Lords Sitting of 29 July 1889

GRANTS TO MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL FAMILY.
Report from the Select Committee of the House of Commons: Communicated (pursuant to Message of Thursday last), and to be printed. (No. 189.)
TOWN HOLDINGS.
Report from the Select Committee of the House of Commons: Communicated (pursuant to Message of Thursday last), and to be printed. (No. 190.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be Read 2a on Friday next.—(The Lord Balfour). (No. 191.)

TURKEY—BULGARIA.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, there is not much novel matter in the volume of correspondence on Bulgaria, for which I moved last Session. It goes down to December 1887, and covers the election of Prince Ferdinand. It will not, I trust, be thought presumptuous upon my part to refer to it. At the same time, I should have scarcely ventured to bring it before the House unless protracted observation, so far as one can make it in this country, led me to think that a revival of the Eastern Question may be possibly impending. The Blue Book would tend itself to warrant that conclusion. There is in it a speech of Count Kalnoky, which well
1538
explains the situation in Bulgaria-Count Kalnoky shows that Prince Ferdinand has not the sanction of the Porte or of the Powers required by the third section of the Treaty of Berlin. The explanation is more serious as coming from an Austrian Minister, who might be thought to look with favour on an Austrian candidate pursuing an election to the Vassal Principality. There is a Despatch from Sir William White, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, showing that Russia is inclined to prolong the status which gives her so much right to interfere, and that her Government refuse, when asked by the Sublime Porte, to mention Princes who would have her acquiescence in Bulgaria. There is a Despatch from the noble Marquess the Secretary of State intimating that one party in Bulgaria is eager to declare its independence, by which the Suzerain would be drawn into reprisals; that another party is disposed to recall Prince Alexander, by which a Russian occupation might be easily precipitated. There are despatches from Sir Robert Morier which throw the greatest doubt on the intentions forming at St. Petersburg, and prove at least that the existing status in Bulgaria can hardly ever be accepted there. The pervading essence of the Blue Book—that I may sum it up more generally—is to exhibit frequent insurrections against the provincial regimé, severe punishments inflicted on their leaders, emphatic protests of the Russian Government—which point to future intervention—in their favour. Since 1887, when the Blue Book closes, we know, by less official sources, that a collision between Prince Ferdinand and the Exarch of Bulgaria has happened, and that no less than 60 persons were arrested at the moment of the discord

1539
which arose between the civil and religious power. However, we are led to ask for much more recent indications. We have them in Crete, which has before now furnished preludes to more general disturbance, and been metaphorically painted as the stormy petrel of the Eastern Question. We have them in Armenia, to which so much attention was lately called by a noble Earl on the other side (the Earl of Carnarvon) and by a well-known Prelate, who supported him. What more impresses me is that the organs of the Government for weeks have all united in prognosticating Eastern danger. Their opinion seems to be confirmed, although more indirectly than directly, by Continental journals which I need not specify at present. My Lords, whoever goes back only for a minute to the Treaty of Berlin will see the greatest antecedent probability that the Eastern Question would re-open. Two independent nations were created—Servia and Roumania—liable to go to war against the Porte, one of which has done so since. The invasion of Bulgaria by Servia in 1885, on the alleged ground of its disloyalty, was so regarded by the Sultan. Austria established without a given limit, but not in perpetuity, on the territory of the Porte—it may have been a deeply calculating measure—was certain to excite hostility in Russia. Bulgaria, when formed into a Vassal Principality, was inevitably doomed to think of absorbing East Roumelia, which has taken place, and of flinging off the Suzerain, against which the noble Marquess has had occasion to discourage her. At this moment there may be in the midst of Parliament routine and legislative details which absorb us a kind of incredulity as to anything more grave occurring in those regions. But so there was in 1875, when the three Empires entered on commercial treaties with the Vassal Principalities, and when the subject came before your Lordships for discussion. Who thought at that time that the Herzegovinian insurrection was at once to follow, or the Servian War, or the Bulgarian Rebellion? Who thought that the noble Marquess was to be hurried from the India Office to Constantinople in November 1876, or that Russia would cross the Pruth a few months afterwards? She crossed the
1540
Pruth in violation of one Treaty and might cross it now in partial execution of another. My Lords, under these circumstances and with this apprehension, measures may suggest themselves, although without more information it is difficult to judge them. It may not be impossible to correct the situation in Bulgaria, either by gaining the assent of all the Powers to Prince Ferdinand, or else by superseding him, or else by the appointment of a Regency, which, according to another passage of the Blue Book, Lord Iddesleigh recommended and M. de Giers, to a great extent, accepted. Last year, in February, I held a Conference to be desirable, and the noble Marquess seemed to coincide with me, if all the Powers could be induced to join it. It is clear they will not do so, and that other methods are essential. At least, until the situation in Bulgaria is altered there cannot be tranquillity for Europe. On this point further knowledge would be valuable. It might be also most important to place the Treaties of 1856 upon a larger basis and a firmer one. They are, in some degree, confused by those which followed in 1871 and 1878, while yet they are in vigour. The most effective—that of April 15th—includes only Prance, Austria, and Great Britain, while from the movement of the world, the inarch of history, it is, in fact, confined to Austria and Great Britain. The security of the country upon the Eastern Question would at least be greater if it was re-enacted in such a way that Germany and Italy, with other Powers, were comprehended in it. But nothing can be urged as yet distinctly on the subject. My Lords, having before now directed your attention to that topic, I cannot but attach the greatest possible importance to the revival of the Ottoman Assemblies which began in 1877, if only upon this ground. When Great Britain is required to defend the Porte, on European as well as Indian grounds, we must invoke the popular opinion of the country. It is one thing to ask the country to make sacrifices for a despotic, another to ask it to make sacrifices for a Constitutional, authority. The Ottoman Assemblies which were overthrown when Russia reached San Stefano, although not similar to ours, were still a check upon the arbitrary power of the Sultan. Sir Henry Layard, who had, as an Ambassador, to Watch their operation, is the

1541
unanswered, unrefuted witness to their efficacy. Had they gone on, Armenia might not have required the noble Earl and his most reverend supporter to explain its wrongs or advocate its interests. There is another ground on which they are important, even indispensable. Until they have been fully tried, you cannot meditate a further system on the Bosphorus. Until their capability of effecting objects which our policy has aimed at is disapproved, you cannot enter upon any further changes in the territory of the Sultan. But to revive them at Constantinople against the influence of Russia and the Palace presents a formidable problem and one on which more light might usefully be concentrated. My Lords, it may be urged that measures of this kind, however just, can hardly be pursued when the Foreign Office is so much overloaded as it is at present. We know, indeed, from records of Lord Bolingbroke, of Mr. Canning, and Lord Palmerston that it is in itself a most laborious Department. I have heard the late Lord Clarendon, the last autumn that he held it, remark to a society of gentlemen, when he was going home at night, that he should have to work till about four o'clock in the morning. If anyone could act as First Minister and Secretary of State together, in point of versatility and industry, it would be, perhaps, the noble Marquess. But the year before last he was compelled—it must have been compulsion—to absent himself from Parliament before the Session finished. The burden, therefore, seems to be too great for anyone, if permanent. It may, in moments of particular emergency, be necessary to sustain it. I once contended in the House, when Russia was advancing on Constantinople, that in order to prevent duality and discord, then apparent in the Government, it would be useful for Lord Beaconsfield to join the two functions. I do not say the noble Marquess is not as well qnalified to do so, or repeat the maxim, "Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi." But three Sessions may be too long a period for an exceptional arrangement, unless on diplomatic grounds it is essential to preserve it. In France it is true that since 1870 and under Louis Philippe the offices have been frequently united. But it would hardly be maintained that, in effect or influence
1542
abroad, the result has been entirely successful. My Lords, there are a set of fallacies upon the Eastern Question which it requires the fullest information to disperse, and which are often in the way of policy and action. One is, that Germany and Austria are sufficient for the defence of the Ottoman Empire against Russia, and that the Western Powers may judiciously abandon it. When have Germany and Austria alone been able to defend it? Was it in 1829, or in the Crimean War, or in the recent struggle? Another is, that to command Egypt is sufficient for Great Britain. But the Power which obtains Constantinople must eventually hold Egypt, and close your shorter route to India altogether. Another is, that Great Britain has nothing but security in India to consider, as if she was not a Mediterranean Power while holding Cyprus, Malta, Gibraltar, and as if Russia at Constantinople would not be dangerous to all the Mediterranean Powers put together. Another is, that in order to reform Ottoman abuses you ought to sanction Russian interference. The noble Marquess pointed out the other day that where Great Britain ceases to defend she must cease to admonish. I do not blame those, although unable to concur with them as yet, who look to a Byzantine Empire, which the Duke of Wellington at one time contemplated as a possible arrangement. No doubt it would be easier to secure allies for a Byzantine Empire than a Mahometan dominion. No doubt, as in former ages, there has been a rushing tide of Asia towards Europe; there is now an apparent flood of Europe into Asia. But such a growth is pregnant with incalculable difficulties. It must be ascertained by what race, what individual, and what Army it would have to be directed, organized, sustained; whether Roumania, Servia, Bulgaria, or Greece should be regarded as its genius and its mainspring. It must be ascertained whether it could harmonise, with due consideration for the Asiatic provinces of Turkey. But to uphold Constantinople against aggressive power would seem to be the indispensable preliminary to any further triumph of the Cross over the Crescent. Nor ought these views to be regarded as irrelevant, if it is felt that the Government may soon be called on to fulfil the obligations

1543
which the Crimean War enhanced, although it did not actually originate. My Lords, I am conscious of alluding to the subject in a perfunctory manner. But as we may be on the eve of a serious transaction with regard to it, involving multiplied Debates, it is better for men who speak to economise at once the time and patience of their hearers.
Moved,
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for further papers on the aspect of the Eastern Question."—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
The PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, the request of the noble Lord is exceedingly legitimate. In fact, before he put his notice down, I had given directions for the preparation of such papers as have not been published within the last two years. I think the last Papers on the subject were published at the close of 1887. Happily, since then affairs in Bulgaria have not been rich in historical events. The Principality has been well governed and progressive, and we have every reason to congratulate its rulers upon the success with which all its affairs have been conducted. There is not, therefore, any great amount of information to give to Parliament in response to the noble Lord's request; but whatever there is, we shall be very glad to give a considerable portion of it. With respect, however, to the matters over which the noble Lord's speech travelled, I do not suppose he anticipated I should follow him. He made an interesting speech, which I have no doubt will be carefully read; but it is open to the noble Lord to speculate on a great number of questions with respect to which those in the service of Her Majesty must abstain from comment. I do not concur with the noble Lord in the somewhat sinister auguries which he draws from the existing state of things. I do not venture on any confident prophecy in any direction. It is impossible, indeed, to say what the state of things in the Balkan peninsula and other parts of the Turkish Empire may be in the future; but I do not think there is now any greater ground for anticipating disturbances than there have been, on the other hand,
1544
any very encouraging symptoms of stability and progress. I do not say that the progress of Turkey has been very rapid, but I think it has been sensible. I think there is less disposition on the part of various potentates, great and small, to speculate on the possibility of disturbances in that country. To mention a Power which was referred to in the speech of the noble Lord, I am bound to say that the Government of Russia has observed a very correct attitude, and that nothing has taken place which justifies us in criticising her conduct. On the contrary I think that, judging merely from events, we are entitled to say that the conduct of the Russian Government has fully justified the pacific professions which the Emperor has constantly made. I do not, therefore, wish to endorse the apprehension expressed by the noble Lord, and, if I may be permitted to say so, I do not feel obliged to endorse the predictions made by the noble Lord. I am not sure that the best method of treating the Eastern Question at present is to discuss it. On the whole, my belief is that a country in the position of Bulgaria advances more rapidly to the only healthy and possible settlement—that is to say, the natural growth and development of the strength of all the populations in those regions—in proportion as those who stand outside it abstain from any action or language that would tend to stimulate the unfortunate differences which occasionally arise. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will excuse me, penetrated with the view as to the advantage of silence in dealing with this question, if I conclude by assuring him that we will give all the information in our power, and expressing the hope, with some degree of confidence, that the dark picture he has drawn of the future will not be justified by the facts.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I think, my Lords, everyone will agree that Russia has, by her acts, justified her pacific professions. No one can be in a better position to judge of the action of Russia than my noble Friend, but at the same time I hope I may be allowed for a very few minutes to point out how very serious is the aspect of matters in Europe to all those who have not the privileges of my noble Friend of possessing private and also official information.

1545
Every year that passes by for the last two or three years has witnessed a certain amount of alarm, and justifiable alarm, at the coming months. Our hope is that the coming 12 months will pass over as peaceably as the last 12 months, but the position of affairs, beyond all doubt, is serious. You have, in the first place, alarge, an almost unprecedentedly large, accumulation of troops. The accumulation carried on steadily and systematically along the eastern frontier of Austria is a very marked phenomenon. It is quite fair to say that it is stated on good authority, that that accumulation of troops is in pursuit of an old military policy, carried out for a long time. In Servia you have a military census—you have large armies ordered and supplied, and no one quite knows why or how or from what sources. In the Caucasus you have a very heavy massing of troops. Then, again, it is quite possible to say that with the large armaments of modern days, with armies of three or four millions of men, the movement of 100,000 men ought not to be taken very greatly into account. But still the fact remains that it is so, and it is a serious factor in the situation. We have now 15 millions of armed men in Europe, divided into hostile camps. Almost every man capable of bearing arms is a soldier. But, my Lords, these are not the only causes of apprehension. It is impossible to ignore the international jealousies, rivalries, and ambitions which exist in Eastern Europe. Even within the limits of the dual Monarchy, which is a fair object of political admiration, Croats, Bohemians, and Hungarians are all actuated by diverse feelings and interests. Outside the Austrian Empire you have Servians, Roumanians, Bulgarians, Montenegrins, each of them pursuing a separate policy. Thus, my Lords, the whole political situation is charged with electricity. A single imprudent word, a single unfortunate act, a toast given at a banquet, a King returning from his self-imposed exile, a movement meaning anything or nothing, may be quite enough to set this inflammable matter on fire. And it is most inflammable. You have not only all the elements of conflagration; you have intrigues in actual operation, you have suspicious factions and still more suspicious and unscrupulous partisans. He must have
1546
a very short memory indeed who does not remember in recent times a Sovereign Prince being spirited away and placed in a position of absolute danger to his life. And, my Lords, a consideration of these matters does not dispose of the dangerous elements, for amidst all the cross currents of faction you have, in addition, a much, larger volume of nationality with all its-ambitions and aspirations of race—that most powerful feeling which has in our own day made Germany, created Italy, and which has gone a large way to place the United States in their present position. You have, then, these three great dangers—the accumulation of troops, the intrigues and ambitions, and the influence of race; but there is a still greater peril, and it is mainly that which has induced me to say a few words this evening. There is, it seems to me, a still greater peril to the peace of Europe than any one of these three. My noble Friend has stated that whilst Russia on the one hand has justified by her acts the peaceful assurances which she has given, on the other hand the progress of Turkey, though not rapid, was yet, if I caught his words rightly, marked——
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Was sensible.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON: That it was sensible. My noble Friend on his high authority has given us that remarkable assurance. I own that to me it seems that the greatest risk of the present moment is the Turkish Empire and the policy there pursued. You have a Government there which is not only deeply involved in debt, but where the Exchequer is absolutely empty. I believe it is no exaggeration to say that at this moment the Exchequer at the Porte is almost without a penny in it. At the same time, by incapacity, by misgovernment, the Porte seems to me to be provoking, if not justifying, foreign intervention. I ventured to call the attention of your Lordships to the state of things passing in Armenia. I stated then charges of misrule and acts of atrocity which, happily, cannot be alleged against many parts of the world or many Governments. There was no pretence of denying the accuracy of what I said. No one has ventured to do so. It would be impossible to deny those allegations. What is the answer that the Turkish

1547
Government has made? First, a manifesto appeared a few days afterwards in the newspapers, professing to come from the Armenian population, thanking the Porte for the reforms which had been made, and expressing themselves in terms of gratitude, as if they were the happiest and best treated of mankind. That was the first answer. What was the second answer? Happily in this country we have a Press which publishes reports to the world from all quarters without fear or favour. There appeared a report in the Times as to these unfortunate events in Armenia. A telegram warned the Turkish Government, and the Turkish Government suppressed the circulation of the Times in Turkey. My Lords, these are the acts by which the Turkish Government take away from their friends all hope of improvement in Turkey, and which inspire their enemies with confidence. These are the ridiculous expedients adopted by Turkey for blinding Europe in regard to matters which Europe knows only too well. I admit that the Turkish Empire has fared badly at the hands of all, whether friends or foes. France has possession of Algiers; Greece is built up entirely upon the ruins of the Turkish Empire; Russia has taken where she wished and everywhere; Austria is in possession of Bosnia; and we ourselves are the masters of Cyprus. Turkey has fared badly all round from friend as from foe, but she has only herself to thank for it. I agree with my noble Friend that reticence may be the duty of professed diplomatists and Foreign Offices; but, at the same time, that does not apply to outside observers, and I hold it to be the duty of those who look on and watch these events to warn Turkey, at least in the gathering difficulties which surround her, that if she trusts to the support of England it must be by a very different policy and by very different means and methods than those which she has hitherto pursued.
LORD STEATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLsaid that he had no reason to detain the House with further observations, as Her Majesty's Government were willing to accept the Motion which he offered. He could not but remark, in passing, that the impressive language of the noble Earl who had sat down, so far as it was just, suggested stronger grounds for the revival of the Ottoman
1548
Assemblies than could have otherwise been given.
On Question, agreed to.

MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS.
Petition signed by various members of the medical professions and by others also on behalf of various medical charitable institutions, praying for inquiry in regard to the financial and general management and the common organisation of medical institutions, endowed and voluntary, and in regard to the administration of Poor Law institutions for the aid of the sick in the Metropolis: Presented, and read.
LORD SANDHURST,in rising to move, "That the prayer of the said Petition be agreed to," said: My Lords, I would say, at starting, that I have assumed this task with feelings of great diffidence, and I wish that the task had been undertaken by some noble Lord on either side of the House who was more practised in the ways of your Lordships' House, and with greater facility of expression, and also whose individual opinion in endorsing the Petition would carry more weight. My Lords, the subject is one of great difficulty, and the more it is considered the more complex and difficult it becomes. It concerns the welfare of the general public in receipt of medical relief, and it also concerns those of the public who generously contribute to maintain the charities. Moreover, the subject is bound up with the interests of the most honourable and honoured of professions. Therefore, in default of a more experienced advocate, and being not entirely unacquainted with the work of the large general hospitals in London, I ask the indulgence of your Lordships while I endeavour to state some reasons why some of us, at any rate, consider an inquiry to be necessary. In my remarks I shall not impugn the policy or management of any individual hospital nor arraign any board, and I do not wish your Lordships to suppose that I am taking up a position as an economist or a philanthropist. I shall merely lay before you facts backed by a few figures. This is not the first time that the subject has been considered. Various Medical Committees have considered the whole or portions of the subject. No action, however, has been taken by the hospitals.

1549
Failing these, information has been amassed by the Charity Organization Society, a Society known to your Lordships, whose business is organising and not dispensing charity, and seeing that this is their business it is, I think, a fit and proper body to undertake it. The medical relief in the Metropolis may be classed under two heads—charity and Poor Law charities. There are 11 general hospitals with schools, and eight general hospitals without schools; 67 special hospitals; 26 free dispensaries; 35 provident dispensaries; 13 part-pay dispensaries; and five surgical appliance societies. The number of in-patients is 76,898; and out-patients 1,470,398. The total income is £696,258, and the total expenditure is £723,021. The beds unoccupied are about 2,000 in number. To these must be added 27 Poor Law infirmaries, with 11,900 beds, and £336,200 expenditure; 44 Poor Law dispensaries, with 114,980 outpatients, and £19,980 expenditure; eight infectious hospitals, with 2,760 beds, and £129,313 expenditure. The total is a follows:—239 institutions—in-patients, 122,047; out-patients, 1,585,353; total expenditure,£l,208,523; total income, £1,197,477, in the year 1887. I beg your Lordships' attention to the fact that for want of funds upwards of 2,000 beds were unoccupied. Perhaps ail the definitions are not clear, and it may be thought I should explain them in passing, though it seems hardly necessary. The term general hospitals with schools would not seem to require explanation. Patients are admitted nominally by letter, but they are practically free. Eleven of them have schools attached, where every sort of disease can be studied. Take, first and foremost, the three great endowed hospitals—St. Bartholomew's, St. Thomas's, and Guy's. Two of these, St. Bartholomew's and St. Thomas's, are of very ancient origin. They were endowed, not by the State or the municipality, but by private individuals, who have given the means for producing the incomes on which they exist, and they do not, or did not formerly, apply to the public. Even of these the income of one (Guy's) was so precarious that two years ago it had to ask the public for £100,000 to enable it to carry on, and at another many beds are
1550
closed, and doubts exist as to their ever being opened again, and certainly they will not be opened entirely for gratuitous patients. Then there are eight other general hospitals with schools. These are the most useful and important schools—all-important for the study of almost all diseases. Their size insures, if well managed, treatment at less expense than the smaller hospitals. They have, for the most part, special departments for special cases, and have the advantage of the very best advice. Some have been able to be structurally altered in accordance with the advance in medical science. In the last 20 years the greatest advances and improvements have been effected in nursing and nurses. In 1887 the deficits of these hospitals alone amounted to upwards of £32,000, and if it had not been for a number of small legacies, with which they were able to pay their way, the deficits would have been upwards of £51,000. So much for the general hospitals. Of the special hospitals, 67 in number, some are special in treatment, but nearly all for special diseases. I am anxious to be moderate, but I must, and will, say what I think, and what those who are with me think. I must also state what I know is the opinion of very large numbers of the medical profession in London. The origin and management of some of the special hospitals have been such as to cause suspicion, where suspicions exist, as to the conduct of hospitals as a whole. They are not unfrequently started for private advantage by those who wish to make themselves consulting physicians or surgeons to them, some are started for speculative purposes, and in neither case is the public welfare or the advance of science considered. They are generally started, as to funds, more or less by some philanthropist, and on that support failing they are thrown on the charitable public. There are no schools; there is no advance of science, and the management leaves much to be desired. Owing to the small number of beds, the administration must be costly. They are sometimes found in insanitary premises, and are built without regard to existing local needs or perhaps in proximity to hospitals; the advice is not of first-rate description, and it is not infrequently the case that there are more beds pro-

1551
vided in the general hospital hard by for the treatment of such special cases than in the special hospital itself. By the names which they assume they deprive the larger hospitals of cases which, in the latter, would be better attended, and from which instruction would be gained. They also attract large sums of money which otherwise would probably find its way to the larger hospitals. My Lords, that is the effect of the evidence which we have been able to collect; but I should like to read to your Lordships the opinions of two individuals—one of them is amongst the foremost of our medical practitioners. The distinguished physician Sir Andrew Clark has vividly described one of the greatest evils in connection with our hospital system in the following words, in a speech at the Hospital Fund Society:—
"Then there is another reason, and that is the foundation and maintenance of improper hospitals, which divert funds in a direction in which they ought not to be employed, and rob the great hospitals of the support which they ought to receive. A doctor who cannot get on in the ordinary way takes to studying the great toe, and he discovers something about it that has never been discovered before. In the course of his studies he ascertains that the diseases of the organ are not only supremely important in themselves, but that they have the most intimate relation to all the other serious diseases of the body. He also invents a wonderful instrument whereby he can look into the great toe and see what is threatening, and prevent all those terrible things which happen in the organ and affect the whole system. He goes to his friends, shows them his instrument, and tells them of his discoveries. They then club together and establish a Hospital for the Treatment of the Diseases of the Great Toe. This hospital is manned by his friends, who, having joined in the venture, must make it a success. They soon get patients who are convinced of the vast importance of the great toe; marvellous cures are effected, and all sorts of frightful diseases are prevented. They have an annual meeting; they have a chairman, who sets forth, bashfully, in the presence of the great physician, the diseases of the great toe, the wonderful things that have been done, the great service which has been rendered by the hospital, the terrible prejudice it has had to encounter, the determination that this great institution shall be liberally supported notwithstanding the prejudices of the medical profession, and of those who herd along with them."
Then, my Lords, I come to another very eminent authority, Mr. Michelli, the Secretary to the Seamen's Hospital Society, and late Secretary to St. Mary's Hospital, who, in a paper which he re-
1552
cently read at the Hospital Association on "Hospital Extravagance and Expenditure," drew attention to the excessive amount spent by hospitals in advertising and collection, printing, stationery, and postage, to the small net percentage of profit that goes to hospitals out of the receipts from bazaars, fancy fairs, and other such means, and to the excessive cost of special hospitals. He says:—
"But what is grievous to see is a small special hospital established within a few hundred yards of a large general hospital, in the former of which there are fewer beds altogether than there are beds allotted to the particular speciality in the general hospital close by. The maintenance of a bed in the small hospitals is often 50 to 75 per cent greater than in a large one; and I maintain that every penny so spent is wicked extravagance and waste."
He then states that he has gone carefully through some 200 Reports of hospitals, and finds that he can get no information from them. Now, my Lords, the cost per head for salaries and wages in the first of the large general hospitals, with school and 205 beds, is £19 1s. 2d.; in the second, with school and 310 beds, it is £25 0s. 6d.; in one special hospital, with 80 beds, £39 7s. 2d., and in another special hospital, with 64 beds, £35 0s. 9d. In a third, with 16 beds, it is £33 4s. 2d., and in a fourth special hospital, with 14 beds, it is £42 10s. 3d. The average cost per head for nine general hospitals with schools, with average number of beds 295, is £24 5s. 10d. for salaries and wages; whereas for the nine special hospitals, average of 27 beds each, it is £30 12s. 2d. Now, my Lords, these institutions obviously call for inquiry, if for no other reason, yet on account of the figures which I have given. At the same time, the fact must not be ignored that there are some exceptions in the case of two or three institutions of world-wide and well-merited reputation. But the very excellence of these makes the case for an inquiry into these institutions all the stronger. The institutions to which I refer were in existence before the general hospital system was as complete as the special Department now is, and long before the hospital system acquired the excellence which it has now undoubtedly attained. Then, my Lords, I come to the dispensaries. There are 26 free dispensaries, most of which were started before the

1553
out-patient system was developed, combining free treatment both at the dispensary and at home. In these there are 162,219 patients, and they have a deficit of £2,003 in an expenditure of £21,257. Then there are the part-pay dispensaries, in which the out-patients number 102,302, and the deficit was £714 on an expenditure of £9,710. Then we come to another class, the provident dispensaries on the benefit society system, to which subscribers pay both in health and sickness, and which afford relief to the whole family. These institutions thrive best away from the hospitals, and are principally on the outskirts of the Metropolis. In these there were 125,674 out-patients, and income and expenditure nearly balanced each other. Then I come to the great question of the finances of these institutions. I should have mentioned that the special hospitals have a surplus of about £90,000. This financial question is a very simple matter, though it is extremely difficult to get at trustworthy figures. In 1887 the hospital deficit amounted to £32,000, and now the total is about £100,000. But in dealing with these figures it might occur that one hospital might have been so lucky as to receive a very large legacy of £100,000. That would give an average surplus, while only one of the hospitals participated in the legacy. I will give an instance of my own experience in hospital finance. A few years ago, as regularly as the quarter came round, the Chairman of a Hospital Committee with which I am connected used to make a motion for the withdrawal of £3,000 or £4,000 of capital for the payment of bills. He was making the usual motion, when I remonstrated, but was immediately answered that I knew nothing of finance. It may have been all right, but it appeared rather startling. The only way in which these general hospitals have been able to get on is by the legacies which from time to time they receive, and by persistent begging. There is no systematic statement of accounts, and if some organized method of furnishing a statement of accounts were to be adopted, it would be more satisfactory for the staff and for the subscribers. Now, my Lords, I come to another subject on which there is considerable diversity of opinion among those best qualified to judge, and that is
1554
the outdoor departments of the hospitals of which the dispensaries are really an extension and development. In 1887 the outdoor patients were more than one million and a half, and the number keeps on increasing. These patients often have an almost interminable time to wait, and I have no doubt that many of them are able to pay for attendance and medicine. This is very hard on the small local practitioners who work hard for small fees, and it tends, I fear, to the pauperisation of a very large number of the community. Therefore, my Lords, I should like to put it to the House whether there is not here a legitimate cause for inquiry, and whether something might not be done to check this pauperising system of outdoor relief, so that those in absolute want would be left to the resources of the larger institutions. Now, my Lords, I come to the Poor Law dispensaries. There are 44 Poor Law dispensaries and eight hospitals for infectious diseases in the Metropolis. There are 27 Poor Law infirmaries, which before 1867 were of a very inferior character, in which the diet and nursing were bad, and the nurses were themselves paupers. But in 1867 an Act was passed which produced a very much better state of things, and now they are magnificent State hospitals, built away from the workhouses, in which every modern improvement is to be found. There is never any want of first-rate medical appliances, there is an enormous amount of air and space, and a trained staff. The system adopted with regard to them amounts to this: an individual, after being seen by the relieving officer, is sent to the infirmary. That is intelligible; but there is no security as regards the distribution of medical relief. I will just take a case which shows the system. In Marylebone alone, with a population of 155,000, there were in 1885—one Poor Law infirmary with 700 beds, one general hospital, ten special hospitals, four free dispensaries, one provident dispensary, two Poor Law dispensaries, and one or two charities for gentlewomen. I should think it very likely that a great number of the patients came from adjoining parishes, while the people in Marylebone went to St. George's and other adjoining parishes. There is no system at present by which we can deal with

1555
that. Then again, take Fulham, which is a long way from the centre of the Metropolis. With a population in 1885 of 152,600, there were one general hospital, two sick clubs, one Poor Law infirmary, and one Poor Law dispensary. My Lords, I have some experience of Committees of your Lordships' House, having sat for two Sessions on an inquiry into this system. I do not think an inquiry into these medical charities would be such a difficult matter. If there was an inquiry by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, they would have the advantage of the evidence of experts, and would be likely to come to a more rapid conclusion than if assisted by experts in a Royal Commission. I would ask the noble Marquess and the noble Viscount to consider the matter, and if they agree that there should be some inquiry, I think it would be most satisfactory. I have been told that such an inquiry is premature, and one of the principal reasons given is that there are in the air several schemes for the improvement of the system, one of which is linking the provident dispensaries to the general hospitals; another, payment in hospitals; another, payment of fees according to means; another—suggested by the Lord Mayor—that of collecting 1d. a week from the wages of people in workshops. These various schemes would, I think, furnish excellent food for reflection if the inquiry I ask for were granted. My opinion is that if we are to wait until such schemes can be put in practice we might have to wait until a very indefinite period. In my opinion, and in the opinion of those for whom I speak, this inquiry ought not to be delayed. I have no wish to bring forward any Motion which would have the ultimate result of placing these hospitals on the rates, though I have no doubt I shall be told that is the tendency of my Motion by those who do not take the trouble to read my remarks. I think it would be a great pity and a great slur upon this Metropolis if we had to confess that these hospitals were failures, because we could not provide adequate means to support them. It is difficult to see how matters are to go on as they are at present. I have framed this Motion with reference only to the hospitals of the Metropolis, although in the Provin-
1556
cial towns there is a very general opinion in favour of a similar inquiry with respect to their hospitals. I may also say that we have with us nearly the whole of the rising medical profession. I have not put forward any remedy—it would be better that that should come from the Committee when they have thoroughly thrashed out the subject; but I have endeavoured to bring such light as I can to bear on the circumstances in the hope that in the end some system may be evolved from the existing chaos. My Lords, I beg to make the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, "That the prayer of the said Petition be agreed to."—(The Lord Sandhurst.)
THE LORD PEESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): My Lords, I am sure your Lordships have listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord on a subject which is attracting very much attention at present, and which has attracted great attention in times past. Nobody, I think, will be found to differ from the opinion of my noble Friend—that if we could provide some central organisation for the charities of this Metropolis or of the kingdom we should be doing a great work and an immense deal of good. The danger is lest, if we were to impose an inquiry, the flow of means to the institutions might not be in some cases checked. When you are dealing with voluntary subscriptions, you must beware of checking them by such a step as my noble Friend has suggested. Hospitals generally possess a fixed income from endowments, and there are a great number of them, I have no doubt, offer a proper subject of inquiry; but it is a very different thing when we come to deal with charities which are receiving aid by subscriptions from day to day. There has been, no doubt, an unnecessary multiplication of special hospitals. But they have been set up and are conducted by those who are breaking no law and infringing no rule of society, and who themselves find the means by which they are carried on. That seems to me to be the great difficulty in interfering with them. My noble Friend has referred to what occurred with regard to the Poor Law hospitals in 1867. Previous to that time there was insufficient attend-

1557
ance, insufficient nursing, and no good sanitation. I can speak myself to haying seen patients in some of the Workhouses lying in a state of dreadful illness two in a bed. But there was a strong feeling in the matter, and with the agreement and concert of all parties a Bill for their improvement was passed, which is, I believe, still in operation with respect to those Poor Law hospitals. With regard to the Motion I can say, on the part of the Cabinet, that the case for inquiry will be considered, and that next Session I may be able to announce to my noble Friend what course the Government propose to take. I can assure my noble Friend that the matter will receive the attention of the Government, and I hope he will be satisfied with that assurance.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I merely desire to say a few words on this subject, because the Committee on which I sat last Session expressed a desire that the Government should consider the whole matter and see whether it would be possible to institute such an inquiry. I entirely agree with the view expressed by the noble Viscount with regard to institutions maintained by voluntary subscriptions; but, at the same time, I should be sorry if that idea should prevent some inquiry into the larger hospitals. An attempt has been made at amalgamation, but it has failed owing to the jealousies and difficulties in the way. Another matter which has not been referred to by my noble Friend is the present condition of the great infirmaries connected with the various Boards of Guardians in the Metropolis. These Poor Law infirmaries have become so important, and are so exceedingly well-managed, as to occupy a very great place in the treatment of the sick. The whole subject is a very large and complicated one, and at the present time I can only say that I am glad to hear the Government are directing their attention to it. An inquiry into the whole subject could not fail to result in considerable advantage to the Metropolis and to the public at large.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
The said Petition ordered to lie on the Table.

FREE SEATS IN CHURCHES.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE,in rising to move—
"For Returns of the 7,703 old pariah churches, and the 1,711 new parish or district churches, and the 754 churches in which sittings are held by faculty, referred to in the Report of the Select Committee on the Parish Churches Bill, 1886, as having no pews or sittings rented; with the answers received to the questions of the Committee,"
said: My Lords, from information which I have received I have been led to the conclusion that it would be desirable to have these Returns in order that there may be a more accurate knowledge upon the subject. If these Returns were granted I think they would be useful both to those who desire to see all seats free and open and to those who are willing that assignments of seats temporarily made by churchwardens in a reasonable manner should not be disturbed. I beg, therefore, to move for these Returns. I have agreed that they should contain only such answers to the questions of the Committee as are material, by way of supplement to those already made public.
EARL BROWNLOW: My Lords, I need only say that Her Majesty's Government have no objection to granting the Returns asked for by the noble and learned Earl.
Motion agreed to.
"Returns of the 7,703 old parish churches, and the 1,711 new parish or district churches, and the 754 churches in which sittings are held by faculty, referred to in the Report of the Select Committee on the Parish Churches Bill, 1886, as having no pews or sittings rented; with the answers received to the questions of the Committee": Ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Earl of Selborne.)

LUTON NATIONAL SCHOOL.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, in calling attention to the correspondence between the managers of the Luton National School and the Education Department, and moving for further Papers, I shall have to detain the House but a very few minutes. I desire, first, to call your Lordships' attention to the Papers which were circulated last week. It is not my fault that the Papers were not in your Lordships' hands at an earlier date. The order was given by this House some weeks ago, but by some mistake they have been delayed. I need not pursue that subject further.

1559
I do not intend to call attention to any local circumstances connected with the Luton National School, but to invite the attention of the Government to certain passages in the reply of the Education Department to the managers of that school. What I wish to know is where we stand with reference to that answer? The New Code of Education, brought in at the beginning of this year, has introduced several modifications which have created great alarm throughout the country; but I will not trace the history of that New Code, or go into details, as I understand that it has now been abandoned. Your Lordships will remember that at first there was a determination to press the New Code at all hazards; afterwards there was a proposal that it should run concurrently with the old; and at last we arrived at another stage when, as I understand, the New Code has been withdrawn altogether, which, it seems to me, was the only satisfactory mode of dealing with that very unhappy series of regulations. My Lords, the sentence to which I wish to call attention is in the reply of the Education Department to the School Managers of Luton, dated 17th of June last, in which they say they consider that for the purpose of determining whether the applications of School Boards for loans under section 10 of the Act of 1873 should be granted the existing accommodation for older children would not be taken at eight square feet per child. That, my Lords, is a most significant attitude to be taken up by the Department. If I am told that was written under the belief that the New Code which was laid before the House was to become law, then I can understand the situation. I understand, however, that it has nothing to do with the New Code, but has reference to conditions which existed before the New Code came before us. The distinction between the two classes of schools is clear. Where the school is erected by loan as sanctioned by the Department the accommodation is calculated at the rate of 10 square feet; but in voluntary schools the calculation has always been made at eight square feet. Many of the voluntary schools have been in existence for a long time, and they have all been sanctioned by Parliament. In some cases where the managers were desirous of providing more ac-
1560
commodation per child than eight square feet, they have been restricted by the Department to that amount of accommodation, and therefore the managers in many cases are not by any means responsible for the accommodation which now exists. They have in some cases been hampered by the Department in providing accommodation at the rate laid down as the minimum. In 1871 the Education Department had determined that the accommodation for older children in schools must not be less than eight square feet per child, and that in Board Schools the space was to be 10 feet. My Lords, the importance of this question is very great indeed. I will not trouble your Lordships with calculations; but in a paper prepared in Manchester with reference to the New Code, Article 5, to which I may refer, it is stated the effect would be at once to reduce by one-fifth the present capacity of the existing schools, which would entail a large outlay in the case of voluntary schools, or a diminished average attendance and a diminished Grant. The question of the application of this principle resolves itself into two heads, one as regards the school itself and its efficiency, the other as regards the amount of provision in a given area. Your Lordships will see that when you are dealing with large masses of population it makes the greatest possible difference whether 10 or eight square feet per child is to be the rule as regards the voluntary schools; and from the reply of the Department to the managers of the Luton National School it seems to be the intention of the Department to make the area required involuntary schools 10 feet instead of 8 per child. This change would lessen by one-fifth the number of places supposed to be existing in voluntary schools, and if this basis of calculation were insisted upon it would lessen the number of seats in voluntary schools in London alone by 60,000. Having up to this time calculated on the basis of eight square feet per child, it is now proposed to make use of another calculation which will deprive voluntary schools of one-fifth of their estimated accommodation. My Lords, I should like to be fully informed what are the intentions of the Department on this head. In the Royal Commission on Education the Secretary

1561
of the Department was asked a question on this point, and he said—"I think the table is prepared on the basis of eight square feet." Now that is an important table. It gives the number of schools, and the number of scholars provided for from 1839 to 1882. The interests at stake in this matter are very great indeed, and I do not think the Department ought to make a change of this magnitude without calling the attention of the public to the matter. The principle is laid down very distinctly as regards Luton that the existing accommodation for older children should not be based upon a calculation of eight square feet, but of 10 square feet. That refers to the voluntary schools at Luton. If it be right to make the change let it be made; but I do not think it is right for the Department to impose that change upon the country, and I call your Lordships' attention to the subject in order that further light may be thrown upon it, seeing that the regulations of the Department would sweep away one-fifth of the accommodation. It is most undesirable, I think, that the Department should act in this legislative manner. Of course, matters of detail arise requiring to be dealt with from day to day; but the Department should not make so serious a change affecting such large interests, and sweeping away so large a portion of the accommodation in the voluntary schools, without further light being thrown upon the matter.
Moved, "That there be laid before this House further Papers respecting the Luton National School and the Education Department."—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: My noble Friend, when he first brought this matter forward, asked for the Papers which he thought were sufficient for his purpose. I requested him to come and see all the Papers that he might move for what he thought best. He declined that offer, and now moves for additional ones. I think I shall be able to show what these Papers contain, and what has really been the course adopted with regard to this transaction. My noble Friend is quite mistaken in supposing that something new has been undertaken. The practice which has existed ever since
1562
Mr. Forster's time in 1871 has not been departed from, and where a School Board asks for a loan it is only given on the condition that each school place should have an area of 10 square feet, that it shall so use its desks and seats as to make that accommodation good. That has been done for a long period past. In fact at Nottingham it began so long ago as 1871. But this scale does not interfere with voluntary schools. The voluntary schools are left in the condition in which they are. They are able to take in the number which they can accommodate under the existing system; but the calculation as to the future wants of a district is made upon the 10 square feet basis on which the Board Schools are built. But my noble Friend has said this is something quite new and opposed to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission approved of the rule now in operation, which is a rule under the old Code; and action under this rule was taken in the Luton case. I need not go through the figures, but it appears there is a deficiency of 615 school places for older scholars, and the loan has been made for 410. That is to say, allowance is made for those who are not likely to make a full attendance, and therefore you allow for two-thirds instead of the whole. By that means you get sufficient without imposing too great a tax upon the rates. My noble Friend supposes this will interfere very largely with the denominational schools.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: No, I do not raise that.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: If my noble Friend does not raise it, I do not want to go into it. But my noble Friend seems to suppose there is some stringent rule going to be imposed which will affect the voluntary schools built upon another scale; and I agree with him that it would be unfair and unjust to come down upon voluntary schools and call upon them to enlarge their limits to the 10 feet scale, which, educationally, my noble Friend has put his hand upon in the recommendations of the Royal Commission as an appropriate scale, and as one which is much more fitting for the purpose than the eight feet scale. But, as I have said,

1563
the voluntary schools are not touched by the 10 feet basis; they remain just as they were, no doubt with a deficiency as regards the 10 square feet, but with a sufficiency as regards the eight square feet regulation. Therefore they are in a position to keep the schools just as they are. There is a deficiency, I think, of 370 places in the Board Schools alone, so that the accommodation supplied will not be much beyond their immediate needs. But, my Lords, it is only right that I should state what has happened in this case. It was the School Board that put it in motion. The application of the Luton School Board to provide further accommodation was made in June of last year, when the Resolution was carried by six to two. The Education Department carefully investigated matters, and the same Resolution having been carried by a new School Board elected in February last by seven to two, it is evident that the inhabitants are in favour of the scheme for which we have sanctioned the loan. I do not think my noble Friend need not be apprehensive that the voluntary schools will be injured by the scheme. No intention has been expressed or felt to injure the voluntary schools in this respect, or to force upon them any larger accommodation than that which they possessed. It is a regulation which relates to the other schools alone, and it does not relate to the voluntary schools at all. In other cases, as I have said, where a loan has been asked, the same audits have been enforced and the same basis of calculation allowed. In the Isle of Man some years ago such was the case.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: May I ask my noble Friend where the rule to the effect he has been mentioning has been laid down? I must confess I am not aware of it. That is one of the unfortunate results of the proceedings of the Education Department. We really do not know what goes on. A correspondence takes place and then we are told that a rule has been established without our being told to what extent the principles laid down are applicable. All I can say is that as far as I am aware no such rule as stated by the Lord President of the Council has been put forward. That state of things is not at all satisfactory notwithstanding
1564
the way in which the noble Viscount describes it. If the regulation is really prospective I can understand it; but if it is to be made retrospective, with the view to existing accommodation on the principle laid down in the letter of the 19th June, a great blow will be struck at the voluntary schools. I should like to know where the rule to which the noble Viscount refers is laid down, and whether it has been published by the Department. After what has been said I will not trouble your Lordships by asking for further papers. My object has been gained by this discussion. I am very glad indeed to hear the noble Viscount disclaim that the intention exists to apply this rule in the way I have mentioned. I do not suppose for a moment that he himself has any desire to interfere with the voluntary schools, but I think the more light thrown on the proceedings of the Education Department the better.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I should like to ask how it was the decision was come to when this order was to be put in force, or why it is to be followed now if the new Code has been withdrawn.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: My noble Friend does not seem to have heard what I said. I have stated that this matter had really nothing whatever to do with the new Code.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Then, my Lords, I give notice that I will move that the regulation to which my noble Friend has referred should be laid before the House.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

BRIBERY (PUBLIC BODIES AND OFFICERS UNDER THE CROWN) PREVENTION BILL (No, 90.)
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. (No. 192.)
COUNTY COURT APPEALS (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 104.)
Amendments reported (according to Order); further Amendments made; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
TRUST FUNDS INVESTMENT BILL (No. 153.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Beading read.
  LORD BALFOUR: The Amendment which stands in my name is to insert on page 3, after Clause 6, the following clause, providing for the investment of sinking funds by Local Authorities:—
  "Where the Council of any county or borough or any urban or rural sanitary authority are authorised or required to invest any money for the purpose of a loans fund or a sinking fund, any enactment relating to such investment shall be modified so far as to allow such money to be invested in any of the stocks, funds, shares, or securities in which trustees are authorised by this Act to invest, except that such Council or authority shall not by virtue of this section invest in any stocks, funds, shares, or securities issued or created by themselves, nor in real or heritable securities."
  I understand it has been accepted by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. At the present time certain powers are conferred upon Local Corporations who have private Acts of their own, as well as under the Local Government Act of 1875, which they may exercise from time to time. My Lords, this Bill gives powers to Trustees with regard to the investment of moneys which they hold; and by this new clause I ask your Lordships to give to Local Authorities the same powers of investment as are given to Trustees, but with certain modifications. The Bill proposes to give to Trustees power to invest in certain Stocks, but not to invest in those Stocks which are standing above par, and are redeemable at par within 15 years of that time. That is in cases where the Stocks are standing at a premium. It is still further proposed to limit the power, because, although it empowers Public Bodies to invest in the Stocks of other Public Bodies, it does not, if they are standing at a premium, allow them to retain those investments when they reach the period of three years from the time of redemption. My Lords, there are other limitations as to the power of investment. These Public Bodies are not to invest their money in real property. The purpose of this is obvious. Beal property might not be easily convertible when the money was required. The clause, my Lords, is entirely on the lines of the general purposes of this Bill;
  1566
  and though it does not give to Local Authorities the full power which it gives to Trustees, I hope your Lordships will accept it.
  Amendment agreed to; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons; and to be printed as amended. (No. 193.)

  AUDIT (ARMY AND NAVY ACCOUNTS) BILL. (No. 164.)
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
INTERPRETATION BILL (No. 92.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Beading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to move an Amendment which is not altogether in accordance with the views of my noble and learned Friend. It is for the insertion of new clauses after Clause 33—
  34. In computing any period of time for the purposes of any Act passed after the commencement of this Act, unless the contrary intention appears,—

  (1.) A period reckoned by days from or before a particular day, or the happening of an event, or the doing or default in doing of an act or thing, shall be deemed to be exclusive of that day or of the day on which the event happens, or the act or thing is done, or the default occurs.

  (2.) If the last day of the period is not a working day, the period shall include the next following day, being a working day.

  (3.) If by the Act any act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken on a certain day, then if that day happens to be not a working day, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next succeeding working day.

  (4.) If by the Act any act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken within any time not exceeding seven days, any day which is not working day, shall not be reckoned in the computation of the time.

  For the purposes of this section the following days shall be deemed to be not working days—namely, Sundays, Christmas Day, Good Friday, any Bank Holiday under and within the meaning of the Bank Holidays Act, 1871, as amended by the Holidays Extension Act, 1875, and any day appointed for a public fast, humiliation, or thanksgiving.
  35. In the measurement of any distance for the purposes of any Act passed after the commencement of this Act, that distance shall,

  1567
  unless the contrary intention appears, be measured in a straight line on a horizontal plane.
  I must take leave to say that I think the objects of this Bill have been a little misunderstood. Its object is simply to provide an explanation of the meaning of certain words which might not be clearly understood—that people may have in this Bill something in fact like a dictionary before them, which will explain the precise meaning that in law should be attached to certain words. Simply the object is to give the public a dictionary which will enable them to understand the language used in statutes. At present they do not in many cases understand the meaning to be attached to it. My Lords, I think it would be well that there should be some rule, and that the Courts should recognise that rule as enacted by a general statute, unless the contrary intention should appear.
  Moved, "That the proposed new Clause stand part of the Bill."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  LORD THRING: My Lords, nobody will admit more readily than myself the necessity for something of this kind. During my tenure of office I often had to consider what was the meaning of an Act of Parliament, and the labour and trouble involved by uncertainty brought prominently before me that necessity. It is extremely difficult to make everybody concerned in the drawing of an Act of Parliament cognisant of the particular meaning of particular phrases and in respect of certain terms; for instance the trouble involved with regard to the terms "county" and "city" is untold. I would put this case to your Lordships: a Clerk of the Peace in a county wants to consult a particular Act which refers to the service of notices within a certain number of days. How are the days to be computed? Turning to this Act, what does it say?—
  "If by the Act any act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken within any time not exceeding seven days,"
  non-working days shall not be reckoned. Now that clause applies only where the notice is to be served within seven days. Then you have the fact that there is not the slightest indication in the Act itself that this Act is referred to, and unless a man knows it by intuition, he would have no means of guidance to this Act.
  1568
  That might be provided for by the addition of a formal clause. I maintain, my Lords, with the greatest possible confidence, that the addition every now and then of a formal clause would be a much less serious matter than the fact that all over the country people are constantly making mistakes for want of something of the kind. Another difficulty would arise where the place at which a notice had to be served was within 15 miles, and where the notice had to be served by post.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to say one word upon the last observation of my noble and learned Friend. Unless you are to displace two decisions of the Queen's Bench which have never, as far as I know, been shaken, when you speak of distance it must be measured in a straight line. The value which I attach to this and to the other Amendment is that there should be a rule of law by statute, and then the question will simply be what is the construction to be placed upon this Act.
  LORD HEESCHELL: My Lords, the question would be, what is the commonly-understood meaning of a term used. It is easy to say it shall mean so-and-so unless the contrary is expressed, but if you are to understand it, a plain interpretation of it should be given.
  The further debate of the said Amendment was put off to Thursday next.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.