Lords Sitting of 16 May 1889

LAND TRANSFER BILL [No. 67.]
Report from the Select Committee (with proceedings of the Committee), made and to be printed. Bill reported with Amendments; and committed to a Committee of the whole House; and to be printed as amended. (No. 68.)
INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS BILL [No. 69.] HORSEFLESH (SALE FOR FOOD) BILL [No. 70.]
Reported from the Standing Comfor General Bills with Amendments; The Report thereof received; and Bills re-committed to Committee of the whole House on Monday next; and to be printed as amended.
SAINT GILES RESTORATION (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL [No. 40].
Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a tomorrow.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT (1855) AMENDMENT BILL [No. 50].

  SECOND READING.
  LORD MONKSWELLMy Lords, I move that this Bill be read a second time. The measure is a small one, and not of a. controversial character. Clause 1 remedies an obvious defect in the law, a defect which considerably increases the cost of raising the library rate. The law now is that when the Library Acts are put in force in an area composed of a single parish, the library rate must be levied as a separate
  190
  rate, but in every other area—e.g., an area composed of two or more parishes, or of a District Board, the rate may be levied as part of some other rate, thereby saving expense in the collection. My Lords, in the parish in which I live, Chelsea, the clerical expense of levying the library rate separately is £50 a year, and in addition about £100 a year is paid to the poor-rate collectors for collecting the library rate, making a total of about £150 a year for collecting £2,500. The whole of this expense would be avoided if, as this Bill proposes, the library rate were levied as part of the poor rate, as is now the case where two or more parishes club together to put the Acts into operation. Originally a Bill to the effect of Clause 1 of this Bill was brought in by me in this House, but it was taken off the Order Book and relegated to the Commons as a money Bill. I do not know whether your Lordships will consider it advisable under those circumstances to move any Amendments to the Clause. Clause 2 is merely supplemental to Clause 1. Clause 3, which has been inserted in the Bill in the House of Commons, is new and useful. It enables parishes having public libraries to make mutually advantageous arrangements for the joint use of those libraries.
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for General Bills.

ASSIZES RELIEF BILL [No.60].

  SECOND READING.
  LORD HERSCHELLMy Lords, this Bill deals with an apparently small matter, but it is one of some importance in relation to the trial of prisoners. Down to a comparatively recent period

  191
  prisoners who were committed for trial in respect of offences which were triable at Quarter Sessions were not tried by Judges of Assize except under special circumstances, the Judge of Assize trying the Assize cases, and the Sessions cases being tried by Quarter Sessions. A clause was introduced under which it was made possible for the Judges to try or not to try those cases, and in the result they were not tried; for the consequence was that the Judge of Assize tried the Assize cases, and the Sessions cases were tried before Quarter Sessions. Owing to the change which was made the question arose as to whether the Judges were not bound to clear the gaols of prisoners whom I may call Assize prisoners, and in the result the Sessions cases have been tried as well as the Assize cases of late years at the Assizes. This has resulted in very considerable inconvenience and increase of expense. The average cost of trying a case at the Assizes is very much greater than the average cost would be of trying the same case at Sessions. One result has been that the increased cost of trying those cases at Assizes has had to be borne by the country, cases which could very well have been just as well tried at Sessions. This Bill proposes that, in future, unless a case is committed by the magistrates for trial at the Assizes, or unless the Judges consider it ought to be tried at the Assizes, it shall be tried by the Quarter Sessions, instead of being tried by the Judges of Assize. Sometimes a prisoner would be tried earlier by the Judges, but one must look at the matter as a whole, and a trial at Sessions assumes a more local character than a trial at the Assizes. This is often a matter of importance to a prisoner, sometimes as it enables him to call witnesses whom he would not be able to call if he could not afford the cost of taking them to the Assize town. That is undoubtedly a very great advantage to the prisoner. I cannot for a moment doubt that, looking at the matter as a whole, whether you look at the interests of the public in the matter or to the interest of the prisoner, the balance of advantage is in favour of the principle contained in the Bill. In such towns as Wigan and Bolton, for instance, which have their own Recorders and Quarter Sessions, prisoners would be tried before the Recorder and would be able to call
  192
  their witnesses to character or otherwise on the spot, and not have to go to the expense of bringing them to the Assize town. Therefore, my Lords, I move that it be read a second time.
  LORD COLERIDGEMy Lords, in taking exception to the transfer of certain cases to Quarter Sessions, it is not so much that I object to the delay in the trial by Judges of those prisoners who are proposed to be tried at Quarter Sessions. I do not so much insist on the prolongation of the imprisonment which must necessarily take place. I agree with my noble and learned Friend that, on the whole, it is better for the prisoner that he should be tried at Quarter Sessions. But, My Lords, I wish to say that I do not like any measure which increases in any degree the liability of prisoners to be tried at Quarter Sessions. It is better that Sessions cases should be tried at Sessions; but, at the same time, I look with some jealousy upon a measure which would increase in any great degree the number of cases tried at Sessions instead of Assizes. It by no means follows that what appear to be insignificant cases may not involve difficult points of law; and all Sessions are not alike in being presided over by men who command confidence. A great many Quarter Sessions are not tribunals which anybody might desire with satisfaction to try prisoners who might equally as well be tried by the highest tribunals in the land. Still, it is rather on the score of the punishments imposed than on the difficulty of the cases which I feel it necessary to protest against too complete a relegation of cases to Quarter Sessions. I should be sorry to be obliged to lay down a principle on which sentences should be passed; but, making every allowance for differences of opinion, I affirm that, in many parts of England, sentences are passed which are enough to make one start back with amazement; and, therefore, it is necessary that rules of some kind should be laid down, not as to the character of the offence, but as to the amount of punishment which shall be ordered by such tribunals. It is a very complicated question, and one upon which differences of opinion may very fairly exist. For my own part, I should be very sorry to lay down principles, but I do say that the sentences which have been

  193
  passed at some Sessions are so startling as to justify a doubt whether it should remain possible to increase the number of such sentences, or whether it is advisable to withdraw in any degree the suggestive guidance of the more equal and reasonable sentences passed by the Judges. It is rather in reference to the punishment inflicted for offences that I should not like to see any extension of the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions. They try their cases with rapidity, and there is no reasonable objection on that ground; but I do say again, that the sentences passed at Quarter Sessions are such as, I am certain, if they were brought before your Lordships, would startle you very much. It is a useful thing that Quarter Sessions should occasionally have the opportunity of seeing what Judges do who are entrusted with the administration of justice. Perhaps the trial of Sessions cases at Assizes might be reckoned as depriving the higher Courts of the services of one Judge, by the amount of extra labour which would be imposed upon them, but that will be a less serious matter when the Special Commission ceases sitting.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I must bear my testimony in favour of the Bill. I think the disadvantages and inconvenience of the present system have been somewhat undervalued by my noble and learned Friend. I have inquired as to the proportion of Quarter Sessions cases and Assize cases tried at recent Assizes. They are not perfect at present, but I will read some of them. Among the figures in the Return I have received are the following: East Riding of Yorkshire, prisoners tried at February Assizes, Sessions cases, 38; Assize cases, 48; Durham, Sessions cases, 8; Assize cases, 14; Newcastle, Sessions cases, 10; Assize cases, 10. I have a large number of cases, but those are specimens. The figures with regard to other places are much to the same effect. A very considerable number of cases are tried at Assizes which, in the ordinary course, would be tried by Quarter Sessions. Undoubtedly a great deal of inconvenience is caused by Judges being occupied in trying these Quarter Sessions cases and being kept away from duties more proper for them
  194
  to discharge. At present, whether cases are tried at Quarter Sessions or at Assizes depends entirely on the date which happens to be fixed for the Assizes. It depends upon when the gaol delivery takes place, because, if the Sessions happen to come before the Assizes, they are tried there. That distinction exists at present by law. I think there are a great number of inconveniences at present, not the least of which is that, if they are tried at Assizes, they occupy the time of Her Majesty's Judges. There have been, more than once, complaints of Judges being compelled to go to different parts of the country simply because of their Assizes having been fixed earlier than the trials would have taken place at Sessions. There is no principle upon which Sessions cases would attach to the Assizes except by reason of the point of time. My Lords, I am also unable to concur with my noble and learned Friend in what he has said as to the inequality of sentences. I do not deny that a great many sentences strike one as some what distressing. The noble and learned Lord appears to consider that this present system is desirable as conducive to securing a greater uniformity of sentences, but I am bound to say that the same feeling arises in regard to sentences passed by Her Majesty's Judges. Even among Her Majesty's Judges there often appears to be great inequality in the sentences in cases apparently of the same character—and inequality not merely between the sentences of different Judges, but even between the sentences of the same Judge at different times. Sentences are passed disproportionate to the gravity of offences. But the nature of each case depends on a large number of different circumstances which make up the moral culpability of the Criminal Act, and different minds must be expected to somewhat differ on questions of this kind. So it is impossible to proceed upon any definite principle that shall be applicable to particular cases. I do not think that this point as to sentences affords any valid argument against the Bill. If a tribunal of appeal existed, greater uniformity of sentences might be induced, but it is impossible for minds of Judges not to differ as to the degree of moral culpability and the punishment to be inflicted for offences. My Lords, I think

  195
  it only right to add that I thoroughly approve of the principle of this Bill, and I should have thought it right to myself to bring in a Bill of this character; but upon appealing to Her Majesty's Judges upon a subject with which they were so much more familiar than myself, I found that among the Judges themselves there existed great difference of opinion on this matter as to the trial of Quarter Sessions cases, and I did not, therefore, bring in any Bill myself dealing with it; but, now that this measure has passed the other House, I see no reason why I should place any obstacle in its way.
  LORD ESHERMy Lords, I must express my strong objection to this Bill. It is said to be intended to relieve the Judges from trying a certain class of cases. But they have no right to be relieved. They have undertaken to administer the law, and they have no right to complain. These cases do not in general take up any appreciable portion of their time. I may say that I have had some experience of going circuit, and, except on the Northern Circuit, as is known to my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, the trial of Sessions prisoners takes up very little time. The Judges, therefore, are not injured by having to try them, and if they were injured they ought not to complain. And they do not complain. I venture to say that if the opinions of the Judges were asked there would not be a majority of them who desire that this change should be made. That it is a great change cannot be denied. By the Constitution of this country, from the beginning of the time when the Judges went circuit, it has always been the rule that the Judges have been bound to deliver the gaol, and that every prisoner awaiting trial should be tried at the Assize. The only persons who can be benefited by this Bill are those leading members of the circuits who have to wait when there is only one Judge taking cases until they can get their civil business brought on, and I cannot help suspecting that this Bill which has been brought into the other House has been brought in for the benefit of those gentlemen and of nobody else. Now, with regard to the prisoners, this Bill would break the rule which has always existed, because it would keep prisoners longer in prison than, according
  196
  to the present system, they are. You will be taking away the opportunity which prisoners who are in gaol have of being tried. It is the constitutional practice that the Judge of Assize shall deliver the gaol, and that every prisoner awaiting trial shall be tried at the Assize. But this Bill would deprive the prisoners of this right. If this Bill passes, then, if the prisoner is committed for trial immediately after one Quarter Sessions, he will be kept in prison and will have to wait until the next Quarter Sessions, though in the interval there might be an Assize held. The rule of delivering the gaols which exists at the present moment, therefore, will be broken. This Bill would also deprive the prisoner of the right of being tried before a Judge of the High Court. It is said that Judges ought not to waste their knowledge and skill in trying such cases. I absolutely and entirely repudiate such a principle. There is nothing derogatory to a Judge in having to try cases which, though of no intrinsic gravity, are of extreme importance to the prisoners, and as a matter of fact Judges do not complain of having to do so. It is of the greatest importance to a prisoner who is being tried, perhaps for the first time, however slight the evidence against him may be, to have all a Judge's skill and powers of mind to determine whether they are, or not, to be branded with a conviction. It is of especial importance in such cases where prisoners tried for the first time may have a stigma cast upon them. The only people I believe who would be benefited by the Bill are the members of the circuit, not the prisoners, and that I say is a thing which ought not to be.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKMy Lords, I cannot agree with the noble and learned Lord in his objections to the Bill nor in his argument of the great advantage to prisoners of being tried before Judges, some of whom on their appointment have never held a criminal brief and know much less of the Criminal Law than many Chairmen of Quarter Sessions and Recorders. Judges have plenty of other important work to do, and are not intended to devote their time to lighter work of this character which can be excellently done by others. Now, my Lords, with regard to small offences being tried at the Assizes. It is quite obvious that the Judges have

  197
  work of a higher character to do, and that they are appointed for that purpose. Why, then, are cases taken away from Recorders and others who are perfectly competent to deal with them on the spot because a Judge happens to come to the Assize town at a particular time? Trial before the Judge in such cases is a mere accident; and this Bill would relieve the country of expense and the Judges from a great amount of business which is thrust unnecessarily upon them. According to my noble and learned Friend, wrong is done to the prisoners by depriving them of the opportunity of being tried before Judges. But they have not always that opportunity. There are always four Sessions in the year for trying prisoners, and generally more than that; I think in West Yorkshire there are eight. Recorders, at least, are well-qualified and regularly trained to the business; and Chairmen of Quarter Sessions have generally both knowledge and experience. Why should not they try cases which they are perfectly competent to try on the spot at much less expense, and do try when the Judges do not happen to hold Assizes before them? Witnesses under such a plan as now exists have to be transferred at great expense from the district where the offence is committed to the Assize town, from a prison and a tribunal on the spot competent to try them, and at less expense than they could be tried before a Judge. It is in no sense a question of principle, and it is not, I submit to your Lordships, for the sake of the prisoners, but for the sake of the public that the practice should be altered, and that the time of the Judges should not be occupied in trying little trumpery cases at Assizes when their presence is required in London or elsewhere. At present you are cutting blocks with razors. Many of the cases which have to be tried by the Judges would be as well tried by a couple of magistrates at Petty Sessions. They are, indeed, generally the same classes of cases which magistrates at Petty Sessions deal with themselves—they do not send them to a jury. I have not had the opportunity of looking at the terms of the Returns to which my noble Friend on the Woolsack referred; but I think there is one instance given where the Judge of Assize was occupied for five days in that way. I think our Judges
  198
  might be much better employed than in trying cases which Chairman of Quarter Sessions and Recorders are constantly in the habit of trying with satisfaction.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEMy Lords, I agree with those who think that upon the merits of this Bill it ought to pass. But I also agree with what my noble Friend the Lord Chief Justice has said as to another matter which, though it seems to me not to be germane to this Bill, it is well should be called to the attention of the Legislature, and that is the question of doing something to reduce the severity of sentences. It is obvious that if anything can be done in that respect it should be done in reference not only to prisoners who, but for this Bill, would be tried at the Assizes, but generally with regard to all who come within the law. My Lords, I should be glad to see that matter well looked to. Certainly I can say that when I was in office I was very much struck with many instances of disproportionate severity at Quarter Sessions in the sentences passed. I think the whole subject requires attention, and, perhaps, not as to sentences passed at Quarter Sessions only; but this does not seem to me to be a proper occasion on which to deal with it.
  LORD HERSCHELLMy Lords, I only wish to add that I have no desire to advocate the Bill for the purpose of relieving the Judges of work. It does not matter much to them what work they are doing. They can only occupy a certain amount of time, and whether they are deciding simple cases or difficult cases is to them a matter of small concern. It is no relief to them to say that they should not try easy cases but only difficult ones which involve more trouble. I do not think that is a matter which is at all before your Lordships. In bringing this Bill before you I do so on two grounds—one is the ground of the saving of expense, the other is a ground distinctly referring to the prisoners and their interests. The principle I advocate in this Bill is that the more you can try these small cases on the spot the better it is for the man himself. I would not have advocated it otherwise. A prisoner very often wants to call witnesses to character, and it may often affect the sentence if he does call them with regard to the commission of an offence, and it ought to affect the

  199
  sentence. Now, if a prisoner is tried at Quarter Sessions, he has his witnesses on the spot; but he has not always the means of bringing them to the Assize town, and as they cannot be called he suffers hardship in consequence. I think therefore on the whole, it is distinctly to the interest of the prisoner that he should be tried on the spot, and that the Bill should pass.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDMy Lords, there is only one matter to which I wish to refer, and that is the expression of the noble and learned Lord who has charge of the Bill, that what he looks to is the interests of prisoners in this matter; and he has argued that it would be in the interests of prisoners that they should be tried at the Quarter Sessions town.
  LORD HERSCHELLNo, I did not say that; I said I would not have advocated it if I did not believe that, on the whole, it would be to the advantage of the prisoners in these small cases if they could be tried on the spot.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDThe noble and learned Lord argued that it would be in the interests of prisoners that they should be tried at the Quarter Sessions town. The noble and learned Lord, I am afraid has never paid a visit to Sussex. The Quarter Sessions town of the Eastern Division of that county is Lewes, and cases some from all parts of the division to be tried there. In the Western Division of Sussex Quarter Sessions are held at Horsham and Chichester. If an offence is committed on the borders of Sussex and Surrey, the case would have to be tried at Chichester, and the noble Lord's argument about the facility with which a prisoner would be able to bring his witnesses to character to a Quarter Sessions town falls to the ground, certainly in that instance, because there is a considerable distance between the borders of Surrey and Sussex and Chichester. Then, with regard to the time a prisoner would have to remain in prison. A man might be committed for trial immediately after the Easter Sessions and if the magistrates could not commit him to the Assizes and he could not obtain bail, he would remain in prison from the month of March to the month of July. That would not be in the interest of the prisoner. I think, therefore, the argument of the
  200
  noble and learned Lord is not sustainable.
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL (No. 52).
Read a third time (according to order), and passed and sent to the Commons.
DEFENCE OF THE HARBOUR OF ESQUIMAULT.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD SUDELEYMy Lords, I rise to ask the question of which I have given notice, and that is to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Dominion Government of Canada have assented to the proposed arrangement for the defence of the harbour of Esquimault, in Vancouver's Island, which he stated last year had been sent out on the 12th of June, 1888; whether the contemplated works had been commenced and the armament sent out; whether the Government would now state the date when the fortifications of this important harbour (being the headquarters of our Navy on the Pacific Station) would be completed and the guns placed in position. I desire to call attention to the present position of this matter, the peculiar and unsatisfactory position of the naval headquarters at Esquimault, in Vancouver's Island, and their present undefended state. Your Lordships will remember that about a year ago I went very fully into this question, and endeavoured not only to show that the port of Esquimault was utterly undefended, but also that the naval headquarters ought to be transferred to Burrard's inlet, the terminus of the Pacific Railway. During that discussion the Government endeavoured to show that it was impossible to make the proposed alterations, and that it had finally been decided that the naval headquarters were to remain at Esquimault. That being the decision arrived at, I will not again attempt to prove that the headquarters ought to have been removed, although I am confident I am right. Whether the decision of the Government was right or not, all authorities—Canadian, English, and officers of the Army and Navy are agreed that Esquimault is a place of very great importance,

  201
  and that if it is to be our naval headquarters and our only coaling station on the Pacific Station, there can be no doubt that it ought to be put into a position of being able to defend itself. Last year I stated that at that time there were no guns or any fortifications which could withstand a hostile attack, and that the place was absolutely undefended. I pointed out that the two torpedo boats which were at that port were old and obsolete, and could not, therefore, be made available. The noble Lord who represented the Admiralty did not attempt to controvert this. He practically acknowledged that at the time the place was undefended. It was stated that Esquimault was to be the permanent headquarters, and that the Government fully concurred that it ought to be defended, that a large number of guns were ready to be sent out, and that the only reason the matter was not at once concluded was that there was some slight difference of opinion between the Colonial Government and the Imperial Government upon some details on the question of defence. My noble and gallant Friend who represents the Admiralty stated that "the plans for the defence of Esquimault are all completed. They are cut and dried, so to speak. Men and guns are ready to be sent out to-morrow." He said that it was intended to place the harbour in a good condition of defence, and that the only difficulty which arose was that it was necessary for certain arrangements to be carried out. The noble Lord who represented the War Office on his part went further into details, and after acknowledging that the place ought to be at once armed, explained that there had been some slight alteration in the proposed armament, but that it was now decided to have two 6-in. guns, four 9-in., two quick-firing, six 16-pounders, and six rifled machine guns; that they were prepared to spend £31,000 upon armament, £10,000 upon submarine stores, and about £10,000 upon submarine mines and torpedos, and that the guns were nearly all ready to send out with a supply of ammunition. In July last I asked what had actually been done, and I was told by the Secretary of State for the Colonies that a letter had been sent out to the Dominion Government of Canada on the 12th of
  202
  June last year asking for their assent to certain arrangements, and that immediately a reply was received the work should be carried out. Twelve months have passed since that time, and if I am rightly informed nothing whatever has been done. The promises made have not been carried out; no guns have been sent, and no definite arrangements have been completed. Who is actually to blame I cannot tell. I have heard from many quarters that there has been a "Midshipman Easy" kind of triangular duel of correspondence going on. The Admiralty has written to the War Office, the War Office has written to the Admiralty, and both Departments have written to the Colonial Office. The Colonial Office has written to the Dominion of Canada, and they have all written again to each other, and the grand result has been absolutely nil. Early this Session I put this notice on the Paper, and I was asked to postpone it because the Government had reason to believe the matter would be at once settled. Now that three months have elapsed I hope that my noble and gallant Friend who will reply to the question will be able to say that I am mistaken, and that really something has been done. But I cannot help thinking from all I have heard that from want of determination on the part of those in high authority we are actually in a worse position than we were 12 months ago, and I should not be surprised to find that a new set of correspondence has been set on foot in lieu of that of last year, and that the guns have been distributed to other places and used elsewhere. At the end of last Session I ventured to ask my noble Friend the Secretary for State for the Colonies what had then been done, and he then stated that a letter embodying the views of the Government had been sent to the Government of the Dominion of Canada and they were only waiting for the result. Of course, my Lords, under ordinary circumstances this would be merely ludicrous, but the real danger of leaving that naval station undefended is so grave that I ventured to call your Lordships' serious attention to it, as in case of war with Russia our position in the Pacific Ocean, with its greatest commercial interests, would certainly be compromized. Let us for a moment see what this harbour being undefended

  203
  means. Esquimault, in the whole of the Pacific Ocean, is the only place where ships can go for coal, shelter, or repair. Of its strategic importance, having regard to the great development of Western Canada and the recently constructed Canadian Pacific Railway, it would be impossible to say too much. Russia has a great naval arsenal at Vladivostock, only a few days' steam away, which is often described as one of the first in the world. In urging the importance of this matter, I should like to say that in considering the possibilities of war. I allude specially to what would happen if war with Russia were to break out. Any question of war with the United States is one which I do not think ought to enter into our minds. Such a war would be fracticidal and, to my mind, impossible, and not within the scope of practical politics. With Russia, however, it is different. It must not be forgotten that a few years ago a Russian squadron was concentrated at San Francisco at a time when a war with this country was imminent, and it was well known that one object was to capture the harbour of Esquimault and the coaling station of Nanaimo. I think that of itself is sufficient to show the enormous importance of the question, and that I need not offer any apology for bringing it forward again. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give me some satisfactory statement, and that he will tell me whether I am right in saying that the guns which were prepared for this place last year are no longer ready to be sent there, but have been distributed to other coaling stations, and that nothing whatever has been done.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEMy Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for postponing his question, which one must acknowledge has been for some time on the Notice Paper. I must, first, quite admit the great importance of the question. I went fully into the matter last year, and I will not weary your Lordships by going over it again. In the dispatch of 13th of June, it was stipulated, among other things, that while the Imperial Government, ammunition, and submarine stores, the Dominion Government, on their part, were to provide the permanent garrison, and trained instructors capable of instructing the artillery and submarine
  204
  miners, who would form part of the local force. On further consideration it appeared that the Dominion Government would probably find very great difficulty, and certainly very great expense would be thrown upon them were they to be called upon to provide the artillerymen, submarine miners, and officers capable of instructing the local force, and it has therefore been decided that a force of 75 Royal Marine Artillery are to be offered to the Dominion Government, including three officers. Fifty of those men will act as artillerymen, and 15 as submarine miners. The charge for maintaining that force—£7,000 a year—will be borne by the Dominion Government. The whole force will be under the command of a field officer, who will take command of the whole garrison. The officers will be capable of training the men of the local force in artillery and submarine drill. A Despatch to that effect was sent out on May 2 last. The Admiralty have already selected the officers and men for that purpose, and they can, if required, be sent away at two or three days' notice with the exception of the submarine miners. The reason of that exception is that the military and naval submarine drill are different, and it is thought desirable to have the men trained in the military drill as otherwise there would be two different systems and sets of stores in the colony, which would be sure to lead to confusion. Application as to the training of those men has been made to the War Office. With regard to the second part of the question, which asks whether the works have been commenced and when they will be completed, that is a question rather for the War Office than the Admiralty, but I apprehend that they are both very much in the same position, that is to say, that neither can take any step forward until the Canadian Government have replied to the Despatch of May 2. With regard to the guns, my noble Friend (Lord Harris) is unable to be present, and has authorized me to say that part of the armament that was to have gone to Esquimault has been sent to the coaling stations at Jamaica and St. Lucia, and for sea service. The quick-firing guns are in the manufacturers' hands, and the machine guns are being re-bored. There is no doubt that the armament

  205
  will be ready as soon as the fortifications are fit to receive them. The Government do not feel justified in keeping guns in England awaiting the completion of fortifications which are only in contemplation, while there are other important fortifications and ships ready to receive guns.
  LORD SUDELEYMy Lords, I beg to give notice that I will put this question again when sufficient time has elapsed to enable the Dominion Government to reply to the Despatch of May 2nd, and I also give notice that I shall inquire as to the progress that has been made with the defences of King George's Sound and Thursday Island, which, I understand, are at present in a very backward state.

WOMAN'S SUFFRAGE—LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY,in rising to move an Address for a Return showing the number of women in England and Wales who are qualified to vote for County Councils and for Councillors in municipal boroughs, indicating in each case what is the qualification which entitles a woman to be placed on the register, said: I have been informed by the noble Lord, through whose Department these Returns would come, that there will be great difficulty in furnishing them in the form which I desire, but that they will be given in different for England, Scotland, and Ireland. Even in that form they will, I think, give more information than is at present available.
EARL BROWNLOWWith regard to the Return of women voters, it would entail great trouble and expense to give those relating to voters for Boards of Guardians and School Boards, and so much delay would be caused that the Returns would probably be useless. As however, the noble Lord is satisfied with the Returns in the form in which they have been offered, I will undertake to have them laid on the Table. The Return will consist of the number of women entitled to vote for County Councils and Municipal Councils.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI shall be willing to give the Returns relating to Scotland.
EARL CADOGANI dare say my noble Friend is aware that women are not allowed to vote in municipal elec-
206
tions in Ireland except in one case—Belfast. I am afraid it will entail a very large amount of labour upon the clerks of Unions. If they are granted for England and Scotland, they should also be granted for Ireland.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYThen I will withdraw the Motion.

THE PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SYSTEM.
THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD,in rising to call attention to the evils arising from the early age at which children may leave the public elementary schools under the present system, and to move for Returns, said: My Lords, this is a subject of very great importance. It is not a question of cubic feet or the distribution of grants; it is a question of the ultimate results of our whole system of education. A very large number of the children now leave school at a very early age, and a part of this evil arises from the liberty given to the Local Authorities to fix for themselves the standard at which children may leave school. In some cases, a child may leave school at the age of ten years, having passed the necessary standard required by the Local Authority. At that age a child is not competent to enter upon the labour to which his life can be devoted, and the consequence is, he runs about the streets and easily gets into the ranks of the criminal classes. I venture to think that this letting children leave at so early an age is very prejudicial to the education and the moral effect of the instruction they receive. If you examine boys who have left school for four, five, or six years, who have passed the standard required by the Act, you will find that in many such cases they have absolutely lost the power of reading with intelligence. I know that is the case in many parts of my own diocese. If that is so it points to there being something radically wrong and deficient in the system of education for the purpose of fitting the children for the duties they will have to fulfil in after life. I am not now entering on the question whether it is very important or not that the children of agricultural labourers should be well instructed on all those matters now comprised in our Education Code, but I do say, after devoting all the time and cost that is devoted to the education of

207
a child, it is a miserable result if you find that after five or six years he has actually forgotten how to read with intelligence. A child's mind is singularly receptive up to a certain age, and it becomes retentive just about the time it is turned away from the school, and at the time when your Lordships are sending your own boys to public schools. The present system of payment by results eminently tends to what is called cramming. There is another reason why you should not let the children leave school at so early an age. We are all aware that between 12 and 15 a boy's moral character begins to be formed, and it is at this critical time that we lose our hold of him altogether. Now, I do not propose that the children should be necessarily detained for a longer period in the elementary schools, although 10 years is hardly a sufficient age for an child to leave off attending school. The evil might be met in another way—first, by the wise extension of half-time. In agricultural districts this might be done by means of winter schools, as is done in other countries, especially in Switzerland where "half-timers" are not interfered with in the summer when they are able to work, but in the dark winter days when people are not employed in agricultural labour, they are sent to the schools. Although I am not in favour of compulsion at any time, I think, if it is employed, it can be far more usefully done at an earlier than at a later age. Children are very often sent to school by their parents for the purpose of getting rid of them; then, when they are just old enough to know how to fall into mischief, we lose our hold of them altogether, and I believe that has disastrous results. An extension of half-time might no doubt meet this evil to some extent. Far more use might be made of Saturdays than at present. I know of cases where children are ready to be gathered in voluntarily into the schools on Saturday afternoons, but, instead of being taught there, they are left running about the cold, damp streets. But there is another way, and that a most important way, of correcting the evil—evening schools. I do not think, until the introduction of the Code, anything material had been done to encourage this useful kind of education. By evening schools in manufacturing
208
towns and winter schools in agricultural districts a great deal can be done to supplement education and to keep the children under moral control, and counteract the mischief which is being done at an important and critical period of their lives. In Germany these evening schools are an integral part of the system of education, and the children are required to attend them. In reference to this point, the Commissioners say that they fully agree that the retention of some controlling influence over the scholars after they leave the day schools, and their removal from the contamination of the streets, would have a most excellent moral effect during a most dangerous period of life, and would be an object worth some public expenditure to attain. But there is scarcely anything in the Code which helps forward the end which the Commissioners have in view. Then they say there is always a necessity for having some kind of evening school for the purpose of fixing what has been learnt in the day school, and it would be worth while to spend something with that object. Further, they say that a special curriculum and standard should be provided suitable to the requirements of each locality, and that no special limit of age should be imposed upon the scholars. That last recommendation is of great importance. They further add that the evening schools of the future should be regarded and organized as schools for the retention of education already received in the day schools, and that for some years to come it will be necessary to have in evening schools the course of instruction given in the day schools. Now, my Lords, as I have said, I have no wish to increase the limit of age at which the children are required to leave school, or to raise the standard which they are required to pass before leaving school. In some instances even, I think it might be well if the children were allowed to continue their education in the evening schools, but what I wish to ask the noble Lord is whether some practical effect could not be given to the recommendations of the Commissioners by encouraging the evening schools, and, further, whether something could not be done to restrain the almost unlimited power of Local Authorities to fix the standard at which a child might leave

209
school. I am satisfied that where a child leaves school permanently at ten years of age, great mischief is done, from my experience in manufacturing and large towns, where one is pestered by little boys running about the rail way stations and public places, offering newspapers, lights, and so on. With reference to the powers given to Local Authorities in the matter of fixing the standard, I would ask whether a Return similar to the one that was made in 1881, giving the standards fixed by the different School Boards and other Local Authorities, could not be obtained up to the present time. Such a Return would throw light upon the subject I have brought before your Lordships, which is one of the greatest importance, and by far the most important matter we have at present to consider. I think we are all living under a great delusion with regard to the ultimate effects of this system of education in which we are spending so much money. I do not suppose any sudden change will be made in this matter; we must move slowly, and ultimately this system will act upon the least steady and least educated of the children of the poor. Still, I venture to express the hope that something may yet be introduced with the view of dealing with these difficulties, which, I believe, are productive of very serious evils, which I have only very imperfectly indicated in the statement I have made to your Lordships, and which are so much to be deplored.
LORD NORTONMy Lords, I think that the danger is not in the children leaving too soon, but rather in their leaving school before work is ready for them. If there were no interval between their leaving school and their going to work, the age of 13 would not be a bit too early for a boy to leave school. What is generally lost sight of is that for the working classes work is one of the most important parts of education. Leaving school is not ceasing from education. The most important part of a boy's education comes after he leaves school. He gains in intelligence, in knowledge, and in discipline. Therefore, to say that the children of the working classes leave school too soon seems to me a mistake. The danger, it seems to me, is that they leave school before they are ready to go to work, that there is an in-
210
terval of idleness in which they lose all they have learned at school, and are not keeping up their education by work. If there were no such interval, I say they would not leave school too soon; on the contrary, I would advocate, in some cases, that they should leave school sooner. The half time system is a very good one. It divides the book-work with the other work. There are two kinds of education—namely, the education of the school and the education of apprenticeship. I am convinced that you would find in the national schools that the half time boys, if tried against the full time boys in anything that requires intelligence, would beat the full time boys. The acknowledged fault of our national schools is that they are too literary; they have too much unrelieved book work; and what is wanted is something of the nature of industry or, as was suggested by a noble Lord the other day, bodily exercise. It is not fit that children of that class should be kept exclusively to book work. There are schools too much the other way being introduced into the large towns called technical schools. They are really national workshops—ateliers nationaux. It would be far better to put the boys in a regular shop or business at once; and in most of the great manufacturing towns they could get education in connection with real work and not sham work. I quite agree that there is very great danger in the interval of idleness between their leaving school under the existing law at the age of 13 and going to work, au interval when they were neither at school nor at work. All classes should remain at school till their life-work begins. It is proposed that there should be more evening schools or continuation schools. I think the continuation schools would be much better called de novo schools, because the scholars have, in a great measure, to begin again at A B C, according to the evidence given before the Commission. This comes of our piece-work payment leading to mere cram. The principle we should aim at is that the children should leave school as soon as the head of the school says they are fit, and work could be found for them. As to evening classes, I have not much hope or expectation in regard to them. The plan has

211
been tried for many years and it has failed, and the reason is very obvious. Would any of your Lordships like, after a day's hard work, to set about a course of study? To expect those children who are tired out by their work during the day to take to hard intellectual labour at night is absurd. Let rational amusement be provided for them in the evening, but it is useless to expect them then to study.
EARL FORTESCUEMy Lords, with regard to long compulsory retention in schools, it seems to me that it is injurious to the children themselves, to their parents, and to their schoolfellows, and a hardship upon their teachers. There is a class of boys and girls at the schools who are of an age beyond that of most of their schoolfellows, and who, because they do not pass a certain standard, are kept in compulsory bodily idleness and not allowed to earn their living. They are a burden to their parents or to the ratepayers, as the case may be; they are discontented and generally less amenable to discipline than the other scholars; and thus they form a most unwholesome element in a school. Some Boards of Guardians have recommended that after the age of 12 the school instruction of the children under their charge should not interfere with the training of their hands, which is best acquired at an early age. The right reverend Prelate seems to overestimate enormously the moral and religious influence of keeping children long at school; for work itself is a most wholesome part of education, and though I have always believed our school hours to be too long, they occupy after all but a small portion of the day. The alleged relapse of scholars into ignorance is largely due to the repulsive form in which instruction has been given under the old Code, to the time spent on parsing, spelling, and rules of grammar, instead of in the perusal of instructive and interesting works, from which grammar and spelling are unconsciously learnt with little labour. I have received many excellent letters from working men, badly spelt and faulty in grammar, but full of good sense and. useful information; and on the other hand, in former days great statesmen and commanders were most incorrect in their spelling; indeed, I lately read a letter, written about a century and a
212
half ago by an ancestor of Her Most Gracious Majesty, very indifferent in grammar and full of mistakes in spelling. The blending into one chaotic confusion of primary and secondary education is the greatest mistake, and the proper remedy for this is to be found in scholarships from elementary to more advanced schools. I will end by heartily supporting the right reverend Prelate's appeal for rather more encouragement to evening schools from Government, especially during the winter, when the shorter hours of daylight imply shorter hours of work.
THE EARL OF MEATHIt is most satisfactory to learn from the right rev. Prelate that he does not wish to increase the hours during the day at which children should attend the elementary schools. I think that that would entail great hardship upon the parents of children of the working classes, and I think also that it would be met with great opposition from the farmers in the agricultural districts as well as from employers in the towns. This debate shows, I think, that there is a very strong feeling in favour of half-timers, and also in favour of evening schools. Although the noble Lord said he thought the evening schools a failure, he attributed that failure to the lack of recreation. The classes of the Evening Recreative Schools Association, which has done such excellent work, under the auspices of one of the Royal Princes, are attended in very large numbers. If you invite children to evening schools where practical work is mixed with a little physical recreation, they come in large numbers very readily. I believe the whole reason of the unsatisfactory nature of much of the present education—for I must say that it is unsatisfactory—is that it is too literary and not practical enough. My Lord stated that the children of the working classes should be taught to work. I say that the children of all classes should be taught to work. I should like to see the child of the Duke as well as the child of the working man taught to do something with his hand. That is very useful for boys, but it is even more useful for girls. Our girls are turned out from school without being able to make the homes of their future husbands happy and comfortable. The

213
home is the nursery of the virtues, and the principles upon which civilization and social order are formed have to be taught in those homes; and, if the woman who has to keep the home is unable to make it an attractive and comfortable home for her husband, how can it be expected that the principles of social order can be taught in such a home? In America about 11 years ago a niece of the Bishop of Huntingdon was very much struck by the utter neglect of all housewifery duties in the homes of the artizans of New York, and she could not understand how it was that artizans who received such high wages should live in such a miserable condition, and she came to the conclusion that it was because their wives had never seen what a comfortable home was; they had no knowledge of how to make a home comfortable; it did not come to them intuitively as it does to our daughters of the middle class, and even of the working class. She had the happy thought of starting classes for the purpose of teaching housewifery. Those schools have been a great success, and many of the girls have gone out of them and married, and there is a marked difference between the homes presided over by women educated in her schools and those in which the wife has come from the ordinary schools. Girls, I am sure your Lordships will agree with me, ought to be taught at an early age that dirt is a disgrace and that disgrace is a sin. I hope this House may be able to do something towards making the daughters of the working classes more able to make homes happy. The Colonies are crying out for men who can handle a plough and shoe a horse; instead of those, we send them clerks and would-be gentlemen. They are asking for wives who are able to mend and wash, and who understand something about a dairy, and about the management of poultry; instead, we give them young women who are fitted to be governesses, and who are utterly incapable of doing anything which is required of them when they become wives. In view of the depression of trade and agriculture, it is necessary that all classes should do the utmost to promote economy and thrift. It is imperative that our boys should be taught handicrafts and that our girls should be taught housewifery
LORD ELGINI think that the system of evening schools is capable of much wider extension, and that there are particular reasons why it should be-extended to Scotland; and I would venture to trespass very shortly on your attention with some remarks in reference to the effect of the early withdrawal of the children of our schools. We have in Scotland, as your Lordships are aware, a uniform Board School system, and anyone who has taken a practical interest in the working of that system must have been very much struck by the gap which invariably occurs after the Fifth Standard. I have myself frequently seen a large and flourishing class in the Fifth Standard in one year, and the next year it has dwindled down to a miserable half-dozen. Although the working of this costly system ought to have introduced, and probably has, much larger numbers into our schools, and therefore ought to have increased all the classes, we do not, I think, find that anything like the proper proportion of increase in the higher standards is maintained. It is interesting to ask what the cause of this may be, and I do not think that in the discussion which has taken place, one of the causes, at any rate, has been alluded to. It has often been said that the fees are to blame in this respect, and that if education were free this would disappear. That is a proposition which I am hardly disposed either absolutely to deny or assert, but the matter is one that is of particular interest to us in Scotland at this moment, because we are great sufferers in this direction. I, of course, do not wish to raise any question which is not directly before the House, but I should venture to express the hope that the report which has been published that the whole of the grant which is to be made in aid of fees is to be spent in the lower standards is not correct. It has been argued that the parents will spend the savings which they will make from the free education of the younger children on the education of the elder. I venture to doubt whether there will be any such result. At any rate, we should bear this in mind, that we should certainly lose those whom it would be our best interest to secure—namely, the clever children of intelligent parents. I think the view of very many of the parents is that they will pay just as

215
much as they are obliged to pay, and no more. For myself, I confess that I should like to begin at the other end, and if remission of fees is to be made it should begin, at any rate in a large proportion, in the higher standards. I may mention in this connection that I know from experience that certain Boards at present, either wholly, or partially, remit fees in the Sixth Standards with good results. Again, some Boards give remission of fees according to the number of children of one family, sometimes letting the fourth child in free, at any rate letting off the eldest of the family. I do not pretend that these views will meet with acceptance everywhere, but I would like to press upon my noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland to take them into consideration. But, my Lords, with regard to this particular question of early age, I do not think that parents, in the views they take, are altogether correct, although it appears to me that the regulations of the Code, and especially the regulation as to the granting of certificates on passing the Fifth Standard, are such as to encourage these ideas. It may very fairly get about among the less well-informed classes that if the Government allows a child to leave school at any age on passing a certain examination, that child has reached a point in his education where it may reasonably be held to be complete. Apart altogether from whether the examination in the Fifth Standard is a satisfactory test, and apart also from the questions which have been raised by the noble Lord who spoke last and by the noble Lord opposite as to the particular instruction which ought to be given in the schools—whether it ought to be more in the nature of material instruction and less of literary instruction—I would venture to say that the opinion which has been expressed by the right reverend Prelate that a child of ten or eleven cannot be expected to retain a permanent impression of any education which it receives at that age, is one that anybody who looks into the matter will be forced to admit. I might mention, perhaps, an illustration which has come under my own personal knowledge—a case in which a certain number of boys and young men who had passed out of the school age requested a School Board to establish an evening class for their
216
benefit. The School Board naturally expected that they would receive a sum for the higher instruction of those pupils, but on the class being opened it was found that almost all of these young men wished elementary instruction, some even going back as far as the Second Standard. Now, all these evils are increased by the children leaving the school at the early age at which they are now enabled to leave by these labour certificates. We lose the very best of our scholars, because those who pass at that early age are those who either by natural ability or greater industry, or better teaching, have been brought up to the mark. This, again, is specially important to us in Scotland. It has always been the boast of Scotland that there is no halting place between the elementary schools and the Universities. I do not argue that that is the best system; I am inclined to think that it is not; but on the other hand, I do say that anything which either directly or indirectly tends to lower the standard in the elementary schools is a great mistake. As regards the remedy which should be applied in these circumstances, it is more difficult to speak, but the right rev. Prelate and other noble Lords have spoken of evening schools. Well, all I would say on that matter is this: that in the first place, it appears to me to be a remedy which will not be applicable to any great extent in rural districts, where there are small schools at a great distance, and it is impossible to maintain evening schools; and in the second place, and more generally, it is surely not a satisfactory state of things that we should have a system of education so incomplete that we have to set up another system of education in order to begin again the education which has been forgotten after once being acquired. My Lords, there is one matter which I think might be carried out with advantage. We have already laid down certain fixed limits of age. At the age of 5 we compel children to go to school, and after the age of 13 or 14 we allow them to leave school. I do not see why it should not be laid down that the labour certificates, on passing the Fifth Standard, should not be granted at an age when the children are confessedly immature—that they should be kept at school say till the age of 12, at any rate, before

217
being allowed to go out to work. After all, a child between 10 and 12 is not capable of work, to any great extent, of a nature which should stand in the way of education. I think this would at any rate be better than the other remedy which has been proposed, which is to raise the standard and require, perhaps, the Sixth Standard before granting a certificate; because that would only shift the difficulty, and probably lead to greater cram. The noble Lord the Vice President spoke the other night of the vast expenditure which is made on education in this country. I think there is one thing which is intolerable about that vast expenditure, and that is that we should not get value for our money. It is because I think leaving school at an early age leads to expense in that direction that I am very glad the subject has been brought up.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOKThe noble Lord who has last spoken has directed your Lordships' attention to Scotland. That is, no doubt, something outside the subject which the right rev. Prelate sought to bring forward. At the same time, I am not at all disposed to quarrel with the noble Lord for having called the attention of the House to the various matters to which he alluded. They are very important subjects, and I will only say that a great many of them have been very carefully thought over and considered. With regard to the age of leaving school, I think we should hesitate in laying down any hard and fast rule. The right rev. Prelate seemed to object to the Local Authorities laying down the standard at which children should be exempt. That was done in view of each locality adapting itself to its particular requirements. It is all very well for us here to talk calmly of this question of the early age at which children leave school, but there are many, many families in this country to whom the 2s. 6d. or 3s. a week which a young child may earn is of the greatest assistance, and to say that a boy is not to be allowed to earn that on account of his age is confounding two things—it is counting mere instruction as of more importance than education. I cannot help thinking that the moral effect upon a boy or a girl who can do something to lighten the hard trials to which their families are put, to bring small earnings to help to meet
218
the growing appetites, is more valuable than the three R's or any other form of elementary education. I am very far from saying that the child would not be better for staying longer at school, but if he can assist his family it seems to me that after attaining the standard which is fixed, his first duty is at home. There are many households which could not get on at all without the assistance of girls of about 10 or 11 years of age. Those who fancy that girls so young are useless should go into the streets here or elsewhere in town or country, and see children of that age taking care of infants while the parents are working and the house is shut up. In the parks of London there are plenty of such cases to be seen. My right rev. Friend asked me in respect to this question whether the standard at which labour certificates are granted cannot be raised. That is rather a matter of legislation; it cannot be done by the Code. With regard to the question of half time I am not aware that there is any difficulty thrown in the way of half time education, but it is rarely in force except in very populous districts. In those populous districts, as Huddersfield or Bradford, for instance—you will find there is an enormous number of children who are educated at half time schools, and probably there there are discrepancies; one town may fix a standard one degree higher than another. Still, you can hardly say that Bradford is not competent to fix its own time for the children to be allowed to leave school. You must remember, my Lords, that this whole system of compulsion was altogether novel in this country. We are complaining that there is still a great deal that is undone, but surely no one can look around him without noticing the enormous difference in the education and in the character of the children to what it was in former days. I do not mean to confine myself to 1870, for volunteers had done a great work previously. There is no doubt truth in what has been said about the children forgetting a great deal of what they learn in the schools. But I would like to ask those who have been educated in our large public schools whether they have not forgotten a great deal more than they have retained of the

219
education they there received. I would like to ask some of those young gentlemen who have studied in our public schools—not leaving them when they were 10 or 11, but going there at the age of 13, after a previous elementary education, and remaining there till they were 18—how much of what they learnt in those five years they have not forgotten by the time they are 30? I have met very remarkable instances of boys who were supposed to be well up in Greek when they were at school, but who ten or a dozen years afterwards know no more of Greek than they do of Hebrew. The fact is, there is a great deal of the education of both the upper and the poorer classes which simply passes away like vapour. I have endeavoured so far as I could to get rid of the system of payment by individual results, in order that there may be a more generous and generally fairer system of education without the cram, which does not give permanent results. Now, with regard to evening schools, the objection made by the noble Lord opposite seems to me a crucial one, applying to the whole system in one sense—that is to say, you cannot lay down general rules for town and country. We have given by the new Code greater facilities than there have been before for treating those subjects which are taught in evening classes. There is one point that has been pressed upon me to which I should like to refer—namely, that evening schools should be extended to adults over 21. Well, I have no objection to adults coming to evening schools, but it is a serious question whether the country should pay for them. My noble Friend behind me said, "Do not let a child go until he has work ready for him." That is a rule that would not work for a moment. In my own neighbourhood children of 10 years of age can, in certain parts of the year, get abundance of work. I have known cases where the children of a single family, going out and gathering acorns to be sold to farmers for their sheep and so forth, have in one year earned £3 to £5 for their parents. I need not say what is earned by children during the hop-picking season, when children of very immature age, much younger than 10, take an active part with their parents. Some years ago I asked a farmer what he paid to one of his labourers for hop-picking —which
220
lasts about six weeks; he said he paid to a man and his wife, who brought with them their two young children, £25 in six weeks. That, no doubt, is exceptional, but shows the importance of child labour at times. All these things show that you must not be too rigid in laying down hard and fast rules according to which children are to be allowed to leave school. If they have reached a certain standard and their labour is valuable, and their parents wish for it, their parents have submitted to compulsion on the understanding that the time is to come when they are to have the power of availing themselves of their children's services—and the children themselves know that there is a certain time, and no doubt look forward to it—it is harsh and cruel to enforce their further attendance. When you speak of agricultural instruction in schools, the very fact that these children are leaving at that early time shows how impossible almost it would be to have an agricultural education with any effect in the schools themselves. They get it fast enough when they go to work; they become familiar with horses and cattle, and they learn a great deal by a steady, slow process, which sticks to them for the rest of their lives. As for the interval immediately after leaving school, there are societies, like the Boys' and Girls' Friendly Society, which doing valuable work in keeping up correspondence with these young people when they leave school, and agencies of this kind multiply. And, my Lords, you may depend upon it that as the system of education goes on you will find that the necessity of it will impress itself upon the parents who have themselves had it, and that the extension of education will come rather by inducements than by force. I do hope that, because it is seen that this system of leaving school at an early age has its disadvantages as well as its advantages, you will not be too active to interfere with it by laying down some iron limit which may bring an opposition to compulsory education, which hitherto there has not been. Do not let it be supposed that we are worse off than we were before. The right rev. Prelate referred to the Report. The Commissioners in the main all agree, but as the minority

221
Report is rather fuller on this point I quote it—
"As to the earlier ago of leaving there is no doubt that children are much more advanced educationally in regard to their age than was the case 10 or 15 years ago: children were then kept at school till 14 doing work which they now master at 12. Table 18 of Educational Department, Report 1886-7, p. 258, shows that of the total population under 15, 53·2 per cent were on the roll of inspected schools. In 1876, of the total population under 15, 40 per cent were on the roll of inspected schools. Taking the country throughout we are of opinion that during the last 10 years there has not merely been a great increase in the number of children under instruction, but a considerable prolongation of the duration of school life."
That is a very important statement, and one which is justified by the statistics which the Committee give. Well, my Lords, I have had to address your Lordships upon this subject two or three times lately, and the Motion of the right rev. Prelate does not in itself call for any observation. He asks us for information, the precise nature of which he does not specify. I can only say—and I am sure my noble Friend (Lord Norton) will bear me out—that the efforts which were made to supply the Royal commission with every kind of statistic which could have been available for any purpose whatever seem to have been exhaustive. But at the same time, if my right rev. Friend will come to the Department and make known what it is exactly that he wants, if it be in existence it shall be pointed out to him, and if it does not exist it will, if there be no ground of great expense or other such objection against it, be given with the greatest pleasure.
THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELDI wish to thank the noble Viscount for the kindness with which he has met my request. I have no wish to prolong the discussion, which has taken a very much wider range than my Motion at all suggested.

THE LAW OF BIGAMY.
The following notice stood on the Paper, in the name of the Earl of Milltown:
"To call attention to the decision of the majority of the Judges in the Court for the Consideration of Crown Cases Reserved in the case of 'The Queen against Polson,' which appears to make a material alteration in the law of bigamy as it has hitherto been understood."
THE LORD CHANCELLORBefore the noble Lord puts the question of which he has given notice, I would venture to appeal to him and to suggest that the subject matter of this discussion is not one which is altogether proper to your Lordships' House. The matter to which the noble Lord directs attention is a decision of Her Majesty's Judges—divided in opinion—upon a certain state of the Criminal Law. I am quite sure that my noble and learned Friend does not mean to impeach the Judgment of the learned Judges by a discussion à propos of nothing, but the very terms of his Motion are, in truth, a challenge of the correctness of the decision, because he asks if a serious alteration has not been made in the law by that decision. I must say I cannot conceive anything more inconvenient than a discussion in this House, in which a decision of Her Majesty's Judges is to be called in question. That it is quite possible that different opinions may be held upon the matter, is sufficiently evinced by the fact that nine Judges were opposed to five. But what I earnestly deprecate is a discussion upon the subject of their decision. It may be quite right to discuss what the law is, and, if my noble Friend is dissatisfied with the law as it is held by the Judges to be, there is the obvious mode of remedying it by bringing in a Bill upon the subject, when the whole policy of the law can be properly discussed. But I do trust that he will not initiate a discussion in which the question necessarily must be whether a decision of Her Majesty's Judges is right or wrong.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNI quite see the force of what has fallen from my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. The fact is, that it seemed to me that Her Majesty's Judges had, in this instance, somewhat exceeded their functions by deciding not what the intention of the Legislature had been, but what, according to their Lordships' judgment, the intention of the Legislature ought to have been. No doubt we must take what they have decided as being now, and always having been, the law of the land. We have, fortunately or unfortunately, no Court of Criminal Appeal in this country, and what has been determined by the Court for Consideration of Crown Cases Reserved must of course, pending legis-

223
lation, be taken to be the law of the land. At the same time, I cannot help calling attention to what is the effect of their Lordships' decision. The limit of seven years within which it has hitherto been generally considered extremely unsafe for persons to re-marry without certain and sure proof of the death of their husband or wife, has been practically abrogated; and, if the husband or wife bonâ fide believes in the death of his or her spouse—or rather, if he or she can persuade a jury to take that view—it appears, according to the law as now established, that no limit whatever is placed upon the period within which they may re-marry.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
Report from, that the Committee have added the Lord Monkswell to the Standing Committee for General Bills for the consideration of the Public Libraries Act (1855) Amendment Bill. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.