Lords Sitting of 11 April 1889

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—Army (Annual); National Debt Redemption; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order.
REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR IRELAND.
Writs and Returns electing the Lord Rathdonnell a Representative Peer for Ireland in the room of the late Lord Dunsany, deceased, with the Certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland annexed thereto: Delivered (on oath), and Certificate read.
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1883) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 42.)
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a, and to be printed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
STANDING COMMITTEES.

  REPORT FROM COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
  That the Committee have (in pursuance of Standing Order No. L.) nominated the following Lords
  to serve as Chairman of Standing Committees:—

  E. Cadogan (L. Privy Seal.)

  E. Kimberley.

  E. Selborne.

  E. Derby.

  L. Balfour.

  E. Carnarvon.

  L. Esher.

  E. Milltown.

  L. Herschell.

  E. Camperdown.

  That the Committee have (in pursuance of Standing Order No. XLVII.) nominated the following Lords to serve on "the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.":—

  L. Halsbury (L. Chancellor.)

  L. Sudeley.

  L. Elgin (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  V. Cranbrook (L. President.)

  L. Aberdare.

  M. Salisbury

  L. Coleridge.

  M. Bath.

  L. Norton.

  M. Ripon.

  L. Watson.

  E. Stanhope.

  L. Brabourne.

  E. Milltown.

  L. Bramwell.

  E. Belmore.

  L. FitzGerald.

  E. Beauchamp.

  L. Monk Bretton.

  E. Strafford.

  L. Northington (L. Henley.)

  E. Selborne.

  V. Oxenbridge,

  L. Monkswell.

  V. Cross.

  L. Hobhouse.

  L. Clinton.

  L. Lingen.

  L. Sundridge (D. Argyll.)

  L. Ashbourne

  L. Esher.

  L. Colchester.

  L. Herscherll.

  L. Wigan (E.Crawford.)

  L. Grimthorpe.

  L. Rosebery (E. Rosebery.)

  L. Thring.

  L. Macnaghten.

  L. Chaworth(E.Meath.)

  L. Basing.

  That the Committee have (in pursuance of Standing Order No. XLVII.) nominated the following
  Lords to serve on "the Standing Committee for General Bills ":—

  E, Cadogan (L. Privy Seal.

  E. Spencer.

  E. Bathurst.

  D. Richmond.

  E. Carnarvon.

  St. Albans.

  E. Harrowby

  D. Bedford.

  E. Brownlow.

  D. Rutland.

  E. Camperdown.

  D. Westminster.

  E. Granville.

  M. Abercorn. (D. Abercorn.)

  E. Kimberley.

  E. Ravensworth.

  E. Mount-Edgcumbe. (L. Steward.)

  E. Wharncliffe.

  E. Northbrook.

  E. Lathom. (L. Chamberlain.)

  E. Fife.

  V. Sidmouth.

  E. Derby.

  V. Gordon. (E. Aberdeen.)

  E. Pembroke and Montgomery.

  L. Knutsford. (One of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State.)

  E. Suffolk and Berkshire.

  E. Doncaster. (D. Buccleuch.)

  L. Ashford.

  E. Jersey.

  L. Balfour.

  E. Cowper.

  L. Boyle

  (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  L. Fermanagh (E. Erne.)

  L. Hopetoun (E. Hopetoun.).

  L. Watson.

  L. Foxford (E. Limerick.)

  L. Hothfield.

  L. de Vesci (V. de Vesci.)

  L. Harris.

  L. Ker (M. Lothian.)

  L. Rothschild.

  L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss.)

  L. Revelstoke.

  L. Wantage.

  L. Poltimore.

  L. Elphinstone.

  L. Wenlock.

  L. Colville of Culross.

  L. Egerton.

  L. Herschell.

  L. Kenry (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  L. Hillingdon.

  L. Grimthorpe.

  L, Stalbridge.

  L. Hartismere (L. Henniker.)

  L. Kensington.

  L. Brassey.

  L. Sandhurst.

  L. Thring.

  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92 and 93 be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Easter, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess.
SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL.—(No 13.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  *LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, the circumstances under which the Second Reading of the Bill is urged upon the House, impose a statement which might have otherwise been easily avoided. Glad should I have been to move it formally and silently. It is hardly possible to do so, as I have to ask your Lordships—to some extent, at least—to rescind a Vote you previously arrived at. After the Bill had been repeatedly affirmed in principle, after it had been endorsed by a Select Committee, who went into it most accurately, after the Government had given notice of some further Amendments, and thus declared that it ought to go on, it was defeated in 1887 by the union of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack with a noble Earl who often sits on the cross-benches (Earl of Wemyss), but who is not here this evening. Were it not for this to me disastrous combination, the Bill might now have been upon the Statute Book, and fogs such as we
  188
  observed to-day and yesterday at least considerably mitigated. I am ready to admit that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack may have been misled by the noble Earl on the cross-benches. That noble Earl was under a very strong but most inaccurate impression, that the Bill gave local bodies a power to visit the interior of houses. But such a power is conspicuously absent. The local body may prohibit smoke, but cannot dictate any special manner of preventing it, or ascertain the cause from which it has arisen. The noble and learned Lord —to do him justice — did indeed advance a reason of his own for opposition to the measure. It was, that the vestry had too much discretionary power, because no maximum had been laid down as to the fine they may exact in certain cases. If the noble and learned Lord had moved the introduction of a maximum, the supporters of the Bill would have been ready to accede to it. But now a maximum is given. It is the same maximum as that provided by the Acts of Lord Palmerston against smoke in factories. It was objected to the Bill from other quarters that it enabled the vestry to exempt houses beneath a certain value, and so would operate unequally amongst the different classes of society. The exemption is removed, although its removal may tend to make vestries less inclined to use the privileges which the Bill confers upon them. The power of regulating new constructions, so that smoke may be prevented in them, which was accorded to the Metropolitan Board of Works, is transferred to the London County Council. It would have been possible to make the London County Council the sole executive authority. But the avowed principle of the Bill has always been that householders are only to be controlled by local bodies they can influence. If any one dislikes the Bill, or dreads its operation, he has only to go down to the vestry, and persuade them not to make a byelaw or exercise the power delegated to them. It may be observed without the slightest disrespect, that it is impossible to estimate beforehand the disposition or the prudence of the new councils. But setting that aside, as regards inspection, the vestries have machinery the London County Council has not yet arrived at. From what has reached me

  189
  I am led to think that if your Lordships hesitate about the Bill it is from doubt as to the facility of checking smoke in private houses. In a former Session I enumerated a dozen modes of doing so. But as the number may have gone too far and tended to confusion, I will now only mention two or three which satisfy the difficulty. The object of a householder would be to reduce disturbance to a minimum. Without the slightest alteration in his fireplaces, he may burn coke and wood together. The heat is good, the flame sufficient, and hardly any smoke emerges. If that plan is objected to, he may slightly alter his existing fireplaces, still burning coal, in a manner Mr. Ernest Hart explained to the Select Committee. If he is willing to go further he may adopt the fireplace of Sir William Siemens, in which coke and gas are seen to operate together. The result is excellent when once attained, but it involves the necessary work for bringing gas up to the fender. The Bill has been subjected to the Vestries and the London County Council. No adverse resolution has been carried. It is true that some expense may be involved to those who do not act on the first of my suggestions for burning coke and wood together. A noble Lord who sat on the Select Committee formed an estimate of what he apprehended as the new and serious taxation to be imposed on the Metropolis, in order to restrain the smoke of private houses. But Mr. Rollo Russell, in an admirable lecture about a year ago, pointed out how much expense may be avoided which the smoky atmosphere occasions. Mr. Rollo Russell is a son of the late Lord Russell. He began life at the Foreign Office, where accuracy is traditional. His lecture was delivered to the Society of Arts before Sir Douglas Galton, and thus exposed to every variety of criticism. He is by far the most accomplished expert on the subject now before us. Some of the calculations he has given in an interesting table may be more useful than any argument which I could add to those in the possession of your Lordships. Extra washing for a city with suburbs containing 4,000,000 inhabitants, £2,000,000. Restoring gilding, metal work, shop-fronts, signs, names of streets, advertisements at stations, monuments, &c., (e.g., Albert Memorial) £100,000.
  190
  Destruction of mortar, cement, &c., repointing and pointing bricks (see Angus Smith), £20,000. Chimney sweeping: 1,000,000 chimneys at 18. each, £50,000. Escape as smoke or soot of 1–100th of fuel burnt into atmosphere and chimneys, £100,000. Waste of one-fourth of the coal used by uneconomical and smoke-producing kitchen ranges and fireplaces, £1,000,000. Increased mortality: impairment of health, illness and consequent expense caused by smoke fogs and smoky air; lowered vitality hindering quick recovery from illness, and in general reducing capacity for work; children kept from school, &c., £320,000. Damage to trees, plants, shrubs, flowers, vegetables, fruits in and around London, in woods, parks, gardens, squares, conservatories, windows, nursery-gardens, orchards, &c., £50,000. Total, £5,200,500 per annum. It may be said that figures are uncertain, and that your Lordships ought not to be too readily directed by them. In that case, I give up the £200,500. I will oven reduce the £5,000,000 to £2,500,000 It would still exceed the highest calculation of the outlay which this Bill, if law, could fasten on the aggregate of householders. Mr. Rollo Russell is not the only witness or authority we can refer to. There is an interesting passage from the correspondence of Mr. Motley, which is, perhaps, the publication of the moment. Mr. Motley was well known to many of your Lordships as the Minister of the United States and the historian of the Netherlands. In November 1859, when the evil had not reached its present magnitude, Mr. Motley wrote from the Oatlands Park Hotel at -Walton, 20 miles from London—
  "I do not object to fog, always except a black fog, a London fog. I was obliged to pass the day in town yesterday, and to breathe unmitigated coal smoke for six hours. When the fog settles down in London, the smoke from millions of chimneys settles down with it. It cannot escape upwards, and so every breathing being is turned for the time into a chimney. I was a chimney all day yesterday, and rejoiced that I was not born in that station of life, not finding it exhilarating."
  What Mr. Motley said in 1859 exactly harmonizes with our own experience as to the fogs of the Metropolis mixed up with smoke, and those which only spring from vapour in the country. On the 31st of December last there was a good

  191
  deal of mist in the vicinity of Frome and Bath, or further in the West of England. In London only it led to darkness, danger, a variety of accidents, including a collision on the railway between Victoria and Ludgate Hill. None who arrived that day in the Metropolis—it happened to myself— would doubt as to the necessity of passing a Bill like that before your Lordships. There is a quaint and vehement expression of the late Mr. Carlyle which has also recently appeared, although not based indeed on his experience of London—
  "Are we doomed to the everlasting curse of choking atmosphere and sulphurous vapours which it is taught are the portion of devils, not still living men? I vow and swear that free air is the birthright of every free man."
  My Lords, the Bill indeed may be defeated by the union which was fatal to it in 1887, and which I am not able to outnumber. In that event its framers will rely for ultimate success on the mechanical inventor, who knows with what facility the smoke of London may be obviated; the painter, to whom daylight is indispensable as talent; the architect whose greatest works are marred or thrown into obscurity; the sculptor, who foresees the blackness of the marble which he handles. They will rely also on the whole of that sex who, as married women and young ladies, are compelled to pass weeks and months in an atmosphere by which their beauty is deteriorated. But in reading the Bill a second time to-night, the House will merely go back to its original position and affirm that to improve the air of the Metropolis something beyond the Acts of Lord Palmerston is called for. That name reminds me I shall have to move without the frequently-afforded aid of Lord Mount Temple, who has now closed his irreproachable career of virtue and activity. I am obliged, also, to lament the absence of the Duke of Westminster, who is retained, by some indisposition, in the country. However, I am authorized to mention that a letter has reached me from the noble Duke to the effect that his opinion on the subject—explained to the House before—is perfectly unaltered; that he regards the Bill as necessary to the health and comfort of the town with which ho is now officially connected, beyond the well-known ties which previously attached him to it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has referred to me once or twice in the course of his observations; I can only say that my objections to a great part of this Bill remain unaltered, but I understand from those who represent the Department of the Government which particularly deals with a subject of this kind that they would rather have the various matters considered in Committee than decided summarily by rejecting the Bill. I will not persist in the intention I originally conceived of moving that this Bill be read this day six months, but at a later stage of the Bill, unless the objections which I shall urge are removed by Amendments in Committee, I shall certainly move the rejection of the measure.
  EARL BROWNLOW: I feel that the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill has a very strong argument in the condition of the Metropolis yesterday and this morning. On reading over the Bill I find that several clauses which, on a former occasion, I pointed out to the House as objectionable have been removed, and there fore I think the Bill is better than that which was brought forward by the noble Lord on a former occasion. The particular provision, however, which caused the Bill on the last occasion to be thrown out still remains—namely, the clause providing that private houses should be included in the operation of the Bill. I can only say that when the Bill goes into Committee it will be impossible for Her Majesty's Government to support that proviso in any way. At the same time there are in the Bill other points which, I think, might become law. I cannot help regretting that the noble Lord proposes to make the Vestry the local authority for the purpose of making bye-laws. It appears to me that it would be far better to have the bye-laws made by some higher authority, say the County Council, the Vestries only having power to adopt thorn if they choose.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: I am sure the public outside will be delighted with the attitude which the Government have taken up on this Bill. I think the public would have been disappointed if the Bill had been rejected altogether on the Second Reading. As a Member of the London County Council, I may be allowed to say that I am very glad that,

  193
  under Clause 5, power is given to the County Councils to alter or to make bye-laws. I am also glad to hear from the noble Lord who has just sat down that the Government will agree to that, because there is no doubt in my mind whatever that, until the Government do make up their minds in one way or another to deal with private houses, we shall never get rid of the great smoke nuisance in the Metropolis. After all, it is the millions of chimneys belonging to private houses that create the nuisance, not the factory chimneys.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should like to say one word upon a point to which the noble Lord opposite called attention. 'Whatever legislation be determined upon in the shape of bye-laws to be made, I think that those bye-laws ought to be made by one body for the entire Metropolis. Nothing could be more objectionable than that there should be different regulations on this subject for different parts of the Metropolis; because, in one parish where the evil, so far as it was strictly local, had been remedied at great sacrifice and expense, the population might still be under the burden of the smoke from a neighbouring parish. It seems to me that, in any legislation on this matter, that should be one cardinal point.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read second time.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I beg to move that the Bill be referred to a Committee of the whole House.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should think this was distinctly the class of Bill that should be referred to one of the Standing Committees.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I think the general feeling of the House will be with the noble Lord (Lord Herschell) that this Bill should go to one of the Standing Committees, where the examination into its provisions will, no doubt, be severe and salutary.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I will defer to what seems to be the general opinion of your Lordships, and move that the Bill be referred to a Standing Committee.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill referred to Standing Committee for General Bills.

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS BILL.— (No. 36.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL BROWNLOW: I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which is founded upon the Report of a Royal Commission which was appointed to inquire into the condition of certified Reformatory Schools, and to report what amendments of the law were expedient. This Commission was a very strong Commission, presided over by Lord Aberdare, who was assisted by a very strong list of noble Lords. They took a great deal of valuable evidence, and sent in a very full and luminous Report, which it is hardly necessary to say has been exceedingly valuable in the framing of the Bill now before the House. At the present time there are in England and Scotland 56 reformatory schools. Of these 55 are established entirely by voluntary agencies, and one—and that one in Scotland—was established by the Glasgow Juvenile Delinquency Board. These schools, representing a national and philanthropic work, though established by voluntary agencies, are entirely under the sanction and control of the State. This condition of things the present Bill does not propose in any way to alter. The object of reformatory schools is to place young criminals of both sexes under such careful educational restraint as may tend to wean them from the vicious courses into which they have fallen upon the very threshold of life, very often not by their own fault, but through the neglect and carelessness of their parents and guardians. The Bill does not involve any great change of principle from the existing system. In the Bill introduced and read a first time last year, there was a provision in Clause 3 that the inspection of reformatory schools should remain as before under the Reformatory School Inspectors, but that there should be a further concurrent power of inspection given to Her Majesty's Inspectors under the Education Department. This proposal of dual inspection excited such opposition on the part of school managers and others, that it has

  195
  been considered unadvisable to insist upon it. There therefore remained two alternatives, one to leave matters as they are, the other, to hand over these Reformatory Schools entirely to the Inspectors of the Education Department. Now, it certainly seems undesirable to remove young delinquents altogether from the control of the Home Office, and the Inspectors of the Education Department have no experience of reformatories or boarding schools. It is therefore proposed that these schools shall remain under their present Inspectors. If, however, it be thought that a higher standard should be reached, the Government will be glad to consider any suggestions in Committee. Clause 9 deals with the question of imprisonment. Opinions are divided as to whether children should always be imprisoned before being sent to a reformatory. On the one hand it is urged that the school should not be considered a punishment, and that the child should realize that punishment was over. On the other hand, it is urged that imprisonment necessarily has an injurious effect on the child. The Bill meets the difficulty by vesting a discretion in the magistrate; and Clauses 10 and 11 provide for the infliction of punishments other than imprisonment. It is provided that, in lieu of sending a youthful offender to a reformatory school, the Court may—
  "(a) adjudge that the youthful offender, if a male, be whipped; (b) adjourn the case on the parent undertaking to punish the youthful offender to the satisfaction of the Court; (c) fine the parent any sum not exceeding one pound; (d) order the parent to pay to any per.. son injured by the offence compensation not exceeding five pounds; (e) order the parent to give security for the good behaviour of the youthful offender."
  No commitment to a reformatory school is to be made of children under 14 years of age, unless a previous conviction is proved. Then, power is given to the Secretary of State to order the discharge of any youthful offender from a school, but it is also provided that—
  "Where a youthful offender is discharged from a certified reformatory school, either on the expiration of the period of detention originally allotted to him, or in pursuance of an order of discharge by the Secretary of State, he shall, during a period of two years from the date of his discharge, remain subject to the conditions specified in the First Schedule to this Act, and if,
  196
  during that period, he fails to conform with any one or more of the conditions on which he was discharged, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall, on summary conviction, be liable, in addition to any other punishment, to be ordered by the Court to be sent back to the same or another certified reformatory school, and to be there detained for any period which the Court may thin k fit, not exceeding two years from the expiration of the original period of detention."
  This provision will obviously be of especial value in the case of girls. Clause 20 provides that where a youthful offender has conducted himself well he may be, with his own consent, apprenticed to any trade, calling, or service (which would include enlistment in the Army) or be disposed of by emigration, notwithstanding that his period of detention has not expired. Clause 24 provides for a contribution by the Treasury to the various expenses, including the expense of emigration. County and Borough Councils are also to contribute. The only other provision which it is necessary to mention to your Lordships is that in Clause 27, which will enact that—
  "The parent of a youthful offender detained n a certified reformatory school shall be primarily liable to pay for his support and maintenance therein."
  At the present time the parent is only made liable for a sum not exceeding 5s,. a week; but, if it be clearly proved that the parent can afford it, there can be no reason why the parent should not be made liable for the whole cost of maintenance of the child. I have endeavoured, my Lords, as briefly as possible, to lay before you the principal changes proposed by the Bill. It is not a very complicated measure. It is much shorter and simpler than the Bill which will shortly be before your Lordships dealing with industrial schools. I now ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  LORD ABERDARE: The noble Lord is quite right in saying that this Bill is, in the main, a Consolidation Bill. I rather regret that the recommendation of the Commission in favour of inspection by the Education Department has not been adopted. The noble Viscount opposite, who has filled the office of Home Secretary, must know how difficult it is to get a good selection of schoolmasters for reformatory schools. The Commission considered that the

  197
  only way of overcoming that difficulty was by giving the appointment of masters to the Education Department, and giving the inspection of the teaching, so far as it was not technical, to the Education Department also. They were of opinion that the friction arising from the dual inspection would not be so great as was apprehended by some. When the Royal Commission was appointed, there was a general impression that a great many children were sent to reformatories who ought to be sent to industrial schools, and to industrial schools who ought to be sent to reformatories. A great effort has been made to reduce the number sent to reformatory schools. With respect to boys under 12, who, in the opinion of the magistrates, have been leading criminal lives, and the record of whose conduct is well known, I do not think that such boys are proper subjects for industrial schools. But I remember well that Mr. Baker, one of the greatest authorities on this subject, stated before the Royal Commission that offenders of that class have not only diminished in number, but were also exhibiting less atrocity of character. They were altogether more manageable. The number of reformatories has been lessened by two since last year, while industrial schools have greatly increased. That is encouraging. The boys who should be sent to reformatories are boys of hardened character. The enforcement of payment by the parents in England, and especially in Scotland and Ireland, has had a very beneficial influence. In Scotland the Returns show that there are a number of defaulters. In a prosperous country like Scotland there is no reason why parents should not be obliged to pay. I am anxious to interest the County Council as a contributory in the matter. As the noble Lord has said, there are a number of matters which will require careful discussion in Committee, and, no doubt, when that stage is reached it will be found possible to improve the Bill in many respects.
  *LORD NORTON: The measure now before us deals only with reformatory schools, but the other half of the subject relating to industrial schools, promised after Easter, was before the House last Session, and we know, therefore, that both Bills are almost in the same words. There is no difference be-
  198
  tween the schools provided by each: the only difference is between the classes of children sent to some or other of them. The second clause of the Bill before the House enables a Secretary of State to increase and multiply the classification of the subjects of these schools, and a conference of managers has suggested no less than four kinds of reformatories — for incorrigibles; for offenders who have been in prisons; for those who have not; and for very immoral girls. Two more classes of reformatories have been suggested—for troublesome cases from other schools; and for truants. Finer psychological distinctions have also been suggested, such is the tendency to multiply institutions by those who are deeply and scientifically interested. But, after all, the treatment of children in similar schools must be much the same, and though convicted children should be separated, no one can see any difference practically in the treatment of them at a reformatory or of others at an industrial school. It is a mere fancy, even if it were desirable, that any school should be made specially correctional during a child's whole education. A penal school is a horrible idea. Medicine cannot be mixed with dietary during all childhood. In the Government's view that children in both reformatory and industrial schools should be educated in a distinct Police and Home Office Department of Education, these two Bills, should be one, only indicating the description of children to be kept separately in each denomination of the schools alike provided for both. I have a Bill standing also for Second Reading which deals with both, but my Bill proposes to put all schools under the School Department. The children convicted of a crime are, after suitable and adequate punishment, proposed to be sent separately to reformatory schools; children found begging, homeless, or thrown in company with thieves are proposed to be sent to industrial schools. The Government division of the subject into two Bills will give this advantage—that the industrial school half cannot, at all events, be any longer divorced from our National School Department under any decent pretence whatever. To educate homeless and neglected children penally must cease to be a scandal to this country.

  199
  Two reasons were given by the Commissioners for still continuing some of these schools under the Home Office, and they seem both extremely bad reasons. They thought the Home Office must take charge of industrial schools apart, because it was connected with the judicial and police system of the country and with the administration of prisons, as if schooling of unconvicted outcasts could have anything to do with judgment and police or schools with prisons. The other reason was that the Education Department was not fit to superintend industrial training; and that diet and domestic care of children belonged more to the Home Office. But this is just what the Education Department is now proposing to undertake for national schools in general, and, if unfit, the Department should be made fit, and not schools taken away from it to another office as more fit. Pauper children who are of the same class are boarded and educated without the stigma of police control. The Commissioners were driven to half abandon their strange reasoning, and to commend industrial schools to the joint care of both the Home and Education Departments. In this dual government they seem to have failed of official acquiescence. But they fully admitted that no reason whatever existed for day industrial schools being taken out of the School Department, or being distinguishable from schools already in it. It is the dislike of that Department as too literary, and the desire to have an independent management—though that would still be possible under separate inspection—that make the Managers cling to the Home Office as an escape from interference. It is a great improvement in the present Bill that County Councils will have power to establish and maintain all these kinds of schools, and to enforce parental liability, and for the ultimate disposition of children whom they will have educated in loco parentis. The 10th clause, for alternative treatment of reformatory subjects by whipping, fining parents, and taking security from them for better conduct of their children is admirable, and properly distinguishes the penal from the educatory treatment—for the latter sending children home whenever there is a decent home for them to go to, so that
  200
  parents may not absolutely make a profit by the misconduct of their children. I think, my Lords, there are many good points in this Bill, but certainly it seems to me that before adequate justice can be done to its discussion we must have before us the other half of the Government scheme, and I shall, therefore, beg to postpone my own Bill.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: I think this Bill will effect a great improvement in the legislation dealing with children of the criminal classes. There are two clauses which I am most heartily in favour of, the one which gives power to deal with girls who are leading bad lives, or are in danger of getting into evil, and the second is that providing for emigration. I am also delighted to find that the sending to reformatory schools is not compulsory, but that there are alternative punishments provided, one of which is whipping. I must express regret, however, that girls were exempted from whipping. I do not see why a girl of 10 or 12 years of age should be exempted. It is most unjust to boys. I am supported in that view by many ladies who have interested themselves in the education of girls. Miss Yonge, the authoress, has written very strongly both to me and to the public Press in this sense, as have also Mrs. Meredith, of the Princess Mary's Homes; Miss Bolton, and other ladies actively engaged in the benevolent work of rescuing children from vice. Charles Kingsley having been for most of his life opposed even to the whipping of boys, declared that his wife's experience had shown him the advantage and necessity of it in the case of children of both sexes. To my mind gross injustice is occasionally perpetrated owing to the present condition of the law upon this subject. I will give your Lordships an instance of my meaning. A short time ago, at Doncaster, a girl who gave her age as 8 was convicted of a theft of money. After she had stolen the money she invited her brother and a boy friend to accompany her to Lincoln. The boys actually did not know the money was stolen until they were in the train. They were all three captured. The brother was whipped with a birch rod; but the girl, the real culprit, was dismissed. Three days after wards she was caught thieving again. The magis-

  201
  trates endeavoured to send her to a reformatory, but none would admit her, and she was again dismissed scot free. Is this justice? My lords, I call this injustice, and the very apotheosis of sentimental legislation. Such legislation is unjust, contrary to common sense and insincere. I say insincere, for if any of our own girls had at that age been guilty of such a crime we should not have hesitated to have inflicted upon her the proper punishment for a child of that age. Dr. Arnold has said very plainly indeed that in his opinion corporal punishment is of very great service with children of both sexes. Ten newspapers, several of them circulating among ladies, have also lately supported his view. Although I believe whipping to be, under certain circumstances, beneficial to boys, I am almost tempted to vote against that clause because it is unjust to them to limit the punishment to the male sex. Fear is expressed that the infliction of whipping on girls would arouse a sentimental outcry in the country. I believe there is no ground for that fear. The English people are, after all, amenable to common sense; and, in m y view, it is only common sense that a child under 10 years of age, whatever its sex, ought to be whipped.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: I think the success of reformatory education would be most seriously imperilled if it were transferred to the Education Department. The Education Department is obliged to look principally, almost entirely, to the intellectual side of education. Reformatory teaching requires peculiar qualities, not likely to be found in the ordinary teacher. The work is very difficult and perhaps thankless, and if there is not a sufficient supply of teachers it is probably because they are insufficiently paid. I hope Her Majesty's Government will press the Bill through this Session, as we have already waited for it long enough.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: It is, no doubt, correct to say that the children who are sent to these schools are not criminals, but they differ very much indeed from the children who attend ordinary schools. They have not had honest methods of bringing up, but exactly the reverse. Therefore,
  202
  the education in these schools must materially differ from that in ordinary schools. The aim must be to wean the child from bad and criminal habits. I hope the Government will adhere to the methods of inspection which are proposed by the Bill. It would be a great misfortune if these schools were left to the inspection of the officers of the Education Department, who might be disposed to take too mechanical a view of their duties.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: There seems to be really no opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill, and the principal point referred to in the course of the discussion has been that of where control should be. I differ from the noble Lord's (Lord Norton) views and take a very strong view against removing these schools from the control of the Home Office. It is not necessary at this stage to discuss that question, but I thought it right to say this much, as my noble Friend behind me seemed to think that his views, so far as industrial schools went, met with the acceptance of the Government.
  *THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I should like to ask the noble Earl who has charge of the Bill why it does not extend to Ireland? I notice that provisions are made for extending it to Scotland, and I think the same ought to be done with regard to Ireland. I am especially anxious that the discretionary power given to the Court with regard to sending children to prison before they go to a Reformatory should be possessed by the Courts in Ireland, as I have the greatest objection to young children being sent to gaol when it can be possibly avoided.
  EARL BROWNLOW: I certainly cannot consent, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to the introduction of any clause providing for the whipping of girls.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.—(No. 15)
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read and discharged.
  COMMISSIONERS FOR OATHS BILL (No. 6)
  Amendments reported (according to order): Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday the 30th inst.

  THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE, in rising to call attention to the 54th, 57th, and 87th sections of the Local Government Act, 1888; and to ask Her Majesty's Government whether parties aggrieved by orders of the Local Government Board, made or confirmed under either the 54th or 57th sections, may petition Parliament, and be heard before a Select Committee, in the manner provided by the 87th section for cases to which it applies, said: My object in putting this question is not so much to get from my noble Friend (Lord Balfour of Burley) an interpretation of the clauses mentioned in the question, as to elicit from him what is the policy which Her Majesty's Government is of opinion ought to be pursued with those Orders of the Local Government Board which are laid upon the Table of this House.
  *LORD BALFOUR: I think I can reply to this question in a very few words. Your Lordships, on referring to Sections 54 and 57 of the Act, will see that they deal with important subjects, such as the alteration of the boundaries of the county and making new county boroughs. But other matters referred to, such as the number of wards and electoral districts, are of less importance, and the policy of the Act is to deal with these different matters according to the different degrees of their importance. In regard to some of them it is provided by Section 54 that, while the County Council and the Local Government Board may agree on what is desirable to be done, and may embody their decisions in a Provisional Order, the policy of which is to regard those matters as of such intrinsic importancee that they must be submitted to Parliament in the form of Bills confirming Provisional Orders. Section 87 provides that those Provisional Orders should be dealt with in the same way, in every rsspect, as other Provisional Orders are dealt with when they are brought before Parliament—namely, that if opposed, they should be referred to a
  204
  Select Committee, and that the parties should be heard by counsel. This applies only to the first four sub-sections, a, b, c, and d. In regard to the sub-sections e and f, they have reference to matters of much less importance, and upon them the decision of the Local Government Board is final. Section 57 relates to different classes of subjects. In regard to some of them the decision of the County Council and the Local Government Board taken together is final; and, in the first two or three classes, a Report has to be laid before Parliament by the Local Government Board if a certain number of electors oppose. But in regard to these matters, all that is done is that the Local Government Board makes a Report to both Houses of Parliament of what has been done, and leaves the opponents, should there be any, to take such steps in either House as they may think fit. What those steps would be would depend upon the circumstances in each case; but I think I am not going too far in saying that it would probably have to be by Motion disapproving the action of the Local Government Board. There is, therefore, no analogy between the procedure under the 57th section and the Tramways Act to which the noble Lord has referred.

  THE EDUCATION CODE, 1889.

    QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
    THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON, in rising to ask the Lord President of the Council whether it would be possible to insert words in Article 85 (a) of the new Code which will make it clear that the requirement of 100 cubic feet of internal space and 10 square feet of internal area, for each child in average attendance, will either not be applied to existing schools or will only be applied in extreme cases, said: I should not like it to be supposed that, in asking this question, I intend to imply that the Government has any intention of putting severe pressure on the voluntary schools; and I should like to add that I have not yet had time thoroughly to study the Code, and the more I look into it the more important do the changes proposed in it appear to me to be. They seem to me to be so serious that it might be necessary that we should have a little more time thoroughly to examine them

    205
    before giving an opinion as to the way they would work. I am glad the Government has given us two months instead of the statutory one month during which the Code might be considered in Parliament. No doubt the Government has paid regard to one of the fundamental recommendations of the late Commission of Inquiry into Education—viz., that both the Board schools and the voluntary schools should be considered as constituting an essential part of the educational provision for the country. There is no reason to believe that there is any desire on the part of the Government to hurt the voluntary schools in any way, but there is a great deal in the Code which affects them very much. I hope I may be permitted, after putting this question to-night, to reserve to myself the liberty of saying something at a later stage about the general working of the Code. I think it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of a great many of the changes. They grow under one's eye as one considers them, and the Government will probably find that it is really of value to the Department that they should know by some public discussion what would be the effect of a great many of these proposals. But the particular question which I ask now has been pressed upon me very much, because it is one of the very first things that struck the minds of the managers of voluntary schools. The 85th article of the new Code is so worded as to give generally a power to the Department to insist upon 100 cubic feet of internal space and 10 square feet of internal area being provided for every child in average attendance. There are a great many cases where that would be very oppressive. In many cases it would be almost impossible to raise the necessary funds. There are other cases, especially in London, where it would be impossible to obtain the necessary ground for enlargement. In many cases, again, the managers would, in the first instance, have been glad to comply with such a provision, but were discouraged and practically prevented by the Department itself from complying, because the Department refused to make any grant corresponding to the increased area. In these various ways there can be no doubt at all that anything like a universal requirement of this increased
    206
    accommodation in the schools would be so oppressive as practically to interfere seriously with the general principle of recognizing the voluntary schools as part of the provision for the education of the nation. I shall be glad, therefore, if the President of the Council is able to give some assurance that that is not the intention of the Government, and to say also whether it would be possible to insert words which would make it quite clear that this requisition is not to be applied to existing schools, or would only be applied in very extreme cases. I do not think it would be difficult to provide such words if there were a real desire to insert them, and I am sure it would make a very great difference in the way in which the Code is generally regarded in the country by those who have charge of these schools all over England.
    *VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I should be the last person to deny that a full discussion of the new Code would be not only objectionable, but of immense advantage. I should also like distinctly to say that the Government recognize as fully as the right rev. Prelate the desirability of maintaining the settlement which has been made with respect to the education of this country. The voluntary schools are as much a part of our system as the Board schools, and are as much recognized in this Code as they have been on any previous occasion.. The Government desire to do equal justice as between Board and voluntary schools, and thereby to promote the efficiency of our national education. With regard to the special question. asked by my right rev. Friend, what is required by the Code is that—
    "School premises should be healthy, well-lighted, warmed, drained, and ventilated, properly furnished, and supplied with suitable offices, and contain sufficient accommodation for the scholars attending."
    That refers to existing schools, and a note follows as to construction of new buildings, and it is said that the Department will "endeavour to secure the 100 cubic and 10 square feet for each unit in average attendance." These words were introduced ten years ago to give the Department discretion, on which they have acted. No hard.. and fast rule is laid down, and the Department have only been desirous to act in accordance with the recom-

    207
    mendation of all the Royal Commissions—
    "That the 100 cubic and 10 superficial feet should be the minimum accommodation provided for each child in average attendance in all school buildings in future to be erected."
    At page 63 they remark that:—
    "Superficial area is but a rough approximation to the actual accommodation of a school, and that the truer criterion, especially in schools for elder children, is to be found in the amount of seat room provided. We think that the demand for increased accommodation for each child in those buildings in which it has been hitherto calculated at eight square feet per child should be measured rather by the need of more seat room than by the simple calculation of superficial area. The proper measure of a school's accommodation should be the seat supply."
    So long as there is adequate room for the children in average attendance, existing schools need not fear the interference of the Department on the ground or want of space. No raid upon schools heretofore sanctioned was ever contemplated, and there are many reasons why it would be unjust. They need not be apprehensive of any undue pressure.
    THE EARL OF HARROWBY: It is impossible to say even two or three words on the subject of the New Code without expressing one's great sense of the difficulty of the subject. No one knows better than I do the extreme complexity and difficulty of these educational questions. A Bill in Parliament is bad enough, but a Code is always more difficult, because it is full of details of the most complex kind. I do not purpose at this moment to go into the question of the Code. If it were always to be administered by my noble Friend I should feel perfectly confident that all was right, but it may at some time have to be administered by someone very different. The point I wish to press upon noble Lords is this—that the Code proposes greater changes than have been made in our system of education during the last twenty years. I am utterly unprepared at present to give any opinion as to how this Code will work. It fails to embody many of the important modifications of the existing system which have been recommended by the Royal Commission, so that the Code cannot be described as the Code of the Commission. The Commission expressly state that their recommenda-
    208
    tions can only be taken as part of an entire scheme. I acknowledge the skill, labour, and goodwill to the cause of education with which the Code is framed; but at present one cannot express an opinion as to its educational effect. I can not, however, help thinking that if the excellent example of Mr. Mundella, which inspired the confidence even of his opponents, had been followed, it would have been a wise, generous, and considerate course. In 1881, when changes small and insignicant compared with those of the present Code were introduced, Mr. Mundella allowed the proposed Code to lie on the Table for a whole Session in order that a basis of general agreement might be found. I remember that there was hardly anything in Mr. Mundella's career as Vice President that met with more general assent and applause than that action. It is worth considering, in so grave a matter as this, whether it would not be better to follow a precedent so wise and generous, before the Government are finally committed to the great and vital changes which are embodied in this Code.
    EARL FORTESCUE: The more I have looked into the Code since the discussion the other day, the more I have been struck with the great magnitude of the alterations—many of which, I think, very great improvements—and the more I have felt that it requires very careful discussion as a whole, because of the working of the different alterations in conjunction with each other. I trust that before the expiration of the two months which have to elapse after the Code is placed on the Table, before it acquired the force of Law, there will be time for full discussion which, in your Lordships' House, ought to take place soon after the Recess. The working of the Code in the country would be greatly facilitated by public attention out-of-doors being called to the various provisions which, at first sight, can hardly be adequately understood in their full bearing.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Tuesday the 30th instant, a quarter past Four o'clock.