, a large portion of them consisting chiefly of a redrafting of the provisions. A Select Committee of their Lordships' House sat on the subject in 1881 and 1882, and took much evidence. The result was that in 1883 a Bill was brought into that House by a noble Earl not now present (the Earl of Dalhousie). A great deal of discussion took place upon it; but the circumstances of that year prevented the Bill from being considered in the House of Commons, and it was dropped. In 1884 the Bill was again introduced in their Lordships' House and passed; it was sent down to
  1550
  the Commons and considered in some of its stages, but failed to become law. Nearly the same Bill, the offspring of the Select Committee of 1881 and 1882, was this Session introduced a third time in their Lordships' House and was again sent down to the House of Commons, where it had been considered and returned to their Lordships with Amendments which had materially altered the scope of the measure, while, in many cases, they had undoubtedly, to a considerable degree, improved it. For instance, there was a new provision in Clause 2, that no person should be convicted upon the evidence of one person without corroboration. That was an improvement. There was also an Amendment which made drugging a misdemeanour, and another which provided that a boy under 16 on conviction might be whipped. In Clause 5 the age was raised from 12 to 13. Probably the most convenient course would be to deal with the Amendments as a whole and not seriatim. The variations which they made were not so great as appeared at first sight, the most important being one which raised the age of consent from 13 to 16. An attempt had been made to treat this measure as one of the rich against the poor; but that attempt, he argued, was very unjust and unfounded. Their Lordships had investigated this very painful subject, and had, on three separate occasions, sent the Bill down to the House of Commons. So far as this measure was concerned, therefore, their Lordships had done their duty with impartiality as between the rich and the poor. He (Earl Beauchamp) was not one of those who believed that, by legislation, they could do very much to influence the morals of persons, nor did he think that it would produce all the results anticipated by its sanguine promoters. It should not be forgotten that an Act of Parliament would not make those chaste and moral who were unchaste and immoral. If, however, the Bill produced all the results hoped for by those who had promoted it, no one would rejoice more sincerely than he would. He thought there was little chance of their Lordships being able to alter the decisions which had been arrived at by the House of Commons, and therefore he would urge upon them, having regard to the necessity of passing the Bill that Session, not to imperil its object by rejecting any of the

  1551
  Amendments the Commons had made, but, on the contrary, to accept them en bloo.
  Moved, "That the Commons' Amendments be considered."—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he thought that their Lordships might well congratulate themselves upon the course pursued in reference to that measure, as well as being the first to initiate legislation upon the subject. For three years in succession it had been considered carefully and deliberately by their Lordships. He preferred very much the structure of the Bill as it left that House; and he found himself in great difficulty in dealing with the Amendments made by the House of Commons, because they went very far indeed, and altered the Law of Evidence in several material particulars. Some of the Amendments made by the Commons were beyond the scope of the Preamble. Others had greatly increased the severity of the Bill, and this severity was calculated to defeat the objects with which the Bill was being passed. He was told that if he moved and carried the rejection of any of the Amendments made by the Commons, he should imperil the passing of the Bill. He would not take the responsibility of doing that, because the Bill contained much that was good, and, therefore, he must content himself with protesting against the Amendments to which he objected.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he also wished to congratulate their Lordships and the present Government, as well as the country, on the Bill being within a measurable distance of becoming law; but it was desirable it should be more clearly understood that it was the result of several successive years' labour on the part of their Lordships' House, and that it was not under the pressure of popular agitation that the subject had been taken up by them—first, carefully inquired into by a Select Committee, and then legislated upon. Their Lordships, in truth, might be regarded as the pioneers of legislation on this painful subject. He would say nothing now as to the character and probable influence of the recent agitation upon it, or as to the effect which that might have had in securing the passage of the Bill through the House. He would only
  1552
  remind them that in 1833 and 1884 similar Bills had, after full discussion, been sent clown to the House of Commons in good time, which that House, under the guidance of the late Government, had not found time even to consider in 1883, or to pass in 1884. That House, however, had found time in each of those years to pass, with the support of the late Government, a Bill against pigeon shooting, which, though he had no sympathy with that pastime, he rejoiced their Lordships had rejected as unworthy of the attention of the Imperial Parliament. Happily, this year, the House of Commons had passed no Pigeon Shooting Bill; but had passed this measure, with many alterations, some valuable, others of doubtful expediency. He had received communications from two Judges of great experience about the great danger which boys—especially of the wages class—ran of being seduced by girls older than themselves, though under 16, and then being imprisoned, or else having black mail levied upon them. He had intended to move Amendments to the Bill, but now would not risk doing so. At the same time, he must say he was not sanguine as to the results of the measure, except in protecting young girls from outrage. Wherever they found a population destitute of religious principles or moral convictions, there they were sure to have a great deal of vice and immorality, which Parliament was powerless to suppress, or even materially to restrain. The real work to be done was one much less of less of legislative than of moral reform, and that must be carried on by religious, moral, and educational agencies.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that while he did not consider all the Commons' Amendments improvements upon the Bill, he would advise the House to accept them en bloc. It was unfair to say that the Bill was the result of recent publications. While he thought that great credit was due to Her Majesty's Government as regarded their conduct in the matter, he must, in justice to the Home Office, say that his noble Friend (the Earl of Dalhousie} and the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt)—and they were thoroughly supported in their resolve by the Members of the late Government—previously to that Government going out of Office had fully determined to

  1553
  carry the Bill long before the publications referred to appeared; and at that time they received but cold support from noble Lords opposite. Seeing the progress which was made with it prior to the publications referred to, he did not think it was now fair to say it was the result of it.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, the suggestion that the Amendments should be considered and agreed to en bloc was one in which he would only concur because he did not wish to endanger the passing of the Bill. Many of them seemed to him objectionable, and almost all free of importance, and he thought it extremely inconvenient that their Lordships should be obliged to adopt them without any adequate consideration. He must say he had great pleasure in congratulating their Lordships upon having come to the end of this most unsavoury subject. The Bill could not be said to reflect much credit on their House of Parliament; but, to his mind, some of the Amendments in the House of Commons had improved and strengthened it. He complained of the obscenity through which they had been compelled to pass, and that boys and girls of tender years had been allowed to sell such a filthy and obscene publication under the very nose of the police, without the authorities taking any action whatever. Who were to blame for allowing that breach of the law he did not know; but, whoever it was, a very heavy responsibility rested on their shoulders. It might have been a question whether it was right or wrong to prosecute the writer or writers; but he maintained that the same power which swept from the streets the Confessional Unmasked and the Fruits of Philosophy, works which were comparatively pure to this filthy publication, should have taken action in this matter. He was afraid, however, that some of the provisions of the Bill might lead to a state of things not unlike the odious system of Police des Mœsurs and to wholesale corruption among the Police Force. The temptations which the Bill would place in the way of the police might be greater than they could bear. He remembered that some years ago the whole of the C. Division had to be removed from one quarter of the town to another in consequence of the corruption that prevailed among its members. He hoped the streets would be made
  1554
  passable for decent men and women, and would no longer be flooded with obscene publications. He was glad the House of Commons had struck out the clause giving the police arbitrary power to arrest any man or woman without any complaint having been made against them. He was also glad of the additional powers that had been given against procuresses and disorderly houses where young children were harboured; but he regretted that nothing had been done to clear the streets of young prostitutes, who might accost men or boys, and induce them to become guilty of a misdemeanour, while they themselves would be liable to no charge. Such a state of things must infallibly lead to wholesale extortion, and probably to the utter ruin of many young men who would fall victims to the wiles of these girls and the wretches who would employ them for the purpose. Power should have been given to send these girls to reformatories, instead of leaving them a standing menace to the community. As to the limit of age, he would point out that England was going three years further than any other country in the world. He trusted that the Bill would produce the good results to which their Lordships looked forward; but he could not help thinking that, by making the HOLMES of the poor brighter and more cheerful, and decency and morality more possible in those HOLMES, they would effect more than by any Draconian legislation of this nature.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEsaid, that he could not agree with the noble Earl that the publicity given to these criminal practices had not influenced this Bill. This Bill originated in the evidence of their Lordships' Committee five years ago. That evidence, with the Report, was published under the cover of a Blue Book, which was a damper to the curiosity and interest of the public; but it awakened in those who cared for this odious subject the earnest desire for a more effective and righteous law. The Bill was launched without help from any utterance of public opinion. No breeze of public favour stiffened its sails; it got no welcome in the other House, but met with the cold shoulder. When revolting facts of horrible criminal cruelties on defenceless girls and young children were scattered widely abroad, the

  1555
  compassion and consciences of persons of right feeling were so roused that the Bill returned much strengthened and improved. His noble Friend (Earl Granville) had reminded them that the late Home Secretary was very anxious to have the Bill brought forward; but such was the apathy on the subject, the indifference and general dislike in the House of Commons, that for two years it was stopped. Up to the very moment when the veil was withdrawn from the public eye and they were made aware of the grossly criminal acts that were being carried on in this country, it was thought that the Bill they were consenting to was too strong. Therefore, he said, that unless that publicity had unfolded such a horrible state of things to the public at large there would have been no prospect or probability of their getting this Bill, which seemed now to meet with the approbation of all concerned. Of course, there were parts which they might find fault with; but, on the whole, according to the amount of knowledge they had of the evil, it met with the wants of the present day.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he quite concurred in the remarks that had been made by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Fitzgerald), and, like him, would not endanger the Bill by moving the rejection of any of the Amendments. At the same time, he could not refrain from saying that in his opinion it contained many questionable matters. It was undoubtedly the fact that it had its origin in the Lords' (Select Committee; but he thought their Lordships could scarcely recognize their child in its present shape. Their Lordships most carefully considered the measure; but it was an unfortunate circumstance that the considerations that had influenced their Lordships in some of the conclusions to which they arrived seemed to have been lost sight of in the House of Commons. No one could say that the clause making it a misdemeanour to induce a woman by false pretences to gratify a man's wishes, had any tendency to promote chastity. Under that clause, a woman, who knew that she was about to consort unlawfully with a man, might, nevertheless, afterwards prosecute him for having obtained her consent by false representations, such as the promise of a note or sovereign which should subsequently be shown to be bad. In such a
  1556
  case, the woman would know that she was a party to an immoral act, and had made a bargain for the possession of her person. In their Lordships' House that clause was framed so as only to apply to cases like that of a sham marriage, in which the woman was quite innocent. He was sorry there was not time for a conference between the two Houses, in which the reasons which had induced their Lordships to take the views they had taken could be stated. There were improvements in the Bill as it stood; but there were also faults, and it was a pity there was not time to consider them.
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (Earl BEAUCHAMP)said, as to the alteration of the age of consent, it was very remarkable that statistics showed that, while the number of marriages of persons below 16 was only about 26 in the year, those of persons above 16 might be counted by hundreds, and those of persons above 18 might be counted by thousands. It was only right that if the father, mother, master, or guardian of a girl abused their power over her, they should lose it. It had been said in the course of the debates upon the Bill that no one quitted a prison after two years' imprisonment, without being shattered in body and mind; but if the maximum punishment was two years' imprisonment, their Lordships ought not to assume that it would be always inflicted. With reference to the commission of the offence for which that punishment was assigned, had no one a word to say about the poor girl being shattered in body and mind? There was no reason to suppose that the Judges would misuse their discretion in the imposition of punishment. He was very glad that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Mount-Temple) had borne his testimony in favour of the Bill as a useful and admirable measure, and he hoped that it would do something for the punishment of those who committed outrages upon young persons.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, that the Bishops were interested in this question, as the natural guardians of the morals of the people. He was speaking for all his rev. Brethren, when he said that they were most anxious that the Bill should pass their Lordships' House; and he believed, whatever faults might be in the Bill, it was calculated to do a great deal of good, and

  1557
  it would be a great blessing to the country. It was said, truly, that you could not make people moral or chaste by Act of Parliament; but a great deal might be done to prevent things which were immoral and unchaste. Everybody who had taken any part in trying to promote morality, knew that they were met at every corner by difficulties which had been spoken of in the course of the debate. And though they could not make people moral by Act of Parliament, they could do a great deal to put obstacles, in the way of prevention, of persons, who were trying, with all their hearts and minds, to promote immorality, from succeeding in their efforts. He felt very strongly what had been said by the noble Earl (the Earl of Milltown) that the obscene literature referred to was doing an infinity of mischief—mischief which could never be undone. Nevertheless, they must all rejoice that the mind of the public had now been opened to the extraordinary evils which prevailed, and which threatened to make England, in some respects, the most degraded country in Europe. He alluded to the terrible seduction, and worse than seduction, of young children. Living in a diocese in which there were more naval and military stations than in any other part of the country, he happened to know how terrible was the condition of the streets of those places, especially in connection with this prostitution of infants. Unless they took some step to prevent the continuation of the evil, this country, which had hitherto prided itself upon being more moral than any other country in Europe, would expose itself to the taunts of the civilized world.
  Motion agreed to: Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.