Lords Sitting of 12 June 1890

INFECTIOUS DISEASE (PREVENTIONS) BILL.—(No. 117.)
  SUPERANNUATION (WAR DEPARTMENT) BILL.—(No. 118.)
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Borught from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow.—(The Earl of Camperdown.) (No. 119.)
INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.—(No. 52.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, at the end of Clause 12 I propose to add the words of which I have given notice. The object of this Amendment is to check the practice of making false statements as to the age of a child. It depends upon the age of a child who is brought before a Magistrate whether he is sent to an industrial or to a reformatory school. Consequently, it is to the advantage of a child that his parents should make him out to be younger than he really is, and this Amendment is to do away with that practice. The clause empowers the Court to make inquiry as to the age of a child, and to issue an order, but empowering a child to be discharged from a school on his being proved, to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State, to have attained the age of 16. This will enable the Secretary of State, if the child might have been originally committed to a reformatory school, had his true age been known, if he is of opinion that the further detention of the child is desirable, to order him to be transferred to a reformatory school, there to be detained subject to the provisions of the law relating to reformatory schools. Of course, he would not consider it desirable unless the child had been guilty of bad conduct. The Royal Commission on
  634
  Industrial and Reformatory Schools proposes that the age, as ascertained by the Magistrate, should be considered the true age. The Committee disagree with that view, and I hope the noble Viscount sees no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 12, page 5, to add at the end of the Clause the words—
  "Unless the child might have been originally committed to a reformatory school had his age been known, in which case the Secretary of State, if he is of opinion that the further detention of the child is desirable, may transfer him to a reformatory school, there to be detained subject to the provisions of the law relating to reformatory schools."—(The Lord Monkswell.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, I do object to this Amendment, and the objection I have is of a serious character. I quite agree that the alteration made in Standing Committee was in mitigation of what had been proposed by the Royal Commission; but I think the noble Lord proposes to go a step further than that, which is, I think, very unwise. I understand he proposes that if a mistake has been made in the age, and the child was really over 14, and might, therefore, have been sent to a reformatory in the first instance, the Secretary of State may make an alteration in the order and send him to a reformatory school.
  LORD MONKSWELL: Not exactly. He has power under the Bill, at present, to send children to a reformatory school in certain cases.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: But there is this requirement, that the child who is to go to the reformatory school must have been convicted. I do not think it would be for the Secretary of State to convict, and, therefore, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment. I could not possibly allow it to pass to-day, because it would not do to give power to the Secretary of State to convict. The child ought, of course, to be convicted by the Magistrate.
  LORD MONKSWELL: I understand it is merely a question of age. He must, at all events, be found guilty of an offence.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: No, this is a totally different question. That is quite against the theory of industrial schools. Before sending a child to a reformatory school, he must have been convicted, and I

  635
  object strongly to the Secretary of State having power to convict. A child sent to an industrial school is not convicted, though the Magistrate must be satisfied of his guilt.
  LORD MONKSWELL: The child would, undoubtedly, be subject to conviction if he were of the age provided, but, as he represents himself, or is represented to be, below that age, the Court finds him guilty, and then sends him to the school. I must say I fail to see the objection. It was a somewhat strong measure for the Committee to state its opinion after what had been done by the Royal Commission. It was considered that the age of the child, as ascertained by the Magistrate, should be considered the true age to all intents and purposes.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: If any mistake has been made, it must be corrected by the Magistrates. The Secretary of State cannot set it right. I am quite sure it would not do to give that power to the Secretary of State.
  LORD MONKSWELL: Then I will withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Amendments made.
  LORD NORTON: My Lords, I move the omission of Clause 30 and the following clauses. My Amendment is to relieve the Bill of no less than 11 clauses, establishing truant schools all over the Kingdom. I maintain that these truant schools are absolutely and positively useless, if not mischievous. Probably the noble Viscount will defend them upon the Report of the Commission. The ground upon which they were recommended was that they would afford means for classification. If the noble Viscount defends these truant schools upon the authority of the Report of the Commissioners on which the Bill is founded, I beg to call his attention and the attention of the House to what appears on the face of the Report upon the subject. The reason the Commissioners recommend the increase of truant schools is that they think it necessary there should be further classification of juvenile offenders beyond that permitted by the industrial and reformatory schools in order that the younger should be kept separate from the older offenders. Now, in the first place, it is not necessary to establish new
  636
  schools all over the Kingdom in order to separate the children. The industrial schools can afford the necessary separation as the law now stands; of course, I do not speak of aggravated cases of more hardened offenders. Aggravated cases of juvenile offences are not the subject of this Bill at all. They do not come under the provisions of the Industrial Schools Bill, and therefore any recommendations of the Commissioners do not apply to such cases. The Commissioners very fairly state the arguments which came before them in favour of and against this proposition; but there seems to me not to be the slightest reason given for the creation of a new set of schools all over the Kingdom for the class of children they describe in their Report. The class of children referred to—I am quoting from the 35th page of the Commissioners' Report, which recommends the creation of these truant, schools—are those "whose only offence has been truancy," with whom are very strangely coupled "those who have been unable from poverty to attend school." They make a distinction between those whom they call actual truants, and those who are truants and something more. Really, my Lords, there is no end to the ingenuity of hobby-mongers. The specialty of a truant school, as stated by the Commissioners to be their meaning of the term, is that they are schools for short detention. The proposal is that truant children shall be kept there for a short time and then licensed to go to the ordinary schools. Would it not be much better to whip them and send them back to school at once? What can be the reason for multiplying schools for such a purpose all over the country? Our expenditure on public elementary schools has already grown to an enormous extent, and I think quite sufficient without extending' it in a new wav. The good sense of the country upon the matter is shown by the fact that only six of these truant schools have been established throughout the Kingdom; and out of those six the Commissioners have condemned two, leaving only four subject to their approval. They condemned those two on the ground that the treatment in them was a great deal too penal. I saw them myself. As a member of the Commission, I went round the country, and I found that the treatment of children in

  637
  these truant schools is to confine them to their bedrooms, to reform them by solitary confinement, absence from play, entire deprivation of liberty. This treatment is, I suppose, by way of making school more attractive in the eyes of these truants. I should think, myself, it would have the exactly contrary effect. Your Lordships are not bound by the Report of a Commission, and I hope the House will exercise its own judgment on the recommendation of this Commission. I certainly protest against it. The supposed success of these schools, if there has been any, can be attained just as well in a day industrial school; and if the noble Viscount supports this class of institutions, I hope he will give us a better reason for establishing them than that which is given in the Report. I therefore move the omission of Clause 30.
  Amendment moved, "To leave out Clause 30.—(The Lord Norton.)
  THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTH: My Lords, I am very glad my noble Friend has moved the omission of this clause. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this Bill raises a question of great importance with regard to many of its provisions. It proposes to constitute a number of entirely new detaining schools. That, I think, is rather a strong measure; and, when we view the proposal in the light of experience, I think it is very objectionable. I will ask your Lordships to permit me to make a few short observations. County Councils and Borough Councils have some reason for objecting to this Bill on the ground of cost. They are now constituted the authorities for the management of truant schools and day industrial schools. There are further provisions, against which I shall have nothing whatever to say, for sending children out to board provided they can find proper persons to receive them and undertake their care. I will now only deal with the two questions of day schools and truant schools. I am very much afraid that one consequence of creating these schools will be the overlapping of authority, causing confusion in their administration, and, further than that, I think it may bring the different authorities who are concerned in these schools into serious conflict on many occasions. But it is not only that I am afraid of. A worse result may occur if
  638
  the Bill is carried out in its entirety' that of bringing into conflict no less than three different Departments in London. Those who are acquainted with such matters of administration in the country are aware that great difficulties sometimes arise as between two Departments; but if you are to have three to deal with, the Home Office in the first instance, the Local Government Board in the next, and the Educational Department in the third, I am afraid great confusion will arise in the County and Borough Councils if this Bill is carried out in its entirety. Now, my Lords, I want to mention what the feeling is which exists in the country upon these matters. Those of your Lordships who are members of County Councils must, I am sure, regard with jealousy and vigilance every proposal to increase expenditure. If all these schools are to be supported, and compulsorily supported, the cost will be very great. By Clause 26, reading it shortly, every County Council and Borough Council shall, not "may" as hitherto, contribute to the maintenance and management of any industrial school where children are retained by the order of any Court acting within the limits of their authority. In my own county (Durham)—not an unimportant county, and where the necessity for the retention of poor children exists in a very considerable degree—we have gone to the expense of £20,000 in establishing a county industrial school, and I can assure your Lordships that we view this sort of proposal with the greatest possible jealousy. If we are to be compelled to undertake the management of any number of industrial schools which may be set up, we may find our own school, which has been erected at a very large cost, empty, the children having been drawn away to another, and we shall be compelled to support them in other schools to the extent of, I think, a 2s. 6d. rate in each county. We cannot, wonder, therefore, that County Councils view these provisions with no great favour. If they think, as they ought to do, that it is their duty to watch expenditure and keep down cost, they will naturally regard such a proposal with great jealousy. I do not want unnecessarily to detain the House at this stage of the Bill, and I think I have said; enough to show that it is passing through

  639
  your Lordships' House without that close scrutiny which I think it ought to receive. That, my Lords, is one of the difficulties which arise when we refer our Bills to the Grand Committees instead of dealing with them in the House. Everything is threshed out there, and your Lordships and the public outside know absolutely nothing of what occurs within the walls of the Committee Rooms. Old Bills are brought forward and passed through, and new Bills are substituted for old Bills, and nothing is known of what has been done in Committee. That fact, my Lords, has been proved by what has occurred within the last few days in the Committee of which I am a member. What I desire to point out here, my Lords, is that we shall be making an expenditure which will be absolutely unnecessary, and which will be viewed with great jealousy and, probably, with considerable hostility; and that, if you overlap authorities in the way the Bill proposes you will have an antagonism of authority where there ought to be cordial co-operation in every Department. I will not detain your Lordships longer, but I do think that is a part of the Bill which should more properly form the subject of a separate measure, because you are now bringing the duties of the Educational Department of this country into opposition in some degree with the work of the County Councils. I am not at all sure that that which is perhaps the most valuable power that we possess as Magistrates, of committing children to these schools, will not be considerably interfered with, and that by this Bill we shall not be largely deprived of that power. Upon that point I will add a very few words. The greatest difficulty we find, and I know that those Members of your Lordships' House who are Magistrates will confirm what I say, and that which requires the most tender handling is the power which is conferred upon us under the compulsory clauses of the Education Acts, and the great lever in our hands in dealing with truancy is this power of committal to industrial schools. That is a very difficult matter to deal with, because it arises from so many causes. It may arise from the necessities of the parents as much as from the fault of the children themselves, and every case ought to be dealt with upon its own
  640
  merits. If you deprive us of the power I have mentioned, you will find a difficulty if that truancy be continued, because the great fear of the parents is that the children may be committed to the industrial schools with all the consequences of that committal. That power will, I believe, be largely taken away from the Magistrates. I think the powers of the Magistrates will be greatly curtailed by the very fact of the careful definition contained in Clause 10, of the causes for which children may be sent to the schools. If that power which the Magistrates hold in terrorem over parents is taken away, you will find very great difficulty in carrying out compulsory education. Considering the importance of the subject, I have ventured to make these few observations; and I think that noble Lords who have served on County Councils, or who have passed a considerable part of their lives in the administration of the law, will attach some weight to what I have said. I can assure your Lordships that there is no Member of this House who, considering the character of this Bill, views it with greater perplexity than myself.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: I do not think it can be said that this Bill has not received consideration at the hands of your Lordships' House. It was brought forward last year and read a second time. It then went back to the Committee on Law, and was very much discussed there. It has gone through the same process again this year. Having been discussed in Committee we are now at the Third Reading, and there has been no objection to the principle of the Bill. I, therefore, do not think I should be in order if I were to go into all the points which have been raised. One observation, however, has been made with regard to the power of sending children to industrial schools. A largo number of children have been sent to industrial schools who, in the opinion of competent judges, ought never to have been sent there. We have provided in this Bill that the County Councils shall have a locus standi to appear before the Magistrates before the child is committed; so that if they think a child is going to be sent to an industrial school who ought not to be sent there, they may appear and state their objection to the Magistrate. Now, with regard to truant schools, I would

  641
  only make this observation: that neither the clause about truant schools nor that about day industrial schools is new. They have both been in operation long ago. We have a considerable number of truant schools—six, I believe, altogether—in the United Kingdom, which have now been in operation for a long time, and ten day industrial schools, which have also been in existence for a considerable time. They are not by any means a new class of schools, and the Commissioners have inquired into the circumstances and have reported upon management. It is all very well for my noble Friend Lord Norton to say they do not answer, but from the Report of the Commission we find they do answer exceedingly well. There are six of them established in large towns, including London, Liverpool, Swansea, and Brighton, where, as I have said, they are found to answer extremely well. The Report states that the attendance of the boys at the truant schools has been considerably better than at other schools, as, for instance, under the London County Council. There is no doubt the Royal Commission found fault with the penal discipline in some of the schools, and that the others which have not that penal discipline have produced just as good results. The consequence will be, no doubt, that that penal discipline will be set aside. Judging from the Report, the Royal Commissioners think they have done a great deal of good. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will not insist upon striking this clause out of the Bill. They simply provide for the continuance of the old system, which has been found by a majority of the Royal Commission to have worked great good down to the present time.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, before the Bill passes, will the noble Viscount be kind enough to tell me in which clause power is given to the County Councils to appear before the Magistrates? I see there is a clause relating to notice being given to them, but not with regard to their appearance.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: That clause was put in to enable them to appear before the Justices. That was undoubtedly the intention.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It struck me that it was desirable there should be precise words to that effect. Perhaps the noble Viscount will look to that.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS BILL. (No. 58.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  LORD LEIGH: My Lords, I have an Amendment to move upon Clause 9, Sub-section B, that the words "in addition to or" be omitted. The effect of this will be to do away entirely with the preliminary imprisonment of children sent to reformatory schools. I believe I am correct in saying that in no country throughout the world but England is it found necessary, or believed to be necessary, that children should qualify for the reformatory schools by passing through the prisons. I remember 35 years ago accompanying a well-known head of French reformatories, M. de Metz, to discuss the subject with the then Home Secretary, Sir George Grey, and M. de Metz at that time expressed himself strongly against children being sent to prison at all. In every reformatory in England there are registers kept showing the history of all the boys; and if any of your Lordships would refer to those registers, as I have done on many occasions, you would find that something like 75 per cent, of those children have parents who have absolutely and entirely neglected them, and are not fit to have the management of them. And if you would refer, also, to the same register, you will find that when the children leave the schools something like 90 per cent. of those who have passed through the reformatory schools are doing well and earning their livelihood in an honest manner. I think, therefore, it is clear, and I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me in thinking that it is not the fault of these poor children themselves that they have had to go to the reformatory schools, but that they have been really suffering punishment for the faults of their parents. I am convinced that the gaols are not fit places of punishment for children, and I think I may

  643
  speak with some authority as being an old Visiting Magistrate of my county prison. I have never found that a child who had been passed through the prison was benefited or improved by going there, but that, on the contrary, he left the gaol much worse in character than when he went into it. It is upon those grounds that I strongly object to children being sent to gaol befors being sent to a reformatory school. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 9, Subsection (b.), line 32, to leave out the words "in addition to or."—(The Lord Leigh.)
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, the present Bill differs a good deal from the existing law in one or two respects. Under the existing law it is required that the offender shall undergo a preliminary imprisonment of at least 10 days before going to the reformatory school. It was thought, after inquiry by the Royal Commission, unnecessary to go as far as that and to that extent. I entirely agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down. I am very glad that this provision should be done away with, that it should be necessary to send the child to prison before he went to the reformatory school at all. This Bill, therefore, has been drawn upon different lines, and that proviso making it necessary for the Magistrate to send the child to prison before going to the reformatory is entirely done away with by this Bill. But now the noble Lord wants to go further. The clause to which he objects is in thesewords—
  "Where a youthful offender is convicted of an offence punishable with penal servitude, or imprisonment, and either appears to the Court to be not less than 14 years of age, or is proved to have been previously convicted of an offence punishable by penal servitude or imprisonment, the Court may, in addition to, or in lieu of, sending him to a reformatory school, send him to prison."
  I think, my Lords, that is a very proper power to give to the Magistrates. It seems to me it is quite right they should have that power. The compulsory enactment is done away with, but power is left to the Magistrate, if he thinks it right, to send the offender to prison in addition to the reformatory school—to send him there first. I hope, therefore,
  644
  the noble Lord's Amendment will not be carried.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD NORTON: My Lords, I have given notice, of an additional clause, the effect of which is this: that where the punishment of children by imprisonment is necessary, it should not be imprisonment in the common gaols, but in places suitable for the purpose. I am supported in that view by the answers to a Circular which has been sent round to all the Petty Sessions in England. I think, also, by the Report upon which this Bill is founded. Now, the addition I want to make to this clause provides for children, if they are imprisoned at all, being sent to "suitable places for the imprisonment of children," which, to my mind, should be a properly fitted lock-up in connection with the police stations attached to every Petty Sessions in the country, or else the Government should provide proper places in the neighbourhood of a few Reformatories in different parts of he Kingdom. That represents no great cost. Aggravated cases of juvenile crime do not come within my proposition. They will, of course, be treated in a different manner from ordinary juvenile offenders. In ordinary cases of juvenile crime imprisonment should not be in a common gaol. I am fortified in that view by the opinion of the Commissioners. If the noble Viscount will refer to the 27th page of the Report of the Commissioners, he will see that the Commissioners give the arguments brought before them in favour of using common prisons for children, and the arguments brought before them, which were much stronger against using common prisons for children. They suggest that all punishment of children should be short, sharp, and apart from the subsequent schooling. The argument against using common prisons for the purpose of a great number of witnesses was that the system was mischievous, that it deprived the gaol of all its terrors as a means of punishment, tended to harden and corrupt young offenders by inevitable contact with older criminals, cast a permanent taint upon their characters, often preventing them from obtaining employment, and added to the difficulties of their restoration to a respectable life. Those are very strong reasons, my

  645
  Lords, against sending young children to a common gaol. The arguments the other way, in favour of sending young offenders to prison, are confined to only aggravated cases of juvenile crime, which, as I say, do not come within the purview of this Bill at all. Therefore, those arguments are not directed against my proposition at all. As I have said, the whole weight of the Commissioners' opinion is that imprisonment is not a proper punishment for young children, at least not in a common gaol. It is the opinion, also, of the Commissioners that in the great majority of ordinary offences committed by boys whipping is altogether a far better punishment than imprisonment. But if imprisonment is the sentence passed by the Magistrate, then there should be suitable places provided for it. That is the whole proposition that I have to make to your Lordships, and I hope that the noble Viscount may be willing to accept the addition to this clause which I propose.
  Amendment moved,
  After Clause 9, insert as a new Clause: "No such youthful offender, except in case of aggravated crime, shall he punished by confinement in a common gaol; but, if sentenced to imprisonment, shall be kept In a lock-up connected with the Petty Sessions where he has been sentenced, until a suitable place of confinement be found for him connected with some certified reformatory."—(The Lord Norton.)
  THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTH: My Lords, I have no doubt the House entirely sympathises with my noble Friend in his desire not to subject children even for a probationary period, by whatever name the punishment may be called, to the contamination of a prison. But I want to know where these places are to be found. At present they do not exist. And I want also to know when a child is ordered to be shut up and is not to be let out for a certain period what is he to do? He may be there for seven or 14 days; and I should like to know who is to look after him during that time? I venture to think there may be other places than a prison where a child may be detained and looked after, where he can be punished without the necessity of being contaminated by being sent to prison. The law requires that a child who is to be sent to prison must be sentenced first, but to enact that a child must not go to prison, but to some other
  646
  place, before you know that such other place exists, or arrange for what the child is to do, or who is to take care of him when he is sent there, is, I must say, rather wild legislation.
  LORD NORTON: If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to point out that the proposal to imprison for short terms young children in lock-ups is not a new thing. It is done at the present time in Scotland; and if such places are not to be found I propose that the Government should make the necessary provision at police stations, or connected with some few reformatory schools themselves.
  THE EARL OF POWIS: My Lords, I think it very undesirable that youthful offenders should be kept for an indefinite time in lock-ups. There are a great many police stations and lock-ups where there is no suitable accommodation for children, and where there would be nobody to look after them. The noble Lord who moves this Amendment speaks of having special lock-ups constructed in certain places to be used for this purpose, but this clause would confine the imprisonment to the particular lock-ups connected with the Petty Sessions where the child was sentenced. The "suitable places" which he proposes do not exist, because places of that kind which do exist are used merely for keeping adult prisoners at the present time for a day or two until they can be removed to the county gaol. It might very well be that a week or 10 days might elapse before the child could be sent to the reformatory school which the county is connected with, or subscribes to, and as a considerable delay might take place before he could be so got rid of, it would be necessary that there should be some one to take care of him. Therefore, my Lords, I think it would be very undesirable that a child should be kept in a lock-up which was certainly not built or intended for the purpose of keeping children in confinement for any considerable time.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, I have already pointed out to your Lordships that it is only under certain circumstances that the Magistrates would ever think of sending children to prison; they would not do so if they could possibly help it, unless they were compelled. But when a child is sent to

  647
  prison, he must have the protection which the prison laws give him. When the children are in prison they are protected by the law, and it is the duty of the prison officials to see that proper precautions are taken in respect of their health, clothing, and food. When we come to these imaginary places which, according to the noble Lord's suggestion, are to be built at some time or other at somebody's expense—I do not know whose—I cannot imagine what security we shall get that proper discipline would be enforced, and that the children would have that protection which a prison affords under the Prison Acts, Acts which have been very carefully drawn. The noble Lord quoted the evidence which is given on page 27 of the Report of the Commissioners, but he entirely forgot, I think, the object for which the Commissioners quoted that evidence. It is for this reason: They say that on no subject are prison managers more unanimous in opinion than in regard to the conviction and imprisonment of children being sent to the schools. I must ask the House, therefore, not to accept this Amendment, because I think that, in the interests of the children themselves, it would be an extremely hard measure.
  THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTH: I am very sorry to trouble the House so often, but I should like to say a few words on Clause 22. It is only two or three days ago that I presented a very important Petition from the Mayor and Corporation of Chichester against this clause. That clause makes it for the first time compulsory upon every County Council and every Borough Council to contribute to the expenses of management of every such school, at the rate of not less than 2s. 6d. per week. Up to this time these contributions have been optional, and I want to know very much, from the noble Viscount, what are the grounds upon which that optional payment has now been converted into a compulsory subscription. This is a very serious amount, as it involves a large amount of expenditure for the purposes to which your Lordships are asked to give your sanction. I, therefore, hope there may be some reason given for that which has hitherto been an optional payment being now made compulsory. I would call attention to the fact that in
  648
  all the other clauses it is stated that the County Councils "may" do so and so, but in this particular clause the little word "shall" which is introduced in substitution for it, is very potent, indeed.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: I may explain that' this is practically an arrangement with the Treasury, which, I think, would be to the advantage of the County Councils. They gave up their right as between the Councils and themselves inter se to the contributions from the parents, and, therefore, they say they think it right that they should have the power to make these payments compulsory. The matter was considerably discussed in Committee. By the arrangement with, the Treasury, the sums of money contributed by the parents, which used to go to the Treasury, are given up, and this, charge was substituted.
  Amendment negatived.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL. (No. 96.)
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) (PLEURO-PNEUMONIA) BILL.—(No. 105.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading of this Bill, I mast claim your indulgence while I endeavour to point out what are its leading objects and scope. I need not detain your Lordships with any lengthened explanation of the great danger and loss which accrue not only to the owners of cattle but to the public generally from the spread of pleuro-pneumonia. At the present moment the various Local Authorities in the country have the carrying out of the Act of 1878, and of the several Orders, dealing with this disease. A want of uniformity of action has not infrequently arisen by which the energy of one Local Authority has been set at naught through the supineness of another. There has been also considerable hesitation in slaughtering cattle

  649
  at the right moment, and, consequently, the disease has been allowed to spread, and there have been outbreaks, which might have been prevented, owing to cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia, and which ought to have been slaughtered, being allowed to come in contact with other animals, and those animals which had been in contact with affected animals being permitted to be sold. It was found necessary, in 1888, to issue a further Order, by which cattle which had been in contact with animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia were ordered to be slaughtered, compensation to the amount of three-fourths of the value of an animal actually affected with the disease, and the full value of animals slaughtered because they had been in contact with affected animals, was ordered to be paid. That compensation had to be paid by the Local Authorities. Notwithstanding the Order of 1888—whether it was owing to the want of uniformity among the various Authorities or to the concealment of existing disease, or to the movement of affected cattle to and from the fairs and markets throughout the country, no effectual result has been obtained. There is also great force in the argument that this compulsory slaughter of cattle is carried out for the general good, and, therefore, that it is reasonable the public should bear a share in paying the compensation required. Unfortunately, in the month of May last there was a considerable increase in the number of out-breaks of pleuro-pneumonia. There were no less than 57 in May, as compared with 25 in April last, and 33 in the corresponding month of May last year. Therefore, I think it is clear that, unless stringent measures are taken at once, we run a considerable risk of this disease taking a firm hold of the country, in which case our difficulties would be very great. The President of the Board of Agriculture, seeing the necessity of decided action, has determined to grapple with this disease in the most effective way that Parliament will allow, and that is by taking over the executive power from the various Local Authorities, and exercising it himself. But this action naturally involves the payment of compensation by the Government, upon the principle that "whoever kills must pay."
  650
  I can well understand that we should be very chary of depriving Local Authorities of any powers they may have, but it is quite clear it would never do for the Local Authority to slaughter and the Government to pay, neither would the Local Authority agree that the Government should slaughter and that they should pay. Unfortunately, it is only too true that there has been, and probably is, a great deal of concealment of this disease; and I quite agree with what fell from the noble Lord, Earl Spencer, the other day, on the great difficulty which Local Authorities meet with in tracing out the causes of an outbreak, and even in searching places where the disease is supposed to exist. Under this Bill, therefore, greater powers of inspection are taken. By the 1st clause it is enacted that the Board of Agriculture shall cause all cattle which are affected with pleuro-pneumonia to be slaughtered, and it may also, if it thinks fit to do so, cause any cattle which have been in contact with affected cattle to be slaughtered. The words dealing with the question of contact are purposely made very wide, because it has been found in the past that in many cases animals which have been not very far from affected animals have not been slaughtered at the time, but have been sent away, and after a short time they have fallen victims to the disease, and have become themselves centres of contagion. It is hoped that in this way the Government will have a clear hand in dealing with cattle which have been thus in contact with diseased animals. Then it is enacted that the old rate of compensation shall be paid, and provision is made for the appointment of additional Inspectors. By the help of those Inspectors it is hoped that the Board will be able to trace the disease better than can at the present moment be done by the Local Authorities, who, after all, cannot trace the disease beyond the limit of their own jurisdiction. Then, by the next clause, with regard to the funds, there is £140,000 allocated for the purpose of carrying out the Acts as regards Great Britain, and if there shall be in any year a deficiency it is provided that it shall be made up out of the Local Taxation funds. But it is hoped there will be no occasion to do that. Then

  651
  Clause 3 orders that the Inspectors of the Local Authorities shall, in addition to the powers and duties they now have, report immediately any case of pleuro-pneumonia to the Board of Agriculture. The effect of this will be that, the moment the Board is made acquainted with an outbreak, they will send down their own Inspector, they will themselves take the case in hand, and will carry out the provisions of the law. Then Clause 4 gives more power to the Inspectors. At the present moment an Inspector, when he goes into a place or shed where he has reason to think there may be disease existing, but concealed, has to give his reasons in writing. Under this clause the Inspectors will have power to enter into any shed or place where they have reason in their own minds to think there is concealment of disease, and to act at once without any let or hindrance. The 5th clause applies to Ireland. I need only say that the sum of £20,000 is allotted to Ireland, and the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council there take the place of the Board of Agriculture here. Clause 6 deals with the accounts. Clause 9 gives the 1st September as the date on which it is proposed that this Act shall come into operation. I have endeavoured, my Lords, briefly to point out to the House the chief points of this Bill, which may be summarised under three heads or principles; the substitution of a Central Authority in place of many Local Authorities, in order to secure uniformity of action; the consequent payment of compensation out of the Imperial funds, in order that the cost of carrying out an object which is for the public good shall not fall entirely upon the local funds; and, lastly, the increased stringency of inspection, in order that concealment of disease may be more easily detected. I feel sure that these principles will meet with the approval of the House, for your Lordships will agree that the safety and soundness of our herds is not merely a matter of individual advantage, but of great national importance. But if the State comes forward to help in this matter may we not look to agriculturalists and others in the country to lend their aid. A measure of this kind can only be successfully worked with the assistance of the public. It
  652
  cannot be carried out solely by the cars and firmness of the Central Authorities, but much will depend on the manner in which it is supported throughout the country. I have said that our great danger is the concealment of the disease. The policy of the pole-axe has succeeded in the Netherlands, and there is no reason to suppose that it will not succeed in this country if the Authorities are supported by public opinion and public spirit. The Board of Agriculture will have to rely greatly on the sympathetic action of the Local Authorities, especially in the first instance, and their knowledge and advice must always be most valuable. Some time will elapse before this Act comes into operation, and it is important that there should be energy shown between now and the 1st September next. Unless stringent efforts are made to stamp out every outbreak which may occur we may have to regret a very serious spread of the disease, and of course our difficulties and expense will, in that case, be enormously increased. But I am quite sure that we shall meet with the assistance of those who do not always give support to our measures, like the noble Earl opposite, whose experience and authority is so great in these matters, and that they will assist us in our endeavours to remove a dark spot, which seems to threaten the somewhat more hopeful prospects of agriculture at the present time. I beg to move that this Bill be road a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: My Lords, I am sure the thanks, not only of your Lordships' House, but also of every one who is interested in agriculture in this country, are due to the Government for having brought in this Bill. The only word of complaint that I have heard in connection with it, is that, in one single point, it does not go far enough, and the only observations I shall have to make to your Lordships will be upon that point. The noble Earl who has moved the Second Reading of the Bill, said very truly that the danger of the spread of pleuro-pneumonia, and the loss we have suffered from it throughout the country, has been from unsystematic management, and from

  653
  failure in administering the law. If the Local Authority in one county has adopted one way of carrying it out, another Local Authority in an adjoining county has put a different interpretation altogether upon the law. I could give your Lordships an extraordinary instance which only occurred last mouth of the way in which the law is regarded in some places. I quote from a newspaper giving the incident, which occurred in a neighbouring county to my own, the county of Forfarshire. It states that—
  "It was reported that pleuro-pneumonia had broken out at a farm in Car86 Gowrie, among a herd of cattle valued at £2,000. Nine of them had been killed by order of the Local Government Authority; the authorities directed that 20 more should be brought into Forfar for sale on Monday, and that the remainder should be sold in lots."
  I believe, my Lords, that this actually took place; that 80 cattle out of 101 cattle, contaminated by contact with others suffering from pleuro-pneumonia, were actually sold, and allowed to disseminate and act as centres of disease, and whoever has bought them, now has in them centres of infection. That is the way in which some counties carry out the law, and we have found that in the county with which I am connected, where we work the Act according to the Orders of Privy Council, we could not contend with the opposite system which other counties chose to adopt. The necessity, in my opinion, and in the opinion of those who have been working this Act in the past, is that the power of the Inspectors should be strengthened for the purpose of finding out existing cases, or detecting cases of concealment of the disease. The noble Earl took credit for Clause 4, which enables the Inspector to enter without notice in writing, which has hitherto been necessary, into any shed or place where he suspects the disease exists. That is very well as far as it goes, and is no doubt a great improvement; but the great difficulty we have in carrying out the Act is in Clauses 66 to 78 with regard to penalties for offences. Under those provisions the owner of a diseased animal must take all practicable means of giving notice of this disease, and as the matter stands we have found in Aberdeenshire that we cannot get a conviction under the Act. A dairyman finds he has a cow suffering from pleuro. Well,
  654
  he has nothing to do but to palm off this diseased cow upon some other dairyman, or some innocent farmer who comes into the market, and so that animal goes forth into another part of the country, and soon afterwards there is an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia. We have tried time after time to secure convictions, but because, under the Act, the man who has caused the mischief is able to plead that he was not aware of the presence of the disease, or that the animal was affected, and that he took all practicable means of giving notice, we are unable to obtain a conviction. I shall therefore venture to move in Committee a new clause, providing that any person who neglects to give notice to the Local Authority or to the Inspector shall be liable for expanses under Clauses 60 to 66. That would put the onus upon the owner of the diseased animal, and it would put an end to the system of concealment which has been the cause why this disease has not been extirpated long ago. There is one other point I should like to mention. The noble Earl has not said enough, I think, with regard to the value of this measure in one direction, and that is to the owners of pedigree cattle. The existence of pleuro-pneumonia in this country has greatly depreciated the value of that kind of stock, and has entirely excluded it from the foreign market; because the knowledge that the disease exists in this country prevents us from selling to the foreigner, and the best market which was open to owners in this country, that is the foreign market, is therefore closed against us. I shall therefore venture to move the Amendments of which I have given notice.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I am sorry to have to trouble your Lordships with a few remarks on this subject, but I am afraid it has been my fate to have been very much mixed up with subjects connected with diseases of cattle, and I am therefore anxious to say a few words on this very important measure which my noble Friend Lord Jersey has introduced to your Lordships' House. I confess I think it is rather a reflection on veterinary science that no remedy has been found for a disease of this kind. I know that the veterinary schools of this country have greatly improved of late, and that there are many able men who are devoted to their profession

  655
  connected with them. At the same time, I think it must be admitted that it is a reflection upon scientific bodies that the only way of getting rid of a terrible and disastrous disease is the use of the pole axe. My Lords, I am afraid we must admit, according to all experience in this and other countries, that there is no safe remedy for this dangerous and disastrous disease, and all the best authorities declare that the only way of getting rid of it from a country is to slaughter not only all the animals affected with the disease, but all animals that have been in contact with them. I, therefore, my Lords, am strongly in favour of a serious effort being made in this country to get rid of the disease. I daresay your Lordships have seen an interesting Report of the Departmental Committee on this subject. Those who have read that Report will see that it bears strong evidence to the necessity of some central action. The noble Earl has very well put the reasons why central action is necessary. It is necessary, because Local Authorities in various parts of the country, even some of the very best Local Authorities, are afraid of charging the rates with the heavy expenditure which would be entailed if they carried out thoroughly the orders of the Privy Council under this Act by the slaughter of many valuable cattle. I know that many of those authorities have doubts as to the efficacy of the measure: but the great inducement to them to hesitate is the heavy expenditure that would be thrown on their county if they slaughtered a large number of cattle that have been in contact with diseased cattle, and it has been said very truly that while one county may be very stringent in carrying out the Orders in Council another may be very lax. The noble Marquess quoted a case which certainly would be a perfect scandal if he is correctly informed as to what occurred upon a farm in Forfar, and I think that some steps might well be taken with regard to what was done by the owners of the cattle in sending those animals to market. But, my Lords, I think, as the noble Earl said very truly, there is justification for coming on Imperial funds for this compensation, because the benefit derived is a benefit to the whole community, and not only to the particular locality, which, although the greatest
  656
  possible care may have been exercised, may still have the misfortune to have the disease introduced into it. Therefore, I think there is justification for the Central Authority intervening and taking charge of this very grave matter. Now I wish to say with regard to this Bill what struck me, when the measure was first introduced, was that I should have preferred to see it framed in a different way. I should have preferred to see the Local Authorities charged with a certain amount of the cost of carrying out the orders. That, I believe, was the system in vogue in Ireland, where half was paid by the Central Authority and half by the Local Authority. It is very true, as my noble Friend says, that the power of ordering the slaughter ought to be with those who pay the rate. It is very difficult for the Central Government Department to intervene when a Local Authority is lax in carrying out the order for slaughter for which they have afterwards wholly to pay. I heartily agree with my noble Friend in that respect. But if the Central Authority pays half I think it would have a right to intervene and call upon the Local Authority to slaughter. I am aware that there is considerable difficulty in the matter, and perhaps the noble Earl or some Member of the Government will say whether there is any very great objection felt to this method of providing the compensation. This method of carrying out the compensation which I have in my mind would have this advantage: that it would induce the Local Authority to be very much more careful with regard to the administration of the Sanitary Laws and Regulations in reference to infection among cattle. They would be much more careful with regard to the Regulations they make, whereas I very much fear that if the Local Authorities find that the compensation is to come out of Imperial funds some of them might be very careless in their administration in that respect. Then there is another point to be remembered, another objection, and it is this: that if, unfortunately, this disease becomes spread over the country the Central Board will have immense difficulty in carrying out the execution of the order. I know that in the case of cattle plague, when it was introduced

  657
  into the country not many years ago, the Central Authority were able to check it without difficulty; but then the disease was at a minimum and was confined within a small space. But if this disease is spread all over the country and appears in every county throughout Great Britain I am afraid the Central Authority will have very great difficulty in seeing that the orders are carried out without the assistance of the Local Authorities. I think I should myself have preferred to have seen the Local Authority invested with the power of carrying out the orders. In that way the position of the Central Authority would be very much strengthened, because, if they found that the Local Authority failed in their duty in carrying out the orders, they would receive general support in issuing the most stringent orders from headquarters. The noble Lord was good enough to refer to some remarks which I made at the Royal Agricultural Society the other day. I certainly did think it my duty to speak strongly before that body on the subject, and I stated that one of the matters of the greatest possible difficulty was to trace the origin of the disease. We have, unfortunately, had lately seven outbreaks in Northamptonshire, and in all of them the mischief has been traced to one day at Northampton Market, and, I believe, to some shed-cows coming from London dairies. We have had the greatest possible difficulty in endeavouring to trace these animals, and I sat myself for five hours one day for the sole purpose of trying to trace out those animals. We never got near the tract in regard to four of the cows, because in every one of those cases the dealers absolutely refused to say whence they had obtained their cattle; but in the fifth case where we thought we had traced the matter out we were not able to run the fox to ground, because at the last moment the information broke down and we were unable to trace the cases to an actual pleuro-pneumonia centre. I believe, my Lords, the Central Authority will be able to trace the disease much more effectually than the Local Authorities, and, therefore, I welcome the Bill on that account alone. But there is another point, and a very serious one. It is this, that unless the Central
  658
  Authority have the most stringent powers I am afraid they will not succeed in carrying out the desired object. I am aware that there is a very great interest connected with this part of the subject, I mean the dairy interest. I have a great regard for that interest, and I feel that it must be respected and not unduly interfered with. At the same time I feel convinced that it is from the cow-sheds in large towns that this great evil principally arises, and that we must look to them as the source of this disease. In London, and throughout Great Britain, it is the habit of dairymen to kill their cows or to send them for slaughter after they cease to be of value for milking purposes. But in Dublin, which is another centre, a different system prevails. There the system of the dairymen is to send out the young stock which they breed in the spring, and they become centres of infection when sent through the country round Dublin. I remember when I went to Dublin in 1869–70 I used to see every spring in Phoenix Park centres of pleuro-pneumonia from the presence of young cows which had been sent out from Dublin. I may mention that I lost 15 cows in one case in that way myself; but we were able to check that to a great extent, though there was enormous loss, because we insisted on the authorities of the park very strictly refusing to admit any cattle at all without a licence. I am afraid the practice I refer to still exists, and I think it will add greatly to the difficulty of stamping out the disease in Dublin. In London, and other large towns, it will certainly be in the interest of all honest traders in the dairies to try and stamp out this disease. I very much fear that merely giving powers of inspection will not be sufficient; and I cannot help thinking that before long either the Board of Agriculture, by Order in Council, will be obliged to prohibit the sending out from large towns of shed-cows during the operation of stamping out the disease, or some other step will have to be taken to check the outflow from these large dairies. I know it has been said that Local Authorities have power to defend themselves against these dairies; but I think this mode of defence is very inefficacious. We thought in Northamptonshire that we might prohibit the importation of

  659
  animals from London during the outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia; but we found that cattle from London were smuggled into some other county where there was no disease, and that unless we prohibited altogether the importation of cattle into the county we could not secure ourselves against the importation of these cows. I cannot help thinking it would be to their own interest for the dairy trade to agree to strong restrictions, and that for their own sake they will make some sacrifice. If they do not, then sooner or later, if this measure is to be carried out throughout the country, some stringent order from London with regard to these cows which spread the disease will have to be made. I do not believe there will be any great sacrifice required, because nearly all these animals are fit for the batcher. They are only bought for grazing, and the increased price which may be obtained by sending them into the country would probably be inconsiderable. I do not know what answer the Government may be disposed to make to that suggestion or to another proposition that has been made in certain quarters for branding these diseased shed-cows. I think it would be very desirable before the discussion closes that we should hear a statement from the Government of their views with regard to that matter. In all measures of a rather heroic kind it is absolutely necessary to be strong enough. Half measures will always fail. I therefore should advocate, during the time the Minister of Agriculture has these powers in his hands, the adoption of the strongest possible methods for arriving at the source of disease and getting rid of it. I know that some people think the disease is so insidious and is concealed so long in these animals that it is almost impossible to get rid of it. I do not believe that we shall get rid of it in a short time; but if we firmly and strongly carry out these orders I do not see why we should not succeed in getting rid of it, just as they did in the Netherlands. There that was absolutely done, though even in that small country the disease went on for several years before they succeeded in stamping it out. I most sincerely hope that the Minister of Agriculture, whoever he may be, will be successful in the great task the Government has undertaken. It is
  660
  not an easy task, and the country must not be disappointed if it takes some years before any wide or satisfactory result from this legislation is forthcoming.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, being of a somewhat consistent turn of mind, I hail with the greatest satisfaction the Bill under discussion. I say this because more than three years ago, when addressing a meeting of farmers in Sussex, in discussing the subject of pleuro-pneumonia, I suggested that the only way of getting rid of this terrible disease was for the Government to take the matter into its own hands, order the slaughter of the animals, and pay compensation for the cattle so slaughtered. I believe that is the only way of stamping out the disease and getting rid of it altogether. I have been the more induced to come to this conclusion from the experience I had in 1877, at the time of the out break of the cattle plague in this country, of the result of the stringent measures which we then took. I am not quite sure that we were altogether justified in what we did, but in a very short time we stamped out the disease. I quite agree with my noble Friend Earl Spencer that the two cases are not exactly parallel, that is to say the cattle-plague at that time was confined to a very small area, this Metropolis and the adjacent part of the country only, whereas now we have to deal with a much more extended area of disease, pleuro-pneumonia having been developed over, I think I might almost say, the whole of the country. Therefore, though in 1877 it did not take so very long a time to get rid of the cattle plague, we cannot hope to eradicate pleuro-pneumonia in as short a period as was sufficient on that occasion. I am perfectly sure that the only way of getting rid of the disease is by stamping it out by the process which will be put in action by this Bill. I quite agree in what my noble Friend stated, that it is very desirable to have uniformity of action. That point was referred to by Lord Huntly. He said, very truly, that it was desirable that should be secured, because where one authority may put in force stringent measures under the Act their energetic action was probably neutralised by the way in which an adjoining county carried them out, and I hope this Bill will have

  661
  a good effect in that direction. The noble Lord also said the Bill does not go far enough. I should have liked to hear in what manner he wished to extend the operation of this Act. The noble Earl stated that many persons have been in the habit of concealing diseased animals upon their premises, but I would point out that that is an offence against the law as it stands at present. In the 31st section of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 41 and 42 Vict., cap. 94, it is provided by Sub-section I that—
  "Every person having in his possession or under his charge an animal affected with disease shall, as far as practicable, keep that animal separate from animals not so affected, and shall, with all practicable speed, give notice of the fact of the animal being so affected to a police constable for the district, county, borough, town, or place, wherein the animal is"
  which is so affected; and then, later on, by the 60th section of the Act it is enacted that
  "Any person guilty of offences against this Act is liable"
  to certain penalties. So that, at this moment, it is contrary to the law for people to keep diseased animals on their premises when they are aware of the fact that the animals are diseased without giving notice. I do not go quite as far as my noble Friend opposite Earl Spencer in saying that these dairy cows should be branded. I doubt whether, in this country, it would be possible to carry out that suggestion. One of the evils now that we have to contend with is that, when a dairyman has a cow which he finds is not likely to be of much more use to him in the milking way, or finds that it is not in the best of health, he sends it away to——
  EARL SPENCER: I did not make the suggestion which my noble Friend mentions on my own part; what I intended to say was, that it was one of the suggestions which had been thrown out, and I think we ought to hoar what is to be said against it.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My answer is that I think it would not be practicable in this country to brand all dairy cows. But the clause in the Bill which I set great store by is Clause 4, and that clause goes further than my noble Friend suggested. It gives power to the Inspector to enter and examine any cowshed, land, or
  662
  other place. It is not that there is no such power at all now, but the Bill extends the power possessed at present, and gives in fact unlimited power to the Inspector to inspect. Clause 4 says—
  "For the purpose of ascertaining whether pleuro-pneumonia exists in any cowshed, land, or other place, an Inspector of the Board of Agriculture may enter such shed, land or place."
  He may enter whenever he pleases and without giving notice, and I think that is an enormous advantage over the law as it stands at present. Then, when the Inspector has gone into these sheds, land, or dairies, wherever the cows may be, his duty would be then to report to the Minister of Agriculture, and if, by the Report, it is brought to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture that the disease exists in any particular place, he will compel the slaughter of the animal so affected. Therefore, it gives an unlimited power to the Minister of Agriculture to ascertain whether the disease exists if it is suspected to exist; and, secondly it gives him power to order the slaughter of the animals, compensating the party to whom the animals belong. That is a very strong power, but I do not think it is too strong to meet the danger of another outbreak of this terrible disease. I trust, and I believe, that the Local Authorities will in future act in concert with the Department of Agriculture, and endeavour to discover any cases of disease in their own immediate neighbourhood; and I think that they are much more likely to do it when they know that animals that are diseased, and have to be slaughtered, will be compensated for by the Government, than at present, when it appears to be to the interest of everybody to conceal the existence of disease, and not to have animals killed for which compensation must be paid in the way now provided for. My Lords, I think the united action, or partly united action, which my noble Friend has suggested, of the Local Authority having part power and the Government having part power, would be not a wise proceeding. I think the whole responsibility should be left in the hands of the Government to stamp out the disease, and pay for the loss of cattle in doing it; and, if firmly carried out, I believe the passing of this Bill into an

  663
  Act will be one of the greatest boons to the agricultural community that we have seen for many years.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I may be, perhaps, excused for saying a few words, as I am connected with the agricultural County of Norwich, where, unfortunately, agriculturists have suffered seriously from this disease of pleuro-pneumonia. We are there, unfortunately, particularly exposed to it, because our mode of conducting business requires that, as farmers, we should buy a number of store cattle, which bring, in a great measure, this terrible disease to this country from Ireland. There does exist among us a very strong belief that this disease is, to a great extent, propagated from Ireland. Now, I do not say I assent to that at all upon any evidence which I possess, but I mention the fact in order to justify the inquiry which I addressed to the Government as to what has been going on in Ireland latterly in regard to this important subject. I see from the Report of the Commissioners—made about two years ago, I believe—that an extensive slaughter of cattle took place in Dublin. No less than 1,486 animals were slaughtered, and 530 of those animals were found to be diseased. Now, Dublin was, in my time, when I was Lord Lieutenant, a perfect hot-bed of disease, as it also was during the term of office of my noble Friend Earl Spencer, and I cannot consider anything more important in getting rid of this disease than that the Government should continue to enforce in the most vigorous manner the stamping out of this disease in Dublin. With regard to Ireland generally, I have no personal experience of the mode in which these Acts are carried into effect; but from the nature of the country, and the manner in which the animals are kept, I should anticipate a great deal more difficulty in enforcing the orders of the Local Authorities in Ireland than in this country. If that be so, I welcome this Bill as giving to the Government more complete powers of dealing with the disease. What I desire to impress upon the Government is that we in England expect they will use these powers in Ireland vigorously and effectually; because, with a large number of cattle coming from Ireland, all our exertions and sacrifices in money will be of no avail whatever unless the
  664
  most stringent measures are taken in Ireland to deal with the disease there. My Lords, there are undoubtedly some persons who doubt the efficacy of this measure for stamping out the disease. One cannot help feeling some apprehension upon the subject, but I quite concur with the Government in thinking that a vigorous effort should be made to deal with it. Above all things, half measures are useless. They merely distress agriculturists and cause a waste of public money without attaining any practical result. If the thing is to be done, it should be done once for all vigorously, and thoroughly persevered in; and if it should turn out that we cannot effect our object, we shall have done our best. But we shall never effect it by adopting half measures, and by one country doing one thing and another another. Therefore, my Lords, I think the Government deserve praise for having, to use an agricultural expression, "taken the bull by the horns," and having themselves resolved to deal with the matter. There is one point which is greatly exercising the minds of many persons, and it is mentioned in this Report, namely, the "old cases." In old cases there may be found instances of the extraordinary length of time which the disease appears to take to incubate. It does seem extraordinary to many people that the disease should break out among a herd after the animals have been isolated for several months, and have never apparently been exposed to contact with diseased cattle at all. That seems to have given rise to the opinion which prevails in the minds of some agriculturists that the disease may spring up spontaneously without any contagion. I do not pretend myself to speak with any scientific authority in the matter, but I think such cases may be explained on the theory that cysts had formed in the lungs of the cattle affected; that is to say, that an animal may have had the disease in a slight form and became nearly cured without the disease having been noticed; the diseased part becomes healed over, and the animal may be perfectly well apparently for months. It then, perhaps, takes cold; that breaks the cyst which had formed in the lungs, and makes the animal at once evidently diseased. That seems to be the explanation of the extraordinary length of time

  665
  at which, after cattle had been exposed to contagion, they become affected with the disease. I mention the subject because many agriculturists are apprehensive that the disease may break out of itself on account of the great length of time at which, after isolation, it breaks out; but if this explanation is the true one, it will set at rest those doubts. It is extremely important that any doubts of that kind should be dispelled, because unless we can convince the agricultural community that they should give us their hearty co-operation in carrying the measure into effect we shall fail. I quite agree with what has been said by the Marquess of Huntly in reference to penalties. In the case, for instance, of large dairies, if a man is not disposed to give notice, the amount of money which he has at stake in the dairy and the loss which he will certainly incur, even though he receives compensation, are so large that he may be inclined to evade the law. I do not believe that any penalty you can impose will prevent his doing that, and I do not think you should trust to penalties alone. What we want to do is to diffuse correct information on the subject, and by obtaining general co-operation from everybody interested in the matter, we shall be enabled to stamp out this disease which has inflicted more grievous loss on agriculturists.
  THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTH: I should like to ask the noble Earl who is to allocate the Compensation Fund which is to be devoted by the country for the purpose of paying for the cattle slaughtered? I ask in reference to the allocation to the various counties. We hive heard from noble Lords of outbreaks in some of our counties, and I may mention that there has been a very serious outbreak in my own county. I should like to know whether it is to be on the principle of "first come first served." It might be that a very large sum would be required for a single county, and I only want to know who is to allocate it, and upon what principle. At the same time, I, too, should like to add my humble thanks to the Government for having dealt with this question in so efficient a manner. My noble Friend opposite has, I think, done great service with his great knowledge of the subject in having pointed
  666
  out the difficulties that any Government will meet with in grappling with this disease. My noble Friend the Earl of Kimberley has told the House that which is no doubt perfectly true, that one of the greatest of those difficulties will arise from the length of time which is occupied in the incubation of the disease in the animals. Whatever amount of inspection you practise, you may send the cleverest man in the country, and I defy him to tell you, unless there are present the outward symptoms, how long it may be before the disease breaks out. No man can blame a farmer for parting with his animals, and weeks after they have been sent away the disease may break out among them. I am very glad that my noble Friend the Earl of Kimberley has really hit the right nail on the head in what he has said. He has explained the difficulty which even an army of Inspectors will find in taking necessary steps for the purpose of carrying out the measure. There is no doubt that the great foci of disease are these sheds in the neighbourhood of great towns; and the difficulty of finding out whether they are infected or not, will be met, and perhaps largely met, by the increased powers of inspection given; but no amount of inspection, from the very nature of the disease, will absolutely protect you, and, therefore, the country must not expect that we shall be enabled to stamp out the evil within a very short time. I hope the noble Earl will inform me how the money is to be allocated, and upon what principle.
  LORD WENLOCK: I sincerely hope the Government will not be induced to act upon the suggestion thrown out by Earl Spencer, namely, that the compensation should be provided between Her Majesty's Government and the Local Authorities. I was surprised to hear him make that statement, because I should have thought his experience would have proved to him that any arrangement, which required communication between the Local Authorities and the Government, might cause delay, which would give time for the disease to spread itself all over the country. I hope the Government will at least be firm and stick to their guns on this occasion. I hail with satisfaction the fact that they have at last

  667
  determined to grapple with this disease, and I think the country will very much regret if the Government recede from the position they have taken up in the matter. I beg to thank them for bringing forward this measure, and I sincerely hope it may meet with the success it deserves.
  LORD BELPER: I should like to ask a question upon one small point, and that is with regard to the date when the Act comes into force. The Bill fixes that date as the 1st September. Supposing an outbreak occurred in the latter days of August, and was reported, and the slaughter of the animals did not take place till after the date fixed, that is to say, if the animals were not slaughtered before the 1st September, I should like to ask whether the compensation would be paid by the Local Authority or by the Government? It is a very small matter to the Government, but it would be a very large one to the Local Authority which might, have ordered the cattle to be slaughtered. In the one case there might be an inducement for keeping back any information in order that the date of slaughter might fall after the 1st of September. I venture to put that question in case the noble Lord has not thought of the point.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: Several questions have been asked, and, in endeavouring to answer them I think the House will understand that I must speak with some reserve and no authority upon these matters. First, with regard to the questions of the noble Lord opposite, I can only say that I should think the Board, would desire to act in a liberal spirit. Beyond that I cannot go. There is no question of allocating this sum between the various Local Authorities, but the Board of Agriculture will have £140,000 allotted to it by Parliament, and it will use that money for the purpose of meeting the cost of every outbreak which may occur. If the expenditure should be more than £140,000 in any year, the Board will meet the deficiency out of the Local Taxation Accounts. Each case will be met by full payment out of these funds. With regard to the suggestions of the noble Lords the Earl of Kimberley and Earl Spencer, I may say that the Board of Agriculture is not responsible for what takes place in Ireland.
  668
  They have no jurisdiction in that country; but I will endeavour to find out before we go into Committee what is being done there. Then, with regard to the question of inspection of dairies, I can only speak my individual opinion; but I agree with the noble Duke in thinking it would be a very difficult matter to carry out the suggestion of branding dairy cows. Of course, it will be my duty to bring these matters before the President of the Board of Agriculture. With regard to the question of dividing the compensation, I can, perhaps, take upon myself to answer that in this way. People are, no doubt, generally willing to receive more than they are promised, but would strongly resent a proposal to give them less. Therefore, I do not think that the Board of Agriculture would in any way countenance the division of compensation. With respect to the matter which Lord Wenlock mentioned, I would point out that if you divide the powers of carrying out this measure between two bodies there must be some delay in communication, and possibly some friction, and, while that is going on, the opportunity of effecting the object for which the intervention is required is lost. But, my Lords, there is one thing of which I am quite sure, and that is that the Minister of Agriculture will be thankful for the Debate which has taken place in this House, and for the outspoken manner in which so many noble Lords have expressed their desire of seeing this measure carried out in an efficient manner. I can only say that I think the present Minister of Agriculture is the right man to act energetically if you give him the power. My Lords, I propose to refer the Bill to Committee of the whole House on Monday week. It is a matter of such general interest that I think your Lordships will agree it should be dealt with in Committee of the whole House.
  A noble LORD: My Lords, I would venture to suggest to my noble Friend that Monday week would hardly be a good day to fix for going into Committee on this Bill. I do not suppose there are likely to be many Amendments proposed; but I would point out that Monday week will be the commencement of the Agricultural Show at Plymouth, and I think,

  669
  therefore, that possibly many of your Lordships may be absent.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, having had much experience on the question of compensation for the slaughter of animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia, I desire to make a few observations on the subject. On one occasion, in 1850, I had nine animals in Ireland which had come from the centre of England, I think Market Harborough, so deeply affected with pleuro-pneumonia that they had to be destroyed. Frequently it was found that no other animals were injured, but we now hear from a noble Lord that in a single instance 83 animals have been killed. I can only say that a tenant of mine, who lost several cattle by pleuro-pneumonia, was very much reduced in circumstances in consequence of the small allowance that was made to him. My Lords, I believe that a Minister of Agriculture should have the power to apportion the funds applicable, so as to make some regular allowance to those who lose their cattle, for I believe that as far as the Local Authorities are concerned, they may differ in every district throughout the country. In regard to moving cattle there has been great difficulty everywhere, in consequence of the difference in regulations and the want of unanimity between the various Local Authorities. You must establish some principle of action, and then do all you can to carry it out for the purpose of eradicating the disease. Skilled inspectors are necessary. It was my misfortune once to have to kill an injured animal on my own authority, and because the veterinary surgeon whom I called in happened not to be an Inspector, I was obliged to pay £10. If the proper veterinary surgeon had been called in, and had certified the disease as rinderpest, I should have escaped payment. No body or authority, save the right hon. the Minister of Agriculture, should have the power to discriminate and say whether it is possible to save the lives of animals. I am afraid there has been a great conflict of authorities in this matter, and that such conflict will arise has always been my great fear in the establishment of local bodies.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

EDUCATION OF BLIND AND DEAF- MUTE CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  (No. 101.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN): My Lords, I regret very much that I have not been able to bring this Bill under the consideration of your Lordships' House at an earlier period of the evening, because it is one which I trust will appeal to your Lordships' sympathy and assent. The House has been during a considerable portion of the evening considering the manner in which youthful offenders should be dealt with—that is to say, devoting its attention to the welfare of children of criminal, or, to say the least, not of the best character. But the Bill which I present this evening is for the benefit of another class altogether, namely, children suffering under natural affliction, in that they have been born blind or deaf and dumb. Your Lordships will recollect that in 1885 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the whole question of the condition of blind and deaf-mute children in the United Kingdom. Of that Commission my noble Friend Lord Egerton of Tatton was Chairman, and I regret to say that a telegram has been just received from the noble Lord stating his inability to be present this evening, because his countenance and knowledge would have been of the greatest possible value in any discussion which may arise on this measure. Now, my Lords, the Bill of which I now move the Second Reading is founded mainly upon the Report of that Commission. That Report deals not only with the question of the education of blind and deaf-mute children, but also with the treatment of adults, and the different systems which are now in use with regard to the care of such afflicted persons in after life not only in Great Britain: but on the Continent. The Bill to winch I ask your Lordships' assent this evening refers only to the educational portion of that Report. In the main, the Report made three recommendations in reference to the education of blind and deaf-mute children. One of those recommendations was that the compulsory clauses of the Education Act

  671
  should be extended to these children; the second recommendation was that the school authority should have power to defray the expenses of the education of such children at the different institutions in the country, of their boarding out, and of their journeys to and from such institutions if they happen to be at a distance, away from their own parishes, and the third recommendation was that in the case of these children there should be an increase in the education grants. With regard to the first of those recommendations, namely, that the compulsory clauses of the Education Act should be extended to these children, I should not like to say that even under the present Act those compulsory clauses do not extend to this class of children. My impression is that under the existing compulsory clauses the School Board Authorities might be bound to find means for the education of these afflicted children, and that when those means of education have been found and provided, that the compulsory clauses should be put into effect as regards them. But, on the other hand, I believe there may be some doubt whether under the interpretation of these clauses those provisions can be carried so far. I am inclined to think, too, that further doubt may be cast upon their possible interpretation in that way by the 69th clause of the Education (Scotland) Act of 1872. There is a provision there that fees may be paid for the education of the blind; but there is no such provision with regard to deaf mutes. That would, I think, go far to show that a special provision is required. But, whether there is any doubt on the question or not, I think that it is quite obvious that even if these compulsory clauses were intended to be put into effect, it would not be found possible to do so. It has, in fact, been found impossible to give effect to them, because, scattered throughout Scotland there may be very few of these children in certain districts, and in order to provide for them it might be necessary to send them to some central point where means could be provided for their education. Even if it were possible for the School Boards to deal with them under the clauses I have mentioned it would not be desirable, because I think the whole tone and tendency of the Report of the Royal Commission goes to show
  672
  that, especially as regards the deaf mutes, they would be better educated and cared for in scattered institutions than they could be directly under the School Boards. One of the objects of this Bill is to remove any doubt with regard to the compulsory powers being intended to apply to the education of these children, but, coupled with that compulsion, it is absolutely necessary to give to School Boards powers, which they do not now possess, of providing funds for sending these children to such institutions, and for boarding them out and defraying the expenses of their journeys. I am quite willing to admit that these powers are somewhat novel, and that, under certain circumstances, some slight cost might be incurred. The powers are novel in two respects. First, there is the power enabling School Boards to contribute to schools already established. The second power, which is new, is that which enables an Educational Authority to pay for board and lodging. If there is any risk in establishing a new principle by this it ought, I think, still to be done; but I do not think there is any such risk, because these powers are so strictly limited to cases of blind and deaf mute children that they cannot possibly be extended under this measure to any other class of the community. I think your Lordships will agree that after so much consideration has been given to the subject by the Royal Commission, and it having been found absolutely impossible to carry out their recommendations in any other way, it is necessary to approve of these proposals. The third recommendation of the Commission was that additional grants should be given in the case of these children. On this point I have to say that it has not been thought necessary to make such a provision in the Bill; but should it appear necessary that such additional grants should be given, the Department is perfectly willing to give power with consent of Parliament, and under proper precautions, for grants to be given in each necessary case. Those propositions constitute the object of the Bill, namely, that the School Boards should be allowed to provide the education specially required for these afflicted children in the way which may be found most suitable to their needs, and that the compulsory powers of the Education Act should be exercised

  673
  in regard to these children. The other provisions of the Bill I need not enter into; they are simply for the purpose of carrying out its object. I would, however, refer to Clause 5, which provides that in case of the non-attendance of a child at school it shall be admitted as a sufficient excuse that the child is a deaf mute under seven years of age. The compulsory school age in Scotland is five, but the Commissioners recommend that in the case of deaf mute children the compulsory clauses should not be applied under the age of seven. Then, by Clause 3, reference is made to children up to 16 years of age, but it is not proposed that the compulsory powers should be put in force over the age of 14. The clause only gives powers to School Boards to make contributions up to the age of 16. Another clause has regard to the religious opinions of parents, and it is provided that a child shall not be sent to an institution without the consent of its parents, and there is general power given to the Educational Department of seeing that these provisions are not carried out in a vexatious manner. With regard to the powers of charging the rates with boarding-out expenses, I think they will not be very far-reaching or involve great cost. Under the possible supposition that the School Boards are bound to provide for the education of these children, under the existing Acts that could not be done without incurring the great expense which must ultimately fall on the rates. The expense will not be very large, I think, if this Bill passes. As far as I know the number of blind children of school age in Scotland is 240, and of deaf mute children 781. But a large number of those children are at present at schools to which they have been sent by charitable persons, or in other ways provided for, and it may, on the whole, be said that only about half remain to be educated, and, therefore, about 500 children would come under the provisions of this Act. Of those 500 some are probably not fit subjects for education at all, either mentally or physically. Therefore, my Lords, even supposing these charges were considerable, for so small a number of children, no great addition could fall upon the
  674
  rates. I do not think, therefore, in that respect I need expect any opposition from your Lordships' House. My Lords, I venture to think that although, as I stated before, the Bill is not a very large one, affecting, perhaps, not more than 500 persons in the whole, it is a measure which appeals specially to your Lordships' consideration. By the Royal Commission the condition of both blind and deaf-and-dumb children was inquired into. But those classes of children are essentially different from each other in the nature of their afflictions, and your Lordships will at once recognise that blind children are not cut off in the same way from outside influences and surroundings in the same way or to the same extent as deaf mutes, and, as a rule, their deprivation from loss of sight is often made up for by greater intelligence and greater quickness of perception in their other senses. In the Middle Ages your Lordships will remember that deaf mutes were generally treated as imbeciles. The first effort which was made to treat them as intelligent human beings was in Spain in 1570, when a charitable monk took four deaf-mute children, under his care, and made an attempt to give them an education. In this country a similar attempt was made a hundred1' years afterwards at Oxford with more or less satisfactory results. Since that time charitable institutions for dealing with these children have been established in all the countries of Europe, and different methods have been tried of treating them. But, my Lords, this is the very first attempt which has been made in the United Kingdom to provide by enactment that education shall be secured to these afflicted children. For that reason I am glad to have had the opportunity of bringing in this Bill as regards Scotland. If it should pass through Parliament this Session some legislative recognition will have been made of the fact that children, however afflicted, must be given an education which will enable their faculties to be^ more developed, and thus, so far, alleviate the unhappy condition under which, through no fault of their own, they are compelled to pass their lives. I beg to move that the Bill be read a seecond time.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

DURATION OF SPEECHES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS BILL.—(No. 4.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, this subject has been introduced now for several years. I happen to know that a Member of the other House is extremely anxious to introduce there a Bill of this description. It is, I know, your Lordships' habit in this House to cultivate brevity of speech, and only last Thursday a noble Lord who is connected with the Haddington County Council proposed that no speaker should exceed 10 minutes in that assembly. Long speeches lead to no good results. In many congresses and conferences members are not permitted to speak for more than 10, 15, or 20 minutes. The High Commissioners of the Established Church in Scotland have proposed that the duration of speeches should be limited to 15 minutes. Of course, in Committee, or anything of that kind, that would be unnecessary. My Lords, I have only further to point out that the sounding of a bell is not so very offensive, and even then if no other speaker rises the speaker addressing the House might continue his remarks. I really think there is not one of your Lordships who would wish to have the privilege of speaking for two or three hours, and it is not the characteristic of speeches in your Lordships' House, that they should be expanded to any great length. I believe, my Lords, that this Bill would do a great deal of good. We know that an undue extension of speeches may do the greatest possible harm.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Denman.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I am under the painful necessity of moving your Lordships that this Bill should be read a second time this day six months. I do not think the noble Lord has done justice to himself or to the House, because he has not given any description of the provisions of the measure. I do
  676
  not know whether your Lordships have read the Bill, but it proposes a kind of procedure which certainly would not add to the dignity of this House, or stimulate the despatch of business. The examples which the noble Lord has cited in the Preamble of his Bill are the Social Science Congress in Edinburgh and the diocesan conferences at Lichfield, Nottingham, and Derby. I am quite unable to follow what is to happen if such a Bill as this were to pass, because I see it is proposed that the clerk should sound a bell, as is done at those conferences. Then, I observe that it is intended to allow a Privy Councillor to speak for half an hour (and under certain circumstances an hour), while other noble Lords would only be allowed half that time. I think that an invidious distinction. I do not think the noble Lord can really desire that such a Bill should pass into law; and I feel it my duty to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. When the Question comes to be put, I hope the noble Lord will challenge my opinion audibly, so that I may know whether the noble Lord desires to divide.
  LORD DENMAN: It is proposed in the House of Commons to give Privy Councillors an unlimited time and other Members much less. This day six months will be a very inconvenient postponement, and I hope your Lordships will not agree to it.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On question that ("now") stand part of the Motion, resolved in the negative; and Bill to be read 2a on this day six months.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (BOROUGH OF BELFAST) BILL.—(No. 91.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF ERNE: My Lords, the Bill I am asking your Lordships to read a second time is very simple and is designed to regulate the registration of voters in the borough of Belfast, and deals with other matters connected

  677
  with that borough. By the Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885, the boundaries of the borough of Belfast were extended so as to include seven townlands in the County of Antrim and 14 in the County Down; and the electors in those places have thereby become electors for the Borough of Belfast. By an arrangement existing before that Act came into operation the expenses of the Clerk of the Peace were paid by the Grand Jury of Antrim, but when the borough was extended by including townlands in the County Down, the County Antrim objected to pay the expenses of registering voters living in those townlands. There was no power to compel them to do so, and, as a matter of fact, I believe the Clerk of the Peace has been out of pocket for that reason since 1887. That is obviously unjust, and the Bill is intended to remedy it. The Bill provides that the accounts of expenses shall be laid before the Recorder of Belfast, who shall certify the sums to be paid. The amounts to be contributed by the two counties are to be calculated according to the proportions which the voters in the town lands bear to the total number of voters in Belfast. The accounts, certified by the Recorder, are to be laid before the Grand Juries of Down and Antrim and Town Council of Belfast, and those bodies are to present for such sums as are due to the Clerk of the Peace and Town Clerk respectively. There is another provision, giving authority for the use of the Antrim Court House. The Sheriff has to be asked for permission every time it is used: that has been done by mutual arrangement, and in future it will be dispensed with. I have only to add that this Bill has passed the House of Commons without opposition, and the Lord Privy Seal has authorised me to state that there is no objection to it on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I trust it will receive your Lordships' assent, and I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

HERRING FISHERY (SCOTLAND) ACT (1889) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 75.)
Read 3a (according to order) with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
Report from, That the Committee have added the Lord Clifford of Chud-leigh and the Lord Morris to the Standing Committee for General Bills for the consideration of the Custody of Children Bill and the Protection of Children Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
THE NEW BARRACKS.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the new barracks about to be erected, care will be taken to provide proper accommodation for baths for the soldiers, said: My Lords, if I had any reason to suppose that Her Majesty's Government were likely to give a negative reply to the Question I am about to put, I might perhaps detain your Lordships at some little length in pointing out how necessary it is that proper accommodation should be given as regards baths for maintaining Her Majesty's Forces in health. As I have reason to believe that the answer which will be given on behalf of the Government will be thoroughly satisfactory, I see no reason for detaining your Lordships on the subject, except to observe that when the somewhat large outlay for providing accommodation for Her Majesty's Forces which has been too long delayed is carried out, we have reason to hope that every precaution will be taken for their construction, according to the best scientific rules which have been laid down. I beg leave to ask the noble Earl the question which stands in my name.
  THE EARL OF POWIS: Before my noble Friend the Under Secretary for War gives an answer, I should like to call attention to two paragraphs in the Report to the War Office of the architects who were employed to report upon these new barracks. The architects say that provision should be made for ventilation and for small larders with air openings attached to the living

  679
  rooms in each, of the quarters. I think none of your Lordships, in building a new cottage, would think of building a pantry without ventilation to the open air, where the residents might keep their meat, milk, and butter. Architects are very often, I am afraid, apt to think more of the appearance of rooms in the way of decoration than of the substantial advantages derived from sanitary arrangements, and I think, my Lords, it would be a very good thing if provisions of this kind were made. We are building these barracks and providing rooms for the accommodation of sergeants and corporals, respectable men on whom the maintenance of discipline in the Army mainly depends. Those who understand the difficulty of recruiting and keeping men in the Army in these times know that it is not easy to keep soldiers with the colours as long as we could wish for the advantage of the Service. I hope, therefore, the Secretary for War will not think it is an extravagant matter to provide a small larder for each quarter. There is another paragraph in which I do not concur in which they say there is no occasion for providing a separate scullery for each quarter. I think that to give to two families only one scullery is a very good receipt for breeding quarrels between neighbours. To have two families washing their crockery and clothes in one scullery at the same time, must, I think, lead to considerable confusion and conflict, and I think that with two families of children running about the same scullery, the destruction of each other's crockery would be very considerable. Therefore, I hope that the allowance of accommodation in that respect will not be curtailed. There is another question which the noble Earl has put, with regard to baths. In all large towns baths and washhouses are comprised in the same establishment; and in the large camps, such as Shorncliffe, Aldershot, or Colchester, and in those large sets of barracks which it is in contemplation to put up under this Act for one or two regiments, I think it would be a matter worth the consideration of the Secretary of State for War whether it might not be advantageous and economical to build public wash-houses for the soldiers. In London the poorer people find that it is more economical to pay 1d. an hour, or whatever the charge is, for the use of the wash-houses than to
  680
  consume their own fuel and have the inconvenience of the heat and steam from the hot water in their own apartments; and I think it would prove to be the same thing in these barracks where there are enough soldiers collected together to make full use of a common wash-house. I think, also, it would be found that a small payment, which would go towards providing the coals, would be a very great comfort and convenience. I do not ask that this should be done without consideration, but I merely suggest that it might be worth the attention of the Secretary of State for War and that the matter might be gone into and considered.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Earl BROWNLOW): My Lords, in reply to the question of the noble Earl, I can assure the House that the War Department are fully alive to the advantages of giving every facility for ablution to the soldiers, and it is proposed to provide baths in the new barracks. The baths will be made of slate, that having been found to be the best material for the purpose, as it is clean, durable, and cheap. It is intended that these baths should be each in a separate room; and, further, where there are opportunities for it, it is proposed to give every facility for open-air bathing during the summer months. It is now under consideration whether it would be practicable or desirable in the new barracks to introduce steam for heating purposes. I cannot say at this, moment whether that can be carried out. The question of expense may raise a difficulty in the way of its introduction. But if it can be done, the steam raised will be made available for purposes of heating water for washing. With regard to the points raised by Lord Powis, if I had known that the noble Earl intended to raise them, I should have been very glad to have inquired into the matter, so that I might have been able to go into the question with him. But they are rather questions of small detail in a large matter; that is to say, the provision of married soldiers' quarters. The difficulty with those quarters is that some men have large families and some have small ones, and it is very difficult to construct quarters that are suitable for families of all sizes. I can, however,

  681
  assure the noble Earl that I shall be very glad to go carefully into the points which he has spoken of this evening with the view to making the soldiers and their wives as comfortable as possible in their new married quarters.
  House adjourned at Twenty minutes past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.