Lords Sitting of 25 February 1889

QUEEN'S SPEECH—HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
THE LORD STEWARD OF THE HOUSEHOLD (The Earl of MOUNT-EDGCUMBE)reported Her Majesty's answer to the Address, as follows:—
"My Lords,
"I thank you sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address. I received with great satisfaction your assurances that you will bestow your careful consideration on the measures that may he submitted to you, and I trust that such measures may be settled in such a manner as may best conduce to the interests of all my faithful subjects."

THE DUBLIN BARRACKS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE, in rising to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what steps it is intended to take to improve the sanitary condition of the Barracks of the Dublin garrison, said: My Lords, this question relates to a matter which is admitted to be of very great importance, and even if there were any doubt upon it, I think the fact that Mr. Stanhope has within the last few weeks thought it his duty to go to Dublin and make a careful inspection of the Barracks would show the importance of this matter. My Lords, although I have put the question in general terms with regard to all the Barracks in Dublin, yet the particular Barracks in which most of these cases of enteric fever have
  226
  occurred are what are known as the Royal Barracks, the large Barracks near Phœnix Park and very near the river. The River Liffey, although it has been long embanked, at one time was not embanked. It was a tidal river with apparently a considerable amount of shore, and in old times the shore was in a very unsatisfactory and unsanitary condition, as may be found by a Resolution of the Irish House of Commons as far back as the reign of King Charles the 2nd, relating to the unsanitary state of Dublin and the shores of the Liffey. The result of this river (being a tidal river) having been unembanked, was that there was a beach upon both sides of the river. That has now been reclaimed, and it is upon that land that the buildings and streets on both sides now stand. It appears from the Report which my noble Friend near me (Earl Beauchamp) moved for last year that a considerable part of the Royal Barracks are built upon what was originally the shore of the river. My Lords, upon looking over the Report which my noble Friend obtained, I find a very concise and, at the same time, a short account of the Barracks and of what the Commissioners, Sir Charles Cameron and Dr. Grimshaw, did in the way of finding out what was the cause of the enteric fever which had so long prevailed at the Barracks. Before going into that I may say that on comparing the figures I find that between the year 1879 and the year before last (the year down to which the Report goes) there were no less than 65 cases of enteric fever, and of those 65 cases no fewer than 59 arose in the Royal Barracks. Some of those cases were fatal, although, in the majority of them, those who suffered appear to have recovered. Those 59 cases included

  227
  officers and soldiers, and I think seven female members of the families of either officers or soldiers. My Lords, with regard to the Barracks themselves, they appear to have been built a considerable time ago, although it is not stated when. They consist of a number of squares facing the river. There is a considerable space between them and the river, and as far as I can judge from the map, although I do not remember it from my personal recollection, there is a road running at the front of the Barracks, so that the Barracks themselves are not actually upon the river, and I do not think the river itself can be answerable for the illness that has occurred at these Barracks. Above the Barracks, upon a higher level, is the Arbour Hill Hospital and military prison, and it appears that there are running through the Barrack premises, although to a very slight extent under the Barracks, four sewers or drains, and one of those drains appears to run through the west side of the Barrack premises close to the building, and in that part of the Barracks where it is supposed that most of the cases have occurred, although it appears by the Report that cases did occur sometimes over the whole of the Barracks. As regards the site of the Barracks themselves, I confess that before I looked at this Report I expected to have found that the soil was probably saturated with sewage, as is, I am afraid, very often the case with the houses in Dublin. I find, however, that this is not the case. There are, no doubt, some old drains running through the premises, but those drains have been now pronounced to be perfectly innocuous, and therefore the cause of the infection must be sought elsewhere. There appear, I think, to have been two causes which presented themselves to the minds of the gentleman who made this Report as possible causes of the infection. One is that certain latrines were out of order. They first of all made a preliminary Report, and before they finished their official investigation these had been put in order. But they also found that there were certain ventilators of the sewers, one of which, at any rate, they thought would be a source of danger. They applied the smoke test to one of these ventilators, and they found that
  228
  when the wind set in a particular direction, whatever sewer gas came out of this ventilator would, in point of fact, go straight into the Barracks. Another matter to which they called attention as a possible source of infection was the milk supply to the men in the Barracks. The milk in Dublin is supplied in winter from cows milked in the dairy yards. These yards are supplied with water which is quite safe. But in the summer time the cows are milked out in the fields, where they drink water which is impure, and Sir Charles Cameron and Dr. Grimshaw seem to think that that is a likely cause of infection. My Lords, I am not going to trouble your Lordships with going over other barracks, but there are two other places in Dublin, besides the Royal Barracks, which I may just refer to. Although it does not appear upon the Report, I understand that the guard-room at the Castle has been found to be in a very unsatisfactory state as regards its sanitary arrangements. This recalls to my mind the fact that about ten years ago there were cases of enteric fever in the houses belonging to officers of the Lord Lieutenant's household. I remember in one case a friend of mine had a member of his family down with fever in a house belonging to the Dean of the Chapel Royal, and I believe there was another house in the yard at which there was also a case of enteric fever. There is one thing which I should like to mention before I sit down, although I only do so with a view of drawing your Lordships' attention to it. I have heard it stated, although I am not prepared to say that I have not heard it denied, that Captain Coddington, of the Royal Engineers, who died last winter, possibly received the infection in a place known as Aldborough House, which is the Ordnance Store, in the east part of Dublin, near the Great Northern Railway. I do not know whether that is the case or not, but this barrack or store was undoubtedly built originally as a private residence for the Earl of Aldborough, and I should imagine that, like all the houses of that period, the drainage was extremely deficient, and probably there was a cesspool under the house. Whether that will be found to be so or not I do not know, but I just call my noble Friend's attention to that point. I have said all now

  229
  that I think is necessary in explaining my objects in putting this Question.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS): My Lords, with reference to the Question which my noble Friend has put to me, it appears, with regard to the drains from the hospital, that they have been disconnected, and it is believed that they are perfectly safe now. With regard to the latrines, the recommendations of the Cameron-Grimshaw Report have been attended to, and are being carried out. With regard to the guard-rooms, Mr. Stanhope has, within the last few months, obtained the services of Mr. Rogers Field, a well-known sanitary engineer, who has been in Dublin, and who is about to present a Report upon the Royal Barracks and upon the Richmond Bridewell. He has also inspected the guard-rooms both at the Castle and at the Bank. I believe there are insanitary conditions in connection with those two guard-rooms, and the attention of the authorities who have to do with those buildings will be called to the matter. I think in one case it will be the Governor of the Bank, and in the other case the Board of Works. With regard to Aldborough House, I will certainly take a note of what my noble Friend said, but I believe I am justified in saying that, as a matter of fact, Captain Coddington conld not have got the infection at any barrack in Dublin. Mr. Stanhope was so anxious about the state of the Barracks in Dublin, that he determined to get a further Report from a sanitary engineer, in addition to that presented by Sir Charles Cameron and Dr. Grimshaw, and that Report I hope to be able to lay upon the Table of the House in a few days. There has been a very exhaustive examination, not only of the Barracks themselves, but of the subsoil beneath. But as regards the whole question of barrack accommodation in Dublin, I am to state that it has been determined to deal with the matter in a general way in one large scheme, and Mr. Stanhope is not at present prepared to say what the details of that scheme may be. An additional amount of space has been obtained since last year by utilizing Richmond Bridewell for a certain number of troops, and in that way relieving the Royal Barracks, but if the Richmond Bridewell is to be made
  230
  a permanent barrack that will mean considerable alteration, and the troops who are now there will have to obtain room somewhere else. As regards the work that has been done in the past year, the guard rooms in the Royal Square have been excavated and concreted and ventilated under the boards. The alterations of the latrines have been carried out, and demolitions to improve the circulation of air have been carried out, and about £1,400 have been spent upon them. With regard to the demolitions, I may say at once that the demolitions recommended by the Cameron-Grimshaw Report have been, in the main, approved and carried out, but not exactly in the way that Sir Charles Cameron and Dr. Grimshaw recommended. They recommended that the east and west sides of the Royal Square should be demolished and a part of the west side of the Palatine Square. That has not been carried out, but they are to be disused for troops and to be used for store-houses instead. The demolitions which they recommended at the north-east and north-west corners of the Royal Square will be carried out, and certain demolitions which they did not recommend, but which have been approved now by Mr. Stanhope, on Mr. Roger Field's recommendation, will be carried out at the north-west, the southwest, and the south-east corners of Palatine Square. Palatine Square will then be in very much the same state as the Stable Square, and will have free access of air to all corners. There is a building to the north of Palatine Square, which I believe is in a very unsatisfactory state. Mr. Stanhope examined it on his visit there and has decided that it shall be demolished, and a wall running from it to the north-west corner of Palatine Square will also be taken down and the land will be slanted up. The new barracks at Grangegorman are proceeding as rapidly as possible, and some £16,000 have been taken in the current year's Estimates for expenditure there. The Riding School there will be pushed on as a special service, in order that the Riding School behind the Royal Square may be taken down, the present arrangement being considered by Mr. Stanhope very unsatisfactory, having regard to the building below preventing the free access of air. The ground-floor on the north side of the

  231
  Royal Square will be used for stores, instead of for troops, as it is now. The demolitions in the passages between the Green Squares have been carried out, as recommended by the Cameron-Grim-shaw Report, and, in addition, the south ends of both passages which were not recommended in the Report; so that there will be now a perfectly free current of air through the passages between the three barracks. At present it is not intended to carry out the demolition in Cavalry Square and in Stable Square; the access of air which is obtained by the demolition of the south end of the passages is considered sufficient in that case. With regard to the work that has to be done in the current year, a sum of £10,000 has been taken for demolitions, re-appropriations, and sanitary improvements at the Royal Barracks, and also a sum of about £1,200 for sanitary services at other barracks in Dublin. With regard to the Richmond Barracks, upon which there is also a Report from Mr. Rogers-Field, £400 is provided for carrying out the subsoil drainage, in addition to the work that has been carried on in the past year, upon which some £700 has been expended. I believe Mr. Stanhope has also in consideration the question of demolition both at Linen Hall and at Ship Street, which he examined himself personally, and about which he thought there were unsanitary conditions which might be improved; but I believe that arrangements upon that particular point have not yet been completed. I may venture to say, with regard to enteric cases from the Dublin garrison, there has been a marked improvement in the last month. I am certainly justified in saying that there has been no case of enteric fever at the Barracks in the last fortnight; and I believe I am justified in saying that there has been no case of enteric fever at the Barracks in the last month.

FACTORY LEGISLATION IN INDIA.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in rising to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his statement at Oldham on January 25th, that a Factory Act would soon be introduced in India, was correctly reported, said: My Lords, on the 5th of November last the Manchester
  232
  Chamber of Commerce passed a resolution by a majority of 10–38 to 28—recommending that the British Factory Acts, so far as they related to women and children, should be extended to British India. The seconder of this resolution, Mr. Stuttard, said, in a letter to the Manchester Courier—
  "Surely it will be better for the physical welfare of the Hindoo to remain in agricultural employment and give us plenty of cotton, rather than be attracted to the ranks of mill operatives."
  The members of the Chamber of Commerce who had had Indian experience opposed the resolution, while those who supported it showed that they knew little of the conditions under which the Bombay mills are worked. Although that resolution was proposed on the grounds of humanity to the Bombay operatives, it is only doing justice to Manchester men and to the Manchester Press to say that the mask of humanity was soon dropped, and the motive of a wish to check rival competition put forward. If, however, the Indian Government concede the Manchester request for the introduction of the British Factory Acts into India, it will lay itself open to the charge of hypocrisy for taking thought of humanity at Bombay, whence no complaints have arisen, while neglecting the calls of humanity in the Assam tea-plantations, and not interfering to prevent the great mortality of the Bengal coolies on their journey to Assam, nor taking care that the coolie hospitals in Assam should be efficient, and neglecting a duty which the Colonial Office performed for the Indian emigrants to the West India Islands and to British Guiana. The vote of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce was met at Bombay on the 19th of December by a meeting of the Millowners' Association. It was stated at that meeting that while in Lancashire 65 per cent. of the hands were women, the work done by those women was done in Bombay by adult men. The Bombay operatives had two days in the week, and holidays of from one to six months every one or two years to go home to their villages. The women stayed away from the mill for four or five days every month, putting substitutes in their places. The hands left their work four or five times a-day from 10 to 15 minutes, besides half an hour for dinner. It was also

  233
  shown that to do the same amount of work three and a third more hands were employed in Bombay than in Lancashire; and as no gas was used in the Bombay mills the hours of labour were restricted to daylight. The longest days were of 13 hours 13 minutes, and the shortest of 11 hours. The Times of India of November 30, 1888, writing on that subject, said—
  "We have a limitation already of the hours of female and child labour, and, as Mr. Bythell pointed out, 'there are four times as many persons in an Indian mill to turn out the same quantity of work as was turned out in a Lancashire mill.' The hours are long here, no doubt; but the natives of this country love to dawdle over their work. The old Bombay members of the Manchester Chamber understood the position exactly; and though they, too, are interested in the supremacy of Manchester, they were too honest to conceal the truth. We have to thank this honest minority for so clearly exposing the motive behind this ingenuous attempt to 'lift the poor people of India.'"
  I may remind your Lordships that the Times of India is not a journal representing the natives of India, but it is a newspaper which attends chiefly to the views of the Anglo-Indian community in that country. Now, my Lords, I would point out to you the inconsistency of a Chamber of Commerce which professes free-trade opinions asking for protection for one British industry alone while all are suffering, and that not against the foreigner, but against our Indian fellow-subjects. What is to be thought of the inconsistency of the noble Viscount for encouraging such hopes, if he did encourage them, while it is notorious that Members of the Conservative Party, desirous of standing well with their Leaders, are compelled to make their private opinions as to unrestricted imports subservient to Party purposes? Is the noble Viscount prepared on all ocasions to support the resolutions passed by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce? Is he aware that last November that Chamber passed a fair-trade resolution by a majority of 73 to 13, and though at a poll of the members, suggested by a portion of the directors, that vote was, naturally enough under all the circumstances, reversed, no fewer than 383 out of 1,004 circulars were not replied to. It is therefore certain that these 38c were not very zealous free-traders, and
  234
  the two parties may be equally balanced in that Chamber of Commerce. There is another reason why the noble Viscount should not have shown at Oldham any sympathy for the Manchester vote for a British Factory Act in India; that is, that his doing so was in disaccord with the first speech delivered by Lord Lansdowne after he landed in India, in which he said that he would do his utmost to encourage native industries that came in aid of agriculture, which could not provide sufficient employment for the people of India. What reason was there for informing the people of Oldham of the Secretary of State's thoughts and intentions. Was it done to catch votes? Was it an electioneering speech? Will the noble Viscount say "No," but that he spoke as a Lancashire man, finding himself in his own county and among friends? In that case the noble Viscount should remember that when he became Secretary of State for India he became the guardian and trustee of the interests of the people of India—their only guardian, and ought to think of them before thinking of Lancashire. The noble Viscount, at Oldham, indulged in prophecy as to the boldness of any man who would propose to re-impose the cotton duties in India. Certainly to do so at Oldham would require extraordinary boldness. But can the noble Viscount be sure that he will not be obliged himself to propose this in India? Through the repeal of these duties the salt tax has been increased and cannot be further increased, and the opium revenue is diminishing. The noble Viscount referred in his speech to the heart burnings caused by the repeal of the cotton duties. Was my noble Friend reminded of those by a gentleman who supported him on the platform, the Member for Oldham, and is my noble Friend aware what that gentleman formerly thought and wrote on the subject of sacrificing the interests of India to Manchester? Mr. J. M. Maclean, who now represents Oldham in the other House, when formerly an editor of the Bombay Gazette, wrote an article in that paper of February 28, 1876, in which he said—
  "'Give Manchester what she wants or go'—that is, what Lord Salisbury demanded of the Viceroy. What can he more scandalous, to

  235
  avail ourselves of Lord Salisbury's own words, than for an English Minister deliberately to sell India to Manchester? Yet this is what the Secretary of State proposes to do. In return for the support given by Lancashire to the Conservatives at the last Election, and with an eye to future favours of the same kind, Lord Salisbury intends to deprive India of a revenue of three-quarters of a million sterling a year, to make a present of it, in the first instance at all events, to the English manufacturer of cotton goods. We trust there is sufficient political virtue left in England to expose and stigmatize this disgraceful transaction."
  My Lords, I now beg leave to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India the Question which stands in my name.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has asked me whether my statement at Oldham on the 25th of January, that a Factory Act would soon be introduced in India, was correctly reported, and why I made that statement, and why, if I was going to make that statement, I did not make it from my place in Parliament. The noble Lord does not ask me whether I made the statement, but assumes that I did so. My answer is that I never made the statement at all, and, therefore, the statement was not correctly reported. What I did state was this. The Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories, Mr. Redgrave, which was published towards the end of 1887, contained the result of an investigation by Mr. Jones upon the working of the Factory Act of 1880 in India. As the Report of Mr. Jones was thought worthy of being embodied in his Report by the Chief Inspector of Factories in England, I thought it was well to call the attention of the Viceroy to it, and to ask him to make the necessary inquiries as to whether the factory legislation in India did require amendment or whether it did not. Those inquiries are in course of being made, and no answer has as yet been sent to me from Bombay, where the greater number of factories are. Until I receive the Report that has been asked for it is impossible for me to form any opinion as to whether it is necessary that a Factory Act should be introduced or not. I have no objection now to repeat what I did say at Oldham, which was that it makes no difference to me, as regarded factory labour, what is said by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce or by people in Bom-
  236
  bay, because the protection of one industry against another has nothing whatever to do with the reasons for which Factory Acts are passed. As I understand, the whole basis of a Factory Act is that it is absolutely necessary for the protection of the health and the lives of women and children employed in particular industries. This is the only foundation upon which Factory Acts rest. They have nothing to do with the protection of one industry against another, or one class against another, or one country against another. Therefore, whenever it becomes my duty to consider whether there ought or not to be an amendment of the law in India, such consideration will be based upon that principle alone. The noble Lord further asked whether steps had been taken to see that the coolies of Assam and Bengal were properly treated. Some time ago an Act was passed in connection with that subject, and the question was raised whether the Coolie Act should be amended when Lord Hartington was Secretary of State, and his Lordship thought that its operation should be tested for two or three years longer. At the end of that period I had to consider whether I would amend the law or give it a further trial. I found that great improvement had been effected by the Act, and I, therefore, determined to give it another trial and extend it for two or three years. The result has been that very great precautions have been taken under the Act, and I received a despatch from the Viceroy last month saying that very considerable improvement has taken place in the position of the coolies. If the noble Lord will move for a copy of that despatch I should be glad to lay it on the Table. As regards death rates, they vary considerably in different parts of India. Some of the tea gardens are particularly unhealthy, but those are being narrowly watched. I think the last average death rate recorded was 36 per thousand, which is a little above the ordinary death rate among Indian populations. I think I have answered all the Questions of the noble Lord, and I trust I have done so to his satisfaction.

STANDING ORDERS.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL(Earl CADOGAN), in introducing the Report of the Select Committee made to the

237
House on the 31st of July last, said: My Lords, when in the course of last summer I moved your Lordships to appoint a Committee to inquire into the Standing Orders of this House relating to the conduct of public business, I explained to the House the reasons which induced the Government to make that proposal and the objects which they proposed to themselves in doing so, and I do not think it will be necessary for me to trouble your Lordships with any repetition of such statement. There is, however, one point to which I wish to allude once more—namely, to the disclaimer which I then made as to there being any idea or intention that the appointment of a Committee to carry on this inquiry should be either in substitution or anticipation of any more ambitious schemes or proposals which might be brought forward in the future for the reforming of the constitution of this House, or its reconstruction as a branch of the Legislature. It appears to me that the question of the constitution of this House and the subject of the conduct of our legislative proceedings are entirely distinct, and should be kept separate. If we are to wait until any reform is carried out in the construction of this House, with the assistance which has been promised to us by the noble Earl the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Rosebery), having regard to his Lordship's duties in connection with the London County Council, it is likely that for some years to come we should leave the Rules which govern our proceedings unchanged and unamended. My Lords, if it be true, as has been stated by noble Lords, and by others outside the House, that for many years past this House has not addressed itself to the task of remodelling the Rules of its procedure, it appears to me that however short or however long may be our tenure of the position which we now occupy as a branch of the Legislature, it is incumbent upon us to do what we can in order to meet the criticism, and if possible to carry out the wishes, of those who desire to amend the proceedings of this House. My Lords, the Committee which the House appointed to consider this question was one which I think I may venture to say must carry the greatest possible authority. If noble Lords will look at the
238
names of the Peers who constituted that Committee, it will be seen that they were taken from all sides of the House. The Members were representative of the various stages of thought upon this and other questions, and I think it will be at once conceded that the tribunal to which these Rules have been referred was one which may be considered, not only impartial, but in the highest degree authoritative. I did not receive any great encouragement from the noble Earl opposite the Leader of the Opposition, when I ventured to make the Motion upon this subject; but I feel bound to add that the noble Earl consented to serve upon the Committee, and therefore we had the invaluable advice and assistance which his unequalled knowledge and experience of the procedure of this House would naturally give him, and I must therefore acknowledge the great assistance which he was able to give us in all our proceedings. Then there was another noble and learned Lord who sits on the same bench opposite, and I cannot help expressing my regret that he is unable to be present upon this occasion—I mean the noble and learned Lord (Lord Herschell). One at least of the most important provisions recommended in this Report is due to the initiative of the noble and learned Lord, and I think that all Members of the Committee will agree that we should derive the very greatest possible advantage from his experience. When I say that the Committee also had the advantage of the services of the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and others who have in public and in private taken the greatest interest in this question, I think I have said sufficient to show that this Report may, at all events, be received as representative of the general body of opinion in all parts of your Lordships' House. Turning now to the Report, the main difficulty with which the Committee were confronted was, on the one hand, the opinion of those Members of the House who are jealous of the ancient forms and procedure of the House, and who I believe would be best satisfied by leaving things absolutely in statu quo; and, on the other hand, there was the feeling of those who would wish for a larger and greater measure of reform and change than is recommended in the Report. It has been our duty as far as

239
possible to steer a middle course between these two sets of opinion, and I trust that the House will think that we have, to a certain extent, been successful in that aim. Speaking generally, we decided to remove, where possible, all paragraphs in the Standing Orders enforcing absolutely obsolete and useless forms, forms which had for a long time dropped entirely into the background. We wish to preserve that which is antique, but, if possible, to do away with that which is antiquated. Then, my Lords, there are certain new provisions which will be found in the amended copy of the Standing Orders which has been furnished to your Lordships, and which I will endeavour as shortly as possible to explain, and it occurs to me that possibly I might in a very few words be able so to classify these new Rules and changes as to make them clearer to your Lordships than the} would be by a cursory examination of the papers now in your Lordships hands. With regard to the obsolete forms, your Lordships will find there are several, No. XVII., No. XXXVII and No. LVII, to which I need no further allude. They are simply Rule which have long dropped out of use There is one, No. XLII, which will be found on page 29, which has been amended so as to conform with the pre sent practice of the House. Then there is a set of Rules, some of which are important in themselves, because they relate to messages and conferences between this and the other House of Parliament. I think that all of us must wish that the relations between this House and the other House should be as cordial and conciliatory as possible These Rules which we have struck out and to which we have proposed Amendments, were not only objectionable an even offensive in themselves, but calculated somewhat to hinder that comity between the two Houses which is at all times desirable. At paragraph LXXXVIII. and LXXXIX., at page 50, your Lordships will find the new Rules which we have inserted instead of the old Rules, the new Rules being, in fact, a statement of the procedure which has been in use for some time past. Then, my Lords, in reference to the conduct of Debates and Procedure your Lordships will see at page 16 Paragraph XXIV., that we have
240
amended the old Standing Order by omitting the part which prohibits our calling each other by our proper names and titles. No new Rule has been prepared providing that we are to call ourselves by our own names, but the prohibition has simply been removed. Your Lordships will be fully aware of the inconvenience which has occasionally arisen from the practice which it is intended to reform. There is a small alteration on page 16, also in Rule XXV., enabling the Mover of a Bill to speak in reply at every stage of that Bill. Then I come to a provision which is, I think, more important. On page 22, paragraph XXXA, your Lordships will see that a provision has been made for there being a quorum of the House upon any division, with certain limitations. The chief objection which has been found to the absence of any rule as to a quorum is that it has been possible that a Bill which passed through the other House of Parliament, after considerable discussion, upon some occasions should be rejected by a very inadequate number of Peers towards the latter end of the Session. Perhaps I had better read the proposed new Rule to your Lordships—
"If, on a Division upon any stage of a Bill, it shall appear that 30 Lords are not present in the House, the Lord Speaker shall declare the question not decided, but the debate thereon adjourned to the next sitting of the House; and if such Division take place when the House is in Committee, the Chairman shall declare the question not decided, whereupon the House shall resume, and shall be again in Committee at the next sitting of the House."
That, my Lords, I think, will remove what was formerly a reproach as to the inadequate attendance of Peers upon occasions when important legislation has been before the House. Then there is another paragraph, which provides not only for an adjournment of the business in question, but it gives power to the House to order that the business in question at the time of the adjournment should be taken at the next sitting, or at some later hour of the evening. This, of course, I need hardly say, refers to the difficulty which has been experienced in this House, and not in this House alone, of carrying on discussions after to 8 o'clock, or even before 8 o'clock. Great anxiety has been felt that the debate should be closed at or about 8 o'clock, and the result has been that

241
some questions have been inadequately discussed, and many noble Lords who wish to take part in the debates have been prevented from giving their valuable assistance to the House. The Rule which has been proposed by the Committee is as follows:—
"If at the close of the speech of any Lord it shall be moved that the business then in hand be adjourned, or the House being in Committee that the House be resumed, and it shall be so ordered, it shall be lawful for the House thereupon, without notice given, to make further order that the business in question shall be taken first, either at some later hour of the evening or on some future sitting-day to be then fixed."
Then, my Lords, there is one further Amendment to which I ought to call your attention, and that is at page 24, No. XXXIV. This provides for the taking up of Bills that come up from the House of Commoms. Your Lordships may remember that there was a Rule that if a Bill were bronght up from the House of Commons after twelve sitting days without some noble Lord giving notice of the second reading, the Bill should be dropped for the current Session. It has occasionally happened that a Bill has been dropped merely through the neglect of the Member having charge of it. Provision is now made that such Bills may be taken up at a later period of the Session, with certain limitations. This is a matter which I think the noble and learned Lord (Lord Herschell) brought forward last Session, and it is a small alteration which I think will commend itself to the House. Then I come, my Lords, to what is the most important of the recommendations of the Committee, which will be found on page 27, paragraph XLI. The Committee recommend the following Rule:—
"At the commencement of each Session of Parliament Standing Committees shall be appointed, to one or other of which, unless the House shall otherwise order, every Bill shall be committed, instead of to a Committee of the whole House; and, on the Report of the Standing Committee being received, the Bill shall not be re-committed unless the House so order. The Standing Committees shall not exceed four in number, and shall be appointed for such classes of Bills as the House may determine."
There are other provisions enumerated in following paragraphs which, perhaps, I may summarize as follows:—Standing Committees, first of all, are to be nominated by a Committee of Selection. They shall consist of not more than fifty
242
nor less than twenty Lords, and the Committee of Selection is to have the power to add not more than ten Lords in respect of any particular Bill. The quorum of a Standing Committee shall be twelve. The Standing Committee may appoint any Sub-Committee for the consideration of any Bill. The Chairmen of these Committees are to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, but there are not to be more than 12 nor less than eight Lords to serve as Chairmen, and they shall nominate amongst themselves the Chairman of each Standing Committee, and may change the Chairman from time to time. I should add that the Committee of Selection will consist of the Chairman of Committees and eight other Lords to be named by the House. Then, my Lords, I think the only other paragraphs to which I need call the attention of the House are to be found on page 12, Nos. XVIA. and XVIB. These allude to the absence of noble Lords. Your Lordships are aware that there has always been power in the House to enforce the attendance of its Members. That power has not been exercised for many years, and it is to be hoped that it will never be necessary to exercise it. The two Rules proposed are these—
"The absence of any Lord from this House, except for sufficient reason, shall not prevent the Committee of Selection from calling for his services.
"Lords may obtain leave of absence at the pleasure of the House upon cause shown."
These, my Lords, I think are the chief features of the Report to which I now beg to draw your Lordships' attention. I do not think I need add any further remarks. There were certain subjects which, to my regret, were withdrawn from the purview of the Committee, but I have gone at sufficient length into the result of the Committee's deliberations as far as they went, and I trust that the proposals made will commend themselves to the approval of the House.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has brought before your Lordships' House a subject of very great importance, and the recommendations of the Select Committee, constituted as it was of Members representing various views and opinions, deserve to receive, and I am sure will receive, careful consideration by your Lordships' House. I do not propose to

243
go through the alterations and additions to the Standing Order seriatim, but upon the most important change—namely, that of the appointment of Standing Committees—I may say that that proposition is one in which I heartily concur. My Lords, I take this opportunity of expressing the hope that the whole subject of Parliamentary reform will not form the subject of any Party debates, but will be dealt with by this House upon its own merits.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am sure I shall be expressing the sentiment of the House generally in paying tribute to the admirable manner in which the noble Lord has brought forward these proposals; but I must say that it appeared to me that there is one very great hiatus in his statement. He described very clearly what was proposed to be done, but he certainly ignored the very important question whether there was any reason at all for these changes in our Standing Orders. I do not myself see that any adequate ground has been made out for such a change. With regard to the proposal to appoint Standing Committees, I fear that the proposal will be the means of excluding a very large number of Peers from the debates in Committee, and I do not think that that is a very desirable thing. We are not so overwhelmed in work as they are in another place as to render it necessary so to economize our time. I can quite imagine this happening in your Lordships' House—that a Bill may be brought forward on which a Peer not accustomed to take much part in your Lordships' proceedings, and who would not naturally be a Member of any Standing Committee, might be able to bring to bear upon the discussion of that Bill a great deal of valuable information of the most useful kind, but, not being a Member of the Standing Committee, he would have no opportunity of giving the House the advantage of his criticism upon the various clauses of the Bill. The only opportunity he would have of discussing it would be either upon the second reading of the Bill or on the Report, but to rise and make a speech at a stage where you can only speak once is very different from being able to make frequent observations in Committee. Furthermore, I think your Lordships, in passing this new regulation, will be doing away with a very good oppor-
244
Tunity for young Peers to take part in your Lordships' proceedings. If the present system had been found to work unfairly or inconveniently, then I could understand these changes being proposed; but I have never heard of any complaint in this direction. The complaints against your Lordships' proceedings are many and various, but I have never heard any complaint alleged against our proceedings in Committee in discussing a Bill. I cannot help thinking that this proposal is an imitation of the French Bureaux, which certainly have not been attended with happy consequences as regards the French Assembly. Anybody who is acquainted with the proceedings in the French Assembly will know that under the form of proceeding there, it is impossible to get that numerical proportion and balance of discussion which we get in our proceedings here. I trust we shall not adopt this particular proposal without full consideration. I am sure it is a great mistake, in an Assembly like this, to make change, without very full discussion and mature deliberation. I am for improvements, but I am distinctly against mere change; and in this case I really fail to see what we are to gain by alteration. With regard to the suggested alteration as to adjournments, I think the provisions proposed are very wise and proper. Again, I think it is hardly worth while to depart from our present Rules upon the subject of addressing one another by our names. The practice we have hitherto pursued is very decorous, and I do not think we shall gain in decorum by calling each other by our names and titles. I am not quite certain how the forms of the House will enable these complicated questions to be put, but certainly as regards the appointment of Standing Committees I must say "not content."
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, although I became a Member of this Committee last year, I was not able to serve upon it, and I therefore approach this matter with the disadvantage of not having heard the arguments which were, no doubt, put forward in favour of the proposal for Standing Committees. I heard, however, very fully from my noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell) what his views were in making the suggestion, which, in point of fact, is only a modification of a proposal made by the noble

245
Marquess opposite. The noble Earl who has just sat down seems to think that there is nothing whatever in our present arrangements with regard to discussions in Committee which requires any alteration. I am quite unable to agree with him. I do not think he has at all apprehended the point in discussion in this matter. I do not suppose that it is the proceedings in Committee which are found to be defective, or which require alteration; but what we find is this, that there are a great number of small and comparatively unimportant Bills which pass through Committee without any notice or discussion whatever. Now it seems to me there is one function which is pre-eminently the function of this House, apart from any great initiative proposals, and that is the revision of Bills. It becomes more and more difficult, of course, for the other House, with the great multiplicity of business which they have, to give minute attention to Bills not of the first consequence. What we want is that all these Bills should be carefully scrutinized. What is everybody's business is always found to be nobody's business, and if the House is divided into small Committees, whose special business it is to consider the Bill referred to them, I think it will be of advantage to the country, and will redound very much to the credit of the House. Believing as I do that this alteration will lead to a more thorough examination of particular Bills, I certainly welcome the proposition. With regard to Bills of great importance, I apprehend that it is not intended to refer them to Committees of this kind. Of course they would come before the Committee of the whole House. With regard to noble Lords who might take a particular interest in a subject, and who might not happen to be upon the particular Standing Committee, I observe that there is a provision in the proposed Standing Order that any ten Members (or of course fewer) may be added to a Committee for the purpose of the discussion of any particular Bill; so that any Peer having special knowledge might be added, and the Committee would have the advantage of his experience.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I want to point out to my noble Friend that the proposals now before us
246
have not the intention, and would not have the effect, of depriving this House of any control over its Committees. The House might, if it pleased, direct that a Bill, after it has passed the Standing Committee, shall be considered in Committee of the whole House. There will still be the stages of Report and Third Reading. I imagine that when a Bill has been read a second time the Motion put from the Chair will ordinarily be, "That the Bill be referred to a Standing Committee," and it will then be open to any Peer to move, instead of the words "Standing Committee," to insert the words "Committee of the whole House." The Question always is, "That this Bill be committed," and under the new Rules I suppose it would be simply necessary to add "to a Standing Committee." It would therefore come before the House on each occasion, and there would be full opportunity for every Member of the House to give his opinion. My Lords, I feel very strongly as a Member of this House for some years that Bills of a secondary class are not considered with that care which they deserve, and that we do not examine into the phraseology of Bills, and especially the references in the Bills which form so large a portion of our modern statutory language, with the care which might reasonably be expected of a House constituted as this is. Upon the whole I think the proposal a good one; but I would point out to your Lordships that we do not stand pledged to it for ever; if it turn out that the proposal does not answer, it will be easy to send the matter back to the Committee.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My main object, my Lords, in rising is as far as possible to confirm what has fallen from the noble Lord opposite (Earl Beauchamp) as to its being desirable, and, indeed, indispensable, that each of these changes should be separately weighed, and canvassed, and considered. There is no sort of unity between the various alterations; they are not all subordinated to any common object, so as to make their being accepted or rejected en bloc either desirable or practicable, and I hope the noble Lord will see his way to giving the House an opportunity of considering the various proposals seriatim. Very little has been said about a proposal which

247
strikes me as of remarkable importance—namely, that Divisions shall not be taken unless thirty Peers are present. I merely wish for a moment to submit to noble Lords that that proposal is freighted with considerable consequences. It is clear that under such a regulation it would be possible in this House to defeat and throw out Bills without giving the appearance of opposition. I need only suggest what comment would have been made had such a course been adopted with reference to the Irish legislation of the past few years. I do not affect any arrière pensée for the Standing Orders as they originally stood, but I do maintain before your Lordships that these suggested Amendments ought not to be accepted without careful deliberation, and in that view it is essential that the House should have the opportunity of expressing its opinion upon them separately.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I would like to ask whether it is necessary to-day that this Report should be approved in all particulars? It appears to me that if the Amendments were brought before the House in Committee of the whole House, we might express our opinion upon them in their order. I do not think the discussion need necessarily be a long one, but it seems to me that a very considerable amount of inconvenience will occur unless these proposals are taken one by one, because, as to some of them, there will probably be no opposition, whilst others of them will excite a great deal of opposition, and may give rise to considerable discussion. I entirely concur with what noble Lords have said as to the extremely representative character of the Committee whose Report we are discussing, but I may point out that the Committee appear to have been very much divided upon some of the most important of the proposals which they make. Two of them come before your Lordships as the decisions of 11 against 10; and I do not think that, in a matter of this kind, we should take the Report of the Committee upon trust, or hurriedly come to conclusions upon it.
LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not think the House should be called upon to give an opinion upon these new regulations unless they can be discussed and decided upon individually. Some of the recommenda-
248
tions, as has been pointed out, will have to be very carefully examined into. I may instance the paragraph on page 22—
"If on a Division upon any stage of a Bill, it shall appear that 30 Lords are not present in the House, the Lord Speaker shall declare the question not decided, but the debate thereon adjourned to the next sitting of the House; and if such Division take place when the House is in Committee, the Chairman shall declare the question not decided, whereupon the House shall resume, and shall he again in Committee at the next sitting of the House."
I have only to say in respect to that—and I think I shall be borne out by those of my noble Friends who have had any very long experience in this House—that towards the beginning of August it will be found a matter of the greatest difficulty to collect 30 Peers together in the House. That is merely one point. I daresay there are a great many others that might be mentioned, but it shows, I think, that we ought not to be called upon to give our consent to these alterations collectively.
LORD FITZGERALD: My Lords, the most important change which it appears to me is proposed to be effected is the appointment of Grand Committees, or, as they are called in these amended Orders, Standing Committees. Now, we find that that proposition was carried by ten votes to eight, so that it was not the unanimous opinion of the Committee. Your Lordships will remember that these Standing Committee Rules will apply to all Public Bills, and therefore will include Government Bills. I always understood that Government Bills were introduccd on the sole responsibility of the Government; nay more, I have heard it said here, and heard it said here by a great constitutional authority, that to move to refer a Government Bill to a Select Committee was in the nature of a vote of censure on the Government, because the Government were solely responsible for their own Bills. I certainly approve of the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl opposite. I quite agree with what has fallen from the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) that, with regard to Bills not of the first importance, the course of proceeding is by no means creditable to the House, and no doubt it would be an improvement if Bills of that kind were referred in the first in-

249
Stance to a Standing Committee. I think the better course will be that these Amendments should be put to the House one by one.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I have no right, I know, to speak again, but I should like to be allowed to answer a suggestion which seems to have been made that this question has been, to some extent, sprung upon the House suddenly. I think it is due to myself that I should explain that this Committee was appointed on the 7th of June, and the Report was made on the 31st of July. During the Autumn Session last year, I stated to the House that probably it would not be convenient that we should consider this Report at that period of the year, but I gave notice that I should ask the House to consider it as soon as we met this year. Therefore, I really think that I may disclaim any insinuation that this matter is sprung upon the House, and I may also say, with all due respect, that I think noble Lords have had considerable time to consider the course that they should pursue with regard to this Report. My Lords, with reference to the suggestion which has been made that this Report should be considered in Committee of the whole House, I think that such a suggestion is impracticable, because it is not the practice of the House to sit in Committee to consider the Report of another Committee. That being the case, the natural order would be that all the proposed new Standing Orders should be put en bloc, and on the debate which will ensue noble Lords will be able to move any Amendment which may occur to them as to any particular proposal. The House perhaps was not aware that that would be the procedure that would be adopted to-night, and to that extent, perhaps, the House may have been taken by surprise. In these circumstances, may I venture to make the following suggestion. I would propose that the consideration of these Amendments may be adjourned to any period which may be considered convenient, in order that noble Lords may have time to consider what Amendments they would like to propose.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: May I point out that if there is merely an adjournment of this debate, noble Lords who have already spoken will be debarred from further participation in the debate,
250
and therefore will not be able to propose any Amendments?
EARL CADOGAN: I take it that if in the interval noble Lords gave notice of the Amendments which they wish to make, it would be perfectly competent for them to make them, although they had already spoken this evening.
THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOS: My Lords, I rise to suggest whether it might not be convenient to the House if, instead of merely adjourning the debate, the noble Lord the President of the Council would consent that the Question should be dropped and give a new notice for another day, which would set all noble Lords at liberty to speak upon the Question, whereas if the debate is merely adjourned they will not be able to do so.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, I think my noble Friend's suggestion is very well worthy of consideration, but at the same time it hardly meets, as I apprehend, the exact difficulty in which we are placed. The desire, no doubt, is, by some expedient or other, to take each of these separate Questions seriatim. These Questions are wholly distinct one from the other—they have scarcely any relation to each other, and if this heterogeneous mass of propositions are put en bloc it will be really impossible to come to anything like a satisfactory conclusion. I am sure nobody will for a moment suppose that my noble Friend who has taken charge of this measure would have desired to take the House by surprise. That would be entirely foreign to his nature, and I know no one who is more accustomed to deal in a perfectly straightforward manner with anything which passes through his hands. At the same time, I think it is likely that this discussion will be extremely valuable to the House when the matter is properly before us. I would now press upon my noble Friend at the head of the Government that he should exercise the resources of his fertile imagination in discovering somehow or other a method by which each of these separate and very difficult subjects can be submitted to your Lordships one by one, in order to obtain a decision upon them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It seems to me, my Lords, that this will be exactly the right method. The first Motion will be that this Report be

251
now considered. After that we shall take, seriatim, Amendments on all the points. Then comes the final Motion that these be the Standing Orders of this House. That seems to me to give all the opportunities which noble Lords can desire.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords; I rise for the purpose of making a suggestion which I think will meet all the difficulties which appear to have arisen. It is quite true that the only satisfactory way of discussing these Standing Orders is to take them seriatim, and it is equally true that that will take an enormous amount of time; but I think there is a middle course, which is this—that we should take seriatim all those Standing Orders which are absolutely new, and then take those in which any alteration has been made, leaving without discussion those Standing Orders in which no alteration has been made. I do not think that noble Lords will find that that will take a very great deal of time, and I am inclined to think that it will be satisfactory to the supporters of the proposed changes as well as to those who wish to oppose them.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I would point out that it is only this evening that we have had from the noble Earl (Earl Cadogan) any explanation of the grounds upon which the Select Committee came to the conclusions reported to us. It cannot be expected that noble Lords who have now, for the first time, heard that explanation should commit themselves without more mature consideration, and I cannot help thinking that the better course would be to take these alterations seriatim.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I think, my Lords, we shall find it impossible to discuss this matter satisfactorily unless we take the Amendments one by one. Here is one that, upon a Division upon any stage of a Bill, a quorum of 30 Members shall be required; here another constituting Standing Committees; another relating to conferences with the other House. How is it possible that in one discussion we can deal with all these subjects, which have little or no connection with one another?
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I would suggest to my noble Friend that he should withdraw his present
252
Motion, and bring it on after we have had time to look into the Amendments and alterations proposed.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I was about to ask the leave of the House to withdraw my Motion.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn, and the Order, on Motion, discharged.

SWEATING SYSTEM.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, in rising to move the Resolution of which I have given notice, it will not be necessary for me to make many observations. Although the last Session offered unusual facilities in the way of time, your Lordships Committee were unable to conclude their labours, and, as the Chairman of the Committee, it has devolved upon me to ask your Lordships to re-appoint them. I beg to move—
  That a Select Committee be appointed to continue the inquiry into the sweating system in the United Kingdom, and to report thereon to the House, and that the witnesses before the said Select Committee be examined on oath.
  The Motion was agreed to, and the Lords following were named of the Committee—

  L. Abp. Canterbury.

  L. Foxford, (E. Limerick).

  E. Derby.

  E. Brownlow.

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

  V. Gordon, (E. Aberdeen).

  L. Clinton.

  L. Sandhurst.

  L. Clifford of Chudleigh.

  L. Rothschild.

  L. Monkswell.

  L. Thring.

LAND TRANSFER BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): My Lords, my object in asking your Lordships to allow the Land Transfer Bill to be re-introduced immediately is to obtain, if your Lordships shall so please, the re-appointment of the Select Committee which worked upon the Bill of last Session up to Clause 54, and which, I venture to hope, will be willing to bring the work to completion early in the present Session. Under the circumstances, I presume your Lordships would think it convenient to postpone any discussion either of the principles or of the details of the

  253
  Bill until it shall have returned from the Select Committee.
  Bill to simplify titles and facilitate the transfer of land in England.—Presented (The Lord Chancellor); read 1a.

LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): I ask your Lordships' leave to re-introduce the Bill for amending the Lunacy Laws. It is from no fault of this House, or of those who have held the Office which I occupy, that the numerous amendments of the law on this most important subject which are contained in this Bill have not been realized long ago. Most of these changes meet with general assent; some of them are of very substantial value. I persevere in my endeavour to have this matter dealt with, and leave to others the responsibility of neglecting it. With your Lordships' assistance, I hope to send the Bill, as soon as possible, to the other House, where it is the intention of the Government to give as early an opportunity as may be practicable of having it considered. I shall not think it necessary in this House, where the same Bill has passed so many times, to do more than point out in Committee the very few differences between this Bill and its predecessors, and to invite your Lordships' assistance in dealing with the serious question of mechanical restraint which I regret to find prevailing in some quarters. I shall very shortly introduce a Bill consolidating the Lunacy Acts, and I hope that whatever may be the fate of such parts of this Amendment Bill as are subjects of controversy, at least those parts which bear on the work of consolidation will be allowed to proceed without the loss of another year.
  Bill to amend the Acts relating to Lunatics.—Presented (The Lord Chancellor); read 1a.

  TRUST COMPANIES BILL.
  A Bill to enable incorporated Companies to act as executors, administrators, and trustees, and in other fiduciary capacities.—Presented (The Lord Hobhouse); read 1a. (No. 10.)
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.