Lords Sitting of 16 June 1890

THE CENSUS—PETITION.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I have to present a Petition from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the prayer of which states that the petitioners are desirous that the connection with different denominations of the people of Scotland should be definitely and authoritatively ascertained, and that this should be done in taking the next Census. I understand that this Petition is presented because in the course of certain recent events, importance has been attached by some people to the argument which may be deduced from there being a majority of those who adhere to one denomination rather than to another. Without expressing any opinion upon the validity or usefulness of that argument, I desire to say, on behalf of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, that their desire is that the exact state of matters, be it what it may, should be ascertained.
THE CENSUS—PETITION.
  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  A Bill to alter the constitution of the Fishery Board for Scotland; and to amend the law in regard to mussel fisheries in Scotland— was presented by the Lord Ker (M. Lothian); read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 121.)

HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF CLARENCE AND AVONDALE.
The Marquess of SALISBURY acquainted the House, by the Queen's command—
"That Her Majesty had been graciously pleased to issue Letters Patent, dated the 24th day of May, creating His Royal Highness Prince Albert Christian Edward Duke of Clarence and Avondale, whereby his said Royal Highness obtained a right to sit and vote among their Lordships in Parliament; and Her Majesty recommended it to the House to consider of the place his said Royal Highness should occupy in the House."
Ordered, That the matter with which the Marquess of Salisbury has acquainted the House, by Her Majesty's command, be referred to the consideration of the
950
Lords Committees for Privileges; and that their Lordships do meet to take the same into consideration To-morrow at half-past Three o'clock, and do report their opinion thereupon to the House.

STANDING ORDERS.
THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which stand in my name of Standing Order No. 47. The object of the Amendment is that the noble Lord, who is in charge of any Bill, should ex officio be a Member of the Standing Committee to which that Bill is referred.
Moved, that Standing Order No. XLVII. be amended as follows:
NOTE.—The words underlined are to be omitted, and the words printed in Italics are to be inserted.
The Standing Committees shall consist in all of not more than one hundred and fifty Lords, and each Committee shall not consist of less than fifteen Lords, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, who The Lord in charge of a. Bill committed to a Standing Committee shall be a member of the Committee during the consideration of such Bill. The Committee of Selection shall have power to discharge Lords with their assent from time to time, and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged, and The Committee of Selection shall also have power to add not more than ten Lords to a Standing Committee, in respect of any Bill committed to a Standing' Committee, to serve on the Committee during the consideration of such Bill.—(The Earl of Morley.)
On question, agreed to.

THE CENSUS OF 1891.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, as the time is now approaching very closely when arrangements must be made for the Census of 1891, I think it desirable to bring under your Lord ships' notice a point with reference to the Census which has been raised on more than one previous occasion. I think it desirable, especially under present circumstances, with regard to which I have to say a word or two presently,

951
that there should be in the Census papers for 1889 a column showing the religious persuasion of all the persons whose names are returned. I think that as this matter has been mixed up some times with ecclesiastical questions, it may be as well to say that I do not make the Motion after having conferred with the Representatives of any Church, or in the interests of any Church, or against the interests of any Church. I make this Motion as a Member of Parliament, and I regard the subject entirely and solely from a Parliamentary point of view. I may remind your Lordships of what has passed on previous occasions with regard to this matter. Similar Motions were made in 1860, in 1870, and in 1880. In 1860 Sir George Cornewall Lewis moved that a column be inserted in the Census Bill of that year in the sense of that which I now propose. It was opposed by Mr. Baines, speaking on behalf of the Nonconformists, and he used mainly two arguments. He said, in the first place, that the State had no right to ask a man what was his religious belief; and, he stated, in the second place, that any such Return would be unfair and inaccurate, because persons who were not attached to any special form of belief would, if asked, declare themselves members of the Established Church. The Government of the day were not at all convinced by that argument, but they did not press the point. There was a considerable difference of opinion, and Lord Palmerston, in closing the Debate and giving way on the subject, said that while they gave way to the feelings of the opponents of the proposal, they did not much appreciate the force of their arguments. But though, accordingly, no change was made at that time with regard to England, Wales, or Scotland, Mr. Cardwell, the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, assented to the introduction of such a column as that for which I am now asking your Lordships' sanction, and that was carried out in regard to Ireland. In 1870 Mr. Bruce stated, in answer to a question with regard to Scotland, that a religious column would be inserted in the Census Bill of that year for Scot land. The Free Church Assembly and the Established Church Assembly had both at that time petitioned in favour of such a clause being inserted; but some opposition arose afterwards in Scotland,
952
and the clause was withdrawn. In the year 1880 the question was raised again, and after a similar discussion and similar arguments put forward the clause was once more withdrawn. Now, the Motion was resisted, as I have said, by the Non conformists, and on the general grounds which I have stated. I am bound to say that, speaking merely for myself, I do not appreciate the force of the two arguments which I have mentioned; but, at the same time, I do not wish to regard this question from any narrow and far less from any sectarian point of view. I am perfectly ready to look at the matter as having different bearings, as I think those arguments have, when applied to the different countries. Now, my Lords, I am quite free to admit that in England there are considerable differences in the case as contrasted with Wales, and as contrasted with Scotland. In the first place, in England there are a very large number of religious denominations, of various kinds and of various strength, which differ very often from one another in very minute particulars, and with regard to which it might perhaps be difficult in some cases to make very accurate Returns. There may then be something—I do not think it is much, but still I am quite ready to admit that there may be something—in the statement that in England if persons who are not attached very strongly to any special form of religious denomination were asked this question they might declare themselves to be members of the Established Church. As I have said, there is something in that, but I do not think there is very much. But the strongest point of difference as it appears to me, when it refers to the Census of 1890, is that there is not likely to be, as far as one can see, any very important point raised with regard to the Church of England in a serious manner. My Lords, that is the reason why I think those who are opposed to this Motion may, on the present occasion, fairly say that they think great objections would be made to it in parts of England, and that they are not, as regards England, prepared to assent to it. But when we turn to Wales the case is entirely different. As your Lordships know, the Nonconformists in Wales possess a very large numerical majority—

953
at least I believe they are in a large numerical majority—as compared with the Church of England. I have seen it stated, and I am bound to say it appears to me to be a very strange statement, that the Established Church has in recent years been making considerable advances in Wales. That may or may not be so; all I say is, that I know no reason whatever, and I am very anxious to know whether there is any reason, for making such a statement as that. And, further, I do not see why, if this statement is incorrect, as it may be, the members of other religious denominations should object to any statistical Returns at all being made upon the subject, or how it can other wise be proved that that statement is incorrect. But, with regard to Wales, your Lordships will remember that a very important announcement has been made by Mr. Gladstone as the head of the Liberal Party. He has announced that it will be part of the Liberal policy put forward at the next General Election to carry out the disestablishment of the Welsh Church. It appears to me, my Lords, that for that very reason Parliament is bound to obtain the best information which it is in its power to get. I am aware it has been argued that the Members of Parliament have the best means of gauging the religious opinions of Wales and also of other parts of the country. I admit that, to a certain extent, that may be so, but Members of Parliament are not elected upon one question, and upon one question only, and even when they are, I have known occasions on which statesmen have been able to argue that when you put the minorities in certain places in contrast with the majorities in other places, it by no means necessarily follows that the conclusion arrived at is the opinion of the majority, or, at all events, that it is more than the opinion of a small majority. My Lords, for that reason it appears to me that, whether this be true or not, it is desirable that you should also have this second form of information, which, I think, is the most reliable form of all, namely the religious opinions of people as stated by themselves. But when we come to Scotland, the case be comes very much stronger indeed. With regard to Scotland, a similar announcement has been made; and it has been
954
declared, as your Lordships all know, that a prominent part of the policy of the Liberal Party will be the disestablishment of the Scottish Church. With regard to that I merely make one remark, in which I am sure that all your Lordships who have any connection or acquaintance with Scotland will entirely agree with me that no question could be put forward which will stir so deeply all the feelings of the people of Scotland as that question of the disestablishment of the Church. Well, that being so, and I believe it to be an undoubted fact, surely, my Lords, we ought to obtain, as far as we can, the very best information we can with regard to the various denominations of the Presbyterian Church. Now, I wish to press the question as regards Scotland most particularly upon your Lordships, because the arguments which I mentioned just now, and which I admit may have some force when applied to England, have no force at all when applied to Scotland. In the first place, every one belongs to some religious denomination. I am quite certain that the numbers of nondescripts in religion, as I may call them, are extremely small in Scotland. In the next place, the divisions between the various religious denominations, the lines of division, are very clearly marked out. You have the Roman Catholics, who include in their number the inhabitants of a small portion of the Highlands, and who also have a considerable number of adherents, mainly of Irish descent, in the large working towns of Scot land. Then you have the Episcopalians, who are also, I believe, a somewhat growing body. But the main body of the Scottish people are Presbyterians, and they are divided between the three forms of the Established Church, the Free Church, and the United Presbyterian Church. I dare say that to many of your Lordships the doctrinal distinctions between those three denominations may not be very clear, but in Scotland they are well known, and the members of those three religious bodies them selves know extremely well to which of those three Churches they belong. And not merely do they know to which of those three Churches they belong, but they have no objection whatever, to state their religious beliefs. My Lords, it has

955
been argued that it is an impertinence on the part of the State to ask any man to write down what is his form of religious belief. I am quite certain there will be no objection taken on that score, at all events among a very large majority of the people of Scotland. And, my Lords, you must remember that this matter is not being dealt with now from an exclusively novel point of view. This is not the first time we are asked to undertake to deal with it. We have dealt with it, as I have told your Lordships, in Ire land. It was dealt with in the year I860. Mr. Card well then inserted a clause which I think, if I remember rightly, was proposed by Lord Emly, enforcing a religious Return in regard to Ireland. What were the reasons why that was done? I do not think those reasons are very far to seek. I believe that that proposal was made because statesmen were at that time of opinion that questions connected with the Irish Church were likely to come forward within the ensuing 10 years. I imagine the Return was given in accordance with the wishes of the large proportion of the people of Ireland, and it has been worked upon, and successfully, from that time up to the present. My Lords, I may go even a little further. In 1860 that Return was a Return which everyone was compelled to make; but in the year 1880 it was made an optional Return, and I have the best reasons for knowing from official statements that the Return which was made in 1880 was within the smallest possible fraction as full a Return as was made when a religious Return was a compulsory matter. It was Mr. Forster, I believe, who desired that that Return should be optional instead of being compulsory, and the result was that that Return was willingly complied with. My Lords, I have reason for knowing, also, that it is approved of by ministers of all religious denominations, and that it has been found very useful for various practical purposes. Now, I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with many more remarks. Who is there in Scotland, I should like to know, who objects to it? I have been reading lately, and I dare say most of your Lordships have who are connected with Scotland, what has passed at the meetings of the General Assembly of the Free Church and
956
of the Established Church, in Edinburgh, and I observe that the Established Church approved of such Returns being given, and that the Free Church disapproved of it. I think they resolved to present a Petition to Parliament against it. I have made inquiries in the matter, but I think up to the present time that Petition has not been presented. I was rather anxious to see it for this reason, that I wanted to know what were the grounds which they put forward for objecting to a Return of this kind. In the year 1870, as I told your Lordships just now, they approved of a Return of that description. But what I desire to impress upon your Lordships is with regard to a Return of this kind under the present circumstances, when the question of the disestablishment of the Church in Scotland has become a very important political question, that the desirability or undesirability of such a Return is not a matter to be decided by any Church or by any Churches. It is a matter for Parliament to consider, and if Parliament is of opinion that, in dealing with such a grave question as this, it is necessary and essential to have the very best information which can be obtained, then I hope that Parliament will insist, at all events, for Scotland and Wales, upon such a Return being made. My Lords, holding such opinions, I beg to move the Resolution of which I have given notice.
Moved to resolve—
"That it is desirable that in the Returns of the forthcoming Census information should be obtained as to the religious persuasion of all persons resident in England, Wales, and Scot land, distinguishing in Scotland between the-various Presbyterian denominations."—(The Marl of Camperdown.)
THE MAKQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, on a recent occasion we were entertained by a member of this House, who sits on the Cross Benches, Lord Wemyss, with a discussion upon the merits of several Bills which are still in the House of Commons. I ventured, and I think some other Members of the House ventured then to point out, that that was an unusual and an irregular proceeding. Fortunately in this House we have a good deal of time, but if the practice of discussing Bills which are still in the other House of Parliament was to obtain, and if the contagion of it was to stretch across that hall I dread to think

957
of the increased power of delay which would result from such a practice. But my noble Friend opposite has gone further than discussing a Bill which is in the other House of Parliament; he has discussed a Bill which is to be introduced into the other House of Parliament, and he wants your Lordships in this House to prescribe the form that it is to take. I feel that on mere Parliamentary grounds alone, on mere grounds of regularity of procedure, I should not be at all performing my duty if I in any way acceded to the design of the noble Lord, or stated an opinion with regard to the matters which he has raised. I am confirmed in that view of my duty by the peculiar compromise of opinion at which he has himself arrived. Many people have thought that it is desirable to have a religious Census everywhere; other people have thought that it is not desirable to extend that principle to the British Isles, but I have never before heard any opinion expressed that it is desirable to have a religious Census in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and not in England. What is the ground which the noble Lord puts forward of such a distinction? Ho says that our religious differences are much more minute in England than those between the various sects in Wales and Scotland. Well, that is news to me. I have always (understood that it is one of the privileges of the Northern intellect to be able to distinguish between the various churches of the other side of the Border with a facility which is thoroughly denied to our coarser Southern intellect. Again, the noble Lord seemed to think that there was a puculiar species of timidity and terror, which belonged to the people South of the Tweed, and East of what ever boundary divides us from Wales— that whereas in Scotland people did not mind being asked to what religion they belonged; in England they felt a great terror in doing so, and always called themselves members of the Church of England.
THE EARD OE CAMPERDOWN: I said that it was only the opponents of this Motion who said so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But my noble Friend, by acceding to the omission of England, gives some currency to that argument. Well, I do not accept that opinion of my countrymen at all.
958
They always seem to me to be very free to express their opinions upon any sub jest, religious or otherwise, which comes uppermost. And I fear that if we once admit the refusal or inability of people to express their own religious opinions as a ground for not taking a Religious Census, you cannot confine that argument to England alone. Surely, there must be some people in Ireland, for instance, who have some fears of the opinions of their neighbours on matters which affect the community, either in a religious or a political sense. I do not wish to claim for my own countrymen any unusual amount of moral courage, but I really think they express their opinions quite as freely as they do in the Southern and Western districts of Ireland. I do not know what remedy we can adopt. What shall we do if we cannot trust a man to say of what religion he is? Shall we require an attestation from his two senior female relatives in order to ascertain to what religion he belongs? It appears to me that the speech of my noble Friend while sinning in the first instance, and principally sinning against Parliamentary regularity, has also, in the glimpse which it has allowed us to have of the logical condition of his own mind, warned us against forming any premature opinions on this subject. It is a matter to which I hope Parliament will give its attention. There is no doubt that by the House of laymen in Eng land and the Church of Scotland asking for this Religious Census, the position is somewhat altered on this question from what it was in former years, but I would earnestly deprecate any premature decision. I hope we shall not treat it, when the matter is before us, as a Government or Party question, but as one upon which each can give his opinion according to the best of his ability. I hope, however, that we shall not commit the gross irregularity of pronouncing an opinion upon Bills which are not yet before us.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, for many years I have generally agreed more or less with the noble Earl, if not with the noble Marquess, but on this occasion I must say I think that the criticism of the noble Marquess is just. I have been informed that there is a Departmental inquiry now going on

959
with regard to the best mode of carrying this Census into effect; and I think it would be very premature for this House to give its opinion with regard to the Census before the Bill has been introduced, which the noble Marquess has said is to be introduced into the House of Commons. My own opinion is strongly against introducing this clause for the purpose of obtaining a Religious Census. It is a matter which has been discussed for a very long time; it has been answered three times in the negative, and, in my own opinion, is entirely bad. But I am quite sure of one thing, and that is, that it is a great object to make this Census popular, and that anything which creates violent opposition to the Bill in the way proposed would be a very much greater Parliamentary evil than if the Religious Census were left out in dealing with this question, whether you shall include in or leave out of it a particular form of information. There is one point upon which I do not agree with the noble Marquess, and that is, that there should be no difference made between Scotland and England. Sup posing the one country desired that this piece of information should be obtained, and the other did not, although I have said my opinion is against the insertion of a clause calling for this particular information, yet if all Scotland were unanimous, which I very much doubt, notwithstanding the assurances of the noble Earl, in the desire to have it, that would place the question in a different position to what it is in England; for I believe the opposition would be still more violent than that which made the objection successful formerly. I do not know whether it was necessary to say even as much as I have said; but I entirely agree in the inexpediency of pressing this Resolution, and the more so because it strikes me that the Resolution of the noble Earl and his speech do not agree, for his speech was in favour of leaving out England, while his Resolution is for including it.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to offer a few remarks upon the suggested advantages and disadvantages of such a proposition as this, as it is naturally supposed that the Church may have a view upon them. It is
960
very often pressed upon the authorities of the Church that they should ask for a Religious Census. It is pressed on the ground of assertions which are constantly made as to the numerical position of the Church in comparison with other bodies, which we Churchmen believe to be entirely incorrect. But I believe that I shall state the real opinion of the authorities of the Church if I say that they have no intention to press for a Religious Census, and that simply upon the grounds put forward by the Nonconformists. It is put forward by Nonconformists that it would interfere with the is religious freedom, and it is also argued that an advantage would be derived by the Church from the supposed fact that persons who do not belong to the Church of England would possibly enrol them selves in the ranks of her people. The Church has no desire to take advantage of either position. She has no desire to reap any advantage from what could be regarded as an interference with the religious freedom of the Nonconformists, and certainly she does not wish to swell her lists by including in them people who are not of her religion. My Lords, the Church will, therefore, not press for anything of the kind. On the other hand, the Church will not offer the slightest resistance or objection to what ever may be thought advisable. The Church has knowledge of many facts-about her own position, and she would not object in the least if it were proposed to take such a Census, either in England or Wales. With regard to Scotland I have no right, of course, to speak. I feel that this is entirely a matter for the Government to determine, and I was very glad to hear the noble Earl say that he moved the question on purely Parliamentary grounds. The Church, I repeat, will feel no objection to a Religious Census being taken, but will make no movement to press for it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, before the question is put, I wish to say a word or two in reply. After what has been said from the two Front Cross Benches I shall not, of course, ask your Lordships to take a vote on the question; but if the sins of my speech were purely and simply sins with regard to procedure, I can assure the noble Marquess that I am quite ready to accede to everything he has said and to postpone

961
my Motion until this Bill, which I am told is not yet introduced—I do not know when it will be—has been introduced, or rather until such time as the Bill shall come up to this House. But I am afraid that I must have been rather awkward in the language which I used in expressing my own opinions, because the noble Marquess appears to have gathered from my speech that I saw great objections to such a Census being taken in England. My Lords, that is not at all what I intended; and if my words bear that meaning, I am afraid they were not very well chosen words. What I intended to convey to your Lordships was that if there is a strong objection felt in England—which I believe there is—that objection does not, in my opinion, apply to Wales, and still less does it apply to Scotland; and that in Scotland, at all events, the subject might be dealt with, and ought to be dealt with, in exactly the same way in which it has been dealt with in Ireland. I notice that neither of the noble Lords have alluded at all to the question of Ire land. On the question of Ireland I may, I daresay, on a future occasion have to call your Lordships' attention to the matter: but it is a very remarkable thing that when important matters with regard to the Irish Church were coming to the front, Parliament was then of opinion, and very rightly of opinion, that it was desirable that some kind of information should be obtained with regard to the position of that Church. It appears to me that exactly the same remark applies to the Established Church in Scotland and also to the Established Church in Wales. But I need not detain your Lordships any further, and, with your Lordships' permission, I will ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion (by leave of the House) with drawn.

CHILDREN'S LIFE INSURANCE BILL—(No. 97.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: My Lords, the Bill to which I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading this evening is a Bill for
  962
  amending the law respecting child insurance; and it appears to me that, in order to induce your Lordships to do this, I am bound to show you three things: first of all, that the present law affecting child insurance is unsound in principle and defective in operation; in the next place, that it leads to a very serious amount of evil, no less an evil than that of largely extended infanticide; and, thirdly, that the Amendments of the law which I now propose are likely to be effective in checking those evils as are in themselves just and reasonable. Now, my Lords, in the first place, let us ask ourselves what is the law at present which regulates child insurance in this country. Child insurance in this country is a thing of comparatively recent date. Until 25 years ago it was practically all but impossible that a child's life could be insured in this country. For 100 years previously to that time all life insurance, including that of children, was regulated by the well-known Statute 14 George III cap. 48, which forbade all insurances being effected on lives unless the insurer could show an insurable pecuniary interest in the life, and it forbade any sum being insured for more than that pecuniary interest. The reason given in the Statute is a very remarkable one; it is in order to prevent wagering and gambling, or, in other words, gambling in human life and speculating on human death. My Lords, that law prevailed for 100 years. Obviously cases have been very few in which a parent could have a pecuniary interest in the life of a child and in which he could thereupon proceed to insure its life under that Act. In 1875, however, the Legislature, with the best possible intentions, in order to encourage thrift in the working classes, passed what is known as the Friendly Societies Act. That Act repealed this salutary provision of the Statute of George III., and, within certain limits, of which I will speak presently, allowed the insurance of child life. Now, my Lords, obviously the principle on which the Parliament of that day allowed this was not, strictly speaking, the principle of life insurance at all. The life of the child was permitted to be insured on this ground, that although the child would produce no pecuniary gain to the

  963
  parent during its life, the expenses connected with, the death of the child might be heavy in respect of nurse, doctor, funeral, and so forth, and the Legislature intended that the parent should be enabled to recoup himself or provide beforehand for those expenses by an insurance on the child's life. In point of fact, my Lords, strictly speaking, children were allowed under this Act, as goods were allowed, to be insured. Under the Act of George III. goods which bring no pecuniary gain to the insurer, but the loss of which may be in Jurious to him, were permitted to be insured. My Lords, I cannot put the effect of this Act better than by saying that it allowed the lives of children to be insured as perishable—sadly perish able—goods. Now, it is quite clear that a person insuring either animate or in animate goods is exposed to this temptation, that he may insure for a large sum, and then, in order to obtain that sum, destroy the thing that is insured. Avid the Parliament of that day were quite alive to this evil. But they thought that they had sufficiently guarded against it by what I may venture to call a very clumsy provision which has proved a very inefficient protection against this evil; that is to say, they fixed a money limit in regard to the amount to be insured. The amount for which the insurance was allowed to be effected was, in the case of a child under five years of age, £6, and of a child between five and 10 years of age£10. Now, my Lords, to pass over the obvious absurdity of saying that a limit of £6 is sufficient to save the life of a child of five years of age, but that, for the same purpose, the limit may be extended to £10 beyond that age—that the limit of £6 is sufficient at five years old, but that a limit of £10 is sufficient in the case of a child which may be only three months older—there is this vital and inherent defect in attempting to provide a safeguard by imposing a money limit, that it can only be done on one impossible condition; that is to say, that you shall so balance the amount of death expenses on the one hand, and the amount of death profit on the other, that they shall be as nearly as possible equalised; because, if it should come to pass that while you have in the amount of death profit a fixed sum, yet that,
  964
  owing to circumstances either beyond the control of the insurer or largely within his control, as I shall presently show your Lordships may be the case, the amount of death expenses are considerably lowered, while the amount of death profit remains unchanged, immediately there emerges a margin of profit from the death, and with that margin of profit there emerges the temptation and danger of the commission of a crime. That, my Lords, is, I think, the inherent vice of any attempt at protection by imposing a money limit. Before I go on to show you how large a margin of profit does ensue to the insurer under the present law, let me point out that if there be a temptation and danger to life under the existing law, that danger is a hundredfold greater in the case of infant than in the case of adult life. The and it leads his life for the most part independently of the insurer, and to take the adult's life requires the commission of some deed of violence or some act of poisoning which may be traceable after death; but, in the case of infant life, none of these conditions exist. The fragile existence of the child is dependent for its very sustenance during its life, and for its preservation in disease upon the care and is absolutely at the mercy of the person, who, being its parent or its guardian, may have a pecuniary interest in its death. Is there, I would ask, any one of your Lordships who would allow one of your children to be entrusted to a sick nurse, who had a direct pecuniary interest in its death? But that is the case with regard to child insurance. In order to bring about a child's death there is no occasion for the violence which would be required in the case of an adult. It is only necessary that there should be a little neglect, a little exposure, a failure to administer the needful food or medicine, and the little life is quenched. My Lords, we know that the parent or immediate guardian of a child holds that child's life in the hollow of his hand, and it only requires a slight act of negligence, not perceptible to bystanders, for the death profit to be obtained. In the case of infant life insurance, you have, therefore, all the circumstances requisite for producing crime; you have present temptation, you have enormous facility, and you have

  965
  almost absolute impunity. The wonder would be if crime did not take place under those circumstances. Now, I will show your Lordships what is the margin of profit which will ensue in these cases to act as a temptation to crime. I must now ask your Lordships' attention to figures with regard to these insurances to show the extent of this evil. Child insurance has become a specialty in connection with three or four great Insurance Companies which have expanded it to gigantic dimensions. There are no less than 600,000 children in sured at this moment in Great Britain. These Societies are what I may call "Collecting Societies," which undertake the bulk of this kind of business. I desire your Lordships to note that I distinguish between Friendly Societies and these great Insurance Societies which conduct their business by collecting agents all over the country. As I Slave said, there are but throe or four of these great collecting Insurance Societies, and they do about 80 per cant, of the whole of the money value of this child insurance class of business. As to these Insurance Companies, opinions differ very much in regard to them. Opinion with regard to them ranges between the opinions of very competent judges, who are rashand irreverent enough to speak of them as "pests of society," up to the opinions of those Insurance Societies themselves, who assure us that they are the most calumniated persons in the world, and that they are nothing less than bands of enlightened philanthropists who, purely in the interests, and simply for the comfort and well-being of, the working classes, go about persuading them to insure the lives of their children. It is a matter of perfect indifference to my argument which of those views is taken. I am perfectly willing to accept all the Insurance Societies say of themselves, as to their disinterested benevolence and philanthropy, and to acknowledge they could not possibly be better if their Board of Directors consisted of Archbishops, and if all their collecting agents were Bishops, and I suppose, my Lords, that a higher ideal of human perfection you could hardly expect me to put before you. I am quite content to take that view, be cause what we are concerned with here is not the motives of these Societies, but
  966
  their methods. Now, I have a word to say about their methods and their results. Those methods, my Lords, are these: They flood and inundate the country with a number of insurance agents who receive a premium of no less than 30 per cent, upon each insurance. Those agents go from street to street, from house to house, from tenement to tenement, urging, persuading, pestering poor people to insure their children. Your Lordships will scarcely believe it, but I am told it is a fact, that in the benevolent zeal and earnest ness of these agents to do good, children are sometimes actually insured before they are born, and the sex of the child has afterwards to be put into the policy! From this follows one or two things. In the first place, that these highly competitive agents are not too scrupulous as to the characters of the persons whose children they insure, nor too scrupulous as to evasions of the law in regard to those insurances. Another effect is that this keen competition has reduced, naturally, the amount of the premiums paid on the one hand, and enhanced the amount of the policy monies on the other, to the utmost limits consistent with the modest profits which these benevolent persons allow themselves. I am going to give your Lordships a very short calculation to show the exact amount of profit that may be made on the death of a child whose life has been insured with one of these Insurance Companies. We will suppose that a parent insures a child for 1d. a week, and that that weekly payment goes on for six months. At the end of the six months he will have paid 2s. 2d., and then, upon the death of the child, he receives £2 10s. 6d. Well, my Lords, what are you, on the other hand, to deduct from that sum? You are to deduct, of course, all necessary death expenses. Yes, my Lords, but only necessary death expenses. I think we may safely say that a parent who means to profit by a child's death will not incur unnecessary expense upon the death. He is not likely to send for a doctor or a sick nurse, whose aim will be to preserve the life he wants to destroy; and I do not think, when the death takes place, he is likely to go into very deep or expensive mourning for the death of the six months old child whom he has just murdered! Then, my Lords, let us see what the death expenses are likely to be. First,

  967
  there is the expense of the funeral, and not even necessarily that, because the parent may drink every penny of the insurance money, and then the parish will be compelled to bury the child. But let us see what that expense, if incurred, may be? I have a list here of 12 undertakers in London who announce in their windows that they will conduct the burials of children under five, all expenses included, for gums ranging from £1 to 15s. Deduct that sum, together with the 2s. 2d. premium, from the insurance money £2 10s. 6d., and you have an average balance of some thing like £1 8s. 4d. profit. Not unfrequently, however, a child is insured in two companies. Nothing is commoner than the double insurance of children; and then for the additional penny a week, the parent gets the whole of the second sum of £2 10s., be cause although there may be two insurances there can be but one funeral, and the profit, as I;, have made it out, is simply this: that for the expenditure of 4s. 4d. in the course of six months the parent receives £5 Is., so that a balance or premium emerges on infantile murder of £3 16s. 4d. Of course, in the case of halfpenny premiums, the sum received is the half of that. Now, my Lords, these sums may seem very small to your Lordships, but £2 or £3 is not a small sum to that class which insures for a penny or a halfpenny per week. It is a very considerable sum to a needy man. It means the payment of arrears of rent, getting clothes or tools out of pawn, and far more frequently it means an immediate and near prospect of a big debauch, and the spending of the insurance money in drink. It has given rise to a horrible state of things in our great towns. Parents have been heard more than once to say of a dead or dying child, "Now we shall have a little funeral, and a big drink." My Lords, I state the whole case for the Bill in that one sentence. I want to stop these "little funerals and big drinks." I ask your Lordships to consider what horrible demoralisation to the human mind and heart there must be caused by this system when such a sickening phrase as that can become proverbial. Then, I ask your Lordships to see what protection there is for these child
  968
  lives? We are told that there is the protection of parental care and affection. I am very far from denying that in the very great majority of cases that is a real protection; but it is not adequate to meet all cases. We are accused of libelling the working classes in this matter, and of representing them as if they were devoid of natural affection. That accusation is absurd. We do not libel the grocer when Ave pass statutes against false weights and measures; we Bishops do not libel the clergy when we propose measures for enforcing clergy discipline. In every class and profession there is a residuum of evil-disposed per sons, and to take legislative precautions against them is no libel upon the rest. I believe that the affection of the poor for their children, and the privations they will go through in order to bring them up decently and put them out in life, their sacrifices for them, their care for them in times of sickness, are very noble traits among them. This beautiful feature in the character of poor working men and women is often exhibited in a way that puts to shame their betters. But there are such people as unnatural, cruel, and drunken parents; and until this residuum improves or disappears, there must, in the present state of the law, as I have shown, be serious danger to child life. My Lords, let me observe to you that though the proportion of these bad and cruel parents may be relatively small compared with the vast number of poor who treat their children with kindness, it may be absolutely very large. If only one in each thousand of these 600,000 children meets with foul play, it is a small figure as re presented in decimal fractions, but it means 600 children murdered in England every year. Take, again, other classes of children who are brought into the world every year in this country. There are 54,000 children who are described by the significant phrase "not wanted," illegitimate children. Take the case of the baby-farmer, who takes from the young trusting mother her child in order to hide her shame, and then locks it within her detestable den, where it will rot and starve. When you put all these things together, I ask your Lordships, may not there be very serious danger to child life? Then there is the

  969
  question of the protection afforded by doctor's certificates. The doctor must certify, of course, that the child has died from natural causes, or there will be an inquest and consequent exposure. My Lords, a doctor's certificate in most of those cases cannot be worth the paper it is written upon. The doctor is obliged to certify that the child has died from natural causes. The child may present all the symptoms of having died from what began from a natural cause, though its death has, in fact, been aggravated by improper food and improper treatment, and the doctor cannot possibly distinguish between the one case and the other. His certificate is, therefore, useless, unless he knows the history of the case. From whom is he to get that history? The only persons who can give it him are the persons who ex hypothesi are engaged in the proceeding of so ill-treating the child as that it shall die. My Lords, I will give you one letter from a medical man before I go further, and I will at once ask your Lordships to take each piece of evidence which I give you merely as sample evidence, for if I were to put all the evidence in my possession before you my speech would last until midnight. I have here a letter from Dr. Barwise, a medical man of Birmingham, who wrote to the public papers about it. He says—
  You are to my painful knowledge absolutely within the truth when you state that every year hundreds of parents are guilty of child-murder in this town. Besides the cases brought to light in the Coroners' Courts, there are vast numbers more which are reported to the Coroner, but which, after inquiry, he decides it would be useless to hold inquests upon, and there are also many more where the medical attendant is compelled to grant a certificate, because he could prove nothing against the statement of the parents. The fact is, there are no certain signs whereby starvation can be detected, and the medical man has to rely upon the bare word of the mother that the child is properly and regularly fed. Every thoughtful practitioner must be fully convinced that he has filled up 'marasmus' (wasting disease) to parents who have practically starved their children to death. Frequently the first thing the mother says is— 'I suppose you will give me a certificate if any thing happens.' Hardly a day passes without my hearing it, and I generally find that the parent would gain several pounds from some Insurance Office if their child died."
  So much, my Lords, for the protection afforded by doctors' certificates. Then,
  970
  if these people do not escape that mesh there is the chance of a Coroner's Inquest. But, again, there is little chance of the Coroner interfering successfully, because the principal witness must be the medical man—the poor little children are, of course, not competent witnesses—and who else is there to convict in the vast majority of these cases? The Coroner's Juries are generally told by the Coroner, "There is no legal evidence to convict this person." I will now trouble your Lordships with a very important and interesting letter from another medical man on this subject. He says, writing to myself—
  "I am perfectly satisfied that there are any number of murders of innocent children for the sake of the insurance money. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to bring the crime home to the parents, as it is so easy to get rid of an infant by neglect, irregular feeding, and bad food, and, even when ill, neglecting to carry out the doctor's orders. I have seen several cases of this sort when in practice in Devonshire, and was so impressed with the fact that I gave out that I would have an inquest held on any child dying that was insured. ID some very bad cases in which inquests were held I was met by the one question, Are you prepared to swear that the child would have lived had it been properly fed? As I could not swear to anything of the kind, but simply express my belief, the verdict was returned as death from natural causes, although everyone knew well that the babies had been as much murdered as if they had had their throats cut. The mothers are too crafty to starve them to death, but give them sour food, causing diarrhoea, expose them to cold, &c, and neglect to give medicine, &c, as ordered."
  And then the infant dies. Your Lord ships see, therefore, what protection there is afforded by the Coroner's Inquest and Jury. Then, if they do not escape the Inquest, next comes the Court of Assize; and if your Lordships think for a moment how much stronger the evidence is required to be in a Courtof Assize, and how difficult it is to obtain a verdict there, you will see how likely these persons are again to escape conviction, that each of the successive meshes lets through a vast number of cases, and that neither the doctor's certificate, the Coroner's Jury, nor the Court of Assizes-prove a sufficient check upon infanticide. My Lords, I have gone through the cases of supposed protection to child life, which, it is sometimes said, make infant insurance perfectly safe, and your Lord ships will judge of what effect they are; but I shall prove to your Lordships that

  971
  infanticide really does occur. We who bring forward this Bill are asked, "Can you pro duce any cases of infanticide?" If, by cases of infanticide, you mean cases of infanticide which have been brought to trial, and in which a conviction has been obtained, and where those convicted have been punished, of course we cannot produce such cases. If we could, there would be no need of this Bill. It is just because there are in the majority of cases no means of securing punishment that it is necessary to alter the law. As the Committee of the House of Commons on Friendly Societies, in their Report the other day, say—
  "It is almost impossible to bring to conviction crimes committed in the privacy of the house."
  It is necessary, therefore, to bring for ward a Bill of this kind. But, my Lords, these convictions do occur, and when they do occur, they let in a very lurid light on child insurance. My Lords, I need scarcely say to you that the evidence which will warrant a Judge and jury in hanging a man for murder, and the evidence which will warrant the passing of an Act to prevent him committing murder, are not exactly of the same character; and I think it is absurd to ask us co give you the same evidence in one case as in the other. But I will give you the opinion of persons who are quite competent, as your Lordships will agree, to judge in this matter. First, I will give you the opinions of Her Majesty's Judges. They are certainly persons who have ample opportunity of forming an opinion. Let us see what they say. Mr. Justice Day stated in a recent case—
  "Those pests of society, those deadly Societies which insure children, which seem to be instituted for the destruction of children, for the perpetration of murder."
  Here is Mr. Justice Wills—
  "It is a melancholy fact that in a great many of these cases—the deaths of young children—the wretched children's lives have been insured. These Insurance Clubs or Societies have their agents all over the Kingdom, persuading people to insure the lives of their children for sums which are a great temptation toward their destruction. I cannot say how strongly I feel on the subject of these Insurance Societies for very small children. Originally, I have no doubt, some of them were started with the motive and for the purpose of inducing people to save, so that, in the event of a calamity happening, they would have the meads to meet it; but they have terribly
  972
  degenerated. How many cases have I tried, from one end of the year to the other, in which the subject of the inquiry was the death of children whose lives had been insured? Often times it would be a much more correct definition of these so-called Insurance Societies to say that they were Death Insurance Societies."
  Those are the opinions of Her Majesty's Judges. Now, my Lords, I will give you the opinions, if you will bear with me for a moment or two longer, of a number of Coroners. Here is the opinion of Dr. Macdonald, the Coroner for the North-East of London. He was asked, in giving evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons—
  "Are you of opinion that infantile insurance is an incentive to crime? A. I am distinctly of that opinion.—Q. You have also had experience as a Medical Officer. Does the result of your practice run to the same conclusion? A. Yes, as a doctor I saw that the general rule was not to kill the children outright, but to let them die gradually from bad feeding, not having medical attendance, and so on."
  Another Coroner, Mr. Troutbeck, of West London, says—
  "The practice of insuring infants' lives seems to me to be a custom that is to be condemned on every ground."
  Then Mr. Hawkes, the Coroner for Birmingham, says—
  "As long as those abominable infantile Insurance Societies exist, so long will mothers come to this Court to tell the story the jury have heard to-day."
  Then the Coroner for North and South Wales, Mr. Cuthbertson Howell, says—
  "The practice of insuring children is becom ing far too common. If insured children are taken ill, they are frequently neglected. Their parents have a direct interest in their death."
  One instance more, my Lords. Mr. Carter, the Coroner for the County of Gloucestershire, says—
  "The longer I live, the more occasions I have to look with suspicion on deaths of young children that are insured. Insurance en courages a greater interest in their deaths than in their survival. I shall do all I can to put it down."
  My Lords, I have given you the evidence of Coroners. I will now pass on to the evidence of clergymen. You will find that two Committees of the Houses of Convocation reported strongly upon this subject, and the last Committee more strongly than the first. I will now give the evidence of Public Registrars, who have great acquaintance with these matters. Take the opinion of Mr. Lud-

  973
  low, the Chief Registrar General of Friendly Societies, as given before the Committee of the House of Commons. He says—
  "I think it perfectly clear that in no case is it the interest of these Societies to increase infant mortality; all Insurance Bodies wish life to be prolonged and not shortened; but I have no doubt that the practice of such societies does tend, and must tend, to increase infant mortality. The mere fact that a collector calls week by week at a poor man's house, or room, rather, to receive ½d premium for each of his children must familiarise those parents with the death of those children."
  Then Mr. Ludlow is further questioned by Mr. W. F. Lawrence, who says—
  "That is precisely what I wanted to elucidate; it is only presumption; there is no evidence really worth talking of to prove the increase of infant mortality under the system; it is what we may all think likely, but there is no real evidence to go upon. Answer: No; but at the Friendly Society Commission we certainly found that infant mortality was greatest in those towns and localities where these Societies were strongest."
  Then Dr. Thomas W. Grimshaw, Registrar General of Ireland, referring to the City of Dublin death-rate amongst children, said it
  "Was very large, and an extraordinary thing to be observed in connection with it was the number of the children who died not having been seen by medical men, and no exertion having been made to save their lives. The way in which children were allowed to die, so that insurance money might be had for them, was a disgrace to the whole nation."
  Let me give your Lordships one more instance, and a very important one. It is the evidence which is afforded by the verdict of a jury last year, if I recollect rightly, in a case of child murder, where the child's life was insured—
  "The jury are of opinion that the facilities given by the loose system of life insurance practised by some of the companies is an incentive to wilful murder for the sake of the insurance money."
  And they desired the coroner to convey that expression of opinion to the Home Secretary, in the hope that the Government might initiate some legislation to remedy the evil. My Lords, I have now given you a large amount of evidence from our Judges, coroners, medical men, clergymen, and insurance registrars; and now let me give you the last expression of opinion with which I shall trouble the House, and to me one that has moved my own mind very much. When it was known that I was introducing this
  974
  Bill into your Lordships' House I received a letter from the head of a shoe factory in my own diocese, from one of those men who, as we say in Northamptonshire, "has risen from the shoemakers' bench" to the control of a considerable factory. He writes to me to say—
  "My Lord, I am delighted to hear that you intend introducing a Bill into the House of Lords to stay the lives of infants from being insured, as this is getting a crying evil in our villages. Agents are coming round daily persuading mothers to ensure the lives of their children. I feel persuaded that once the question is taken up in Parliament, it will stay a great amount of evil."
  May I add one instance more which affects my own mind greatly? The wife of a respectable artisan in Peterborough, who had lately lost her child in the infirmary, said to the Sunday school teacher of her child—
  "Ah! Miss, my poor child was not insured 5 my husband and I lived in Sheffield 11 years, and we saw so much of the wickedness in the way of child insurance that we agreed that no child of ours should ever be insured."
  And when she was told I was bringing in this Bill she said, "Thank God! he does not know the good he will do." This, my Lords, is evidence from the working classes, whom we, the promoters of this Bill, are accused of libelling. The evidence I have given your Lordships' House is simply sample evidence, and it can be multiplied to any extent. Now, against all this, what is there to be said? We are told there is statistical evidence against it, and I must really ask your Lordships' attention for a moment to this extra ordinary example of statistics. This is not a very amusing subject, but I think this will amuse your Lordships. We are told that it is impossible that there can be this amount of child murder, be cause the statistics show that the percentage of mortality among the insured children is considerably lower than the general death rate all over England, to the extent of no less than 8 to 15 in favour of the children insured in these Societies. Well, my Lords, if this precious-piece of statistics were worth anything, as I can assure your Lordships it is not, it would certainly prove the most extraordinary physiological fact conceivable; it would prove that so invigorating is the process of insurance in the case of an uncon-

  975
  scious child six months old, that it lives longer than an uninsured child. So that, my Lords, it would come to this, if these statistics are correct, that these Insurance Societies are a kind of health resort for sick children, and that when a doctor has tried every other remedy and feels himself compelled to say "I can do no more," he need only add "Try insurance; and if that does not save his life, nothing else will." But these extraordinary statistics are easily disposed of in a moment. The Registrar General's Returns are, of course, credited with the number of deaths of all children born alive in this country, but the Insurance Societies are not credited with the deaths of those children who die before they have been insured. Of course, the rate of mortality diminishes day by day from their birth. Another most important thing to be remembered is that a very large amount of child insurances in these Societies fall through; that is to say, their parents fail to keep up the payment of premiums on the policies, and they become what are called "lapses." In that case they go off the books of the Societies, and I suppose the benevolence of the Societies does not induce them afterwards to endeavour to trace out the parents for the purpose of giving them any benefit from the premiums paid. If those lapses amount, as I am told they do, to nearly one-third of the whole number of such policies taken out, your Lordships will clearly see that the area in the one case from which the percentage is taken, and the area in the other are not equal, and, therefore, these statistics are worth nothing. My Lords, I have gone as rapidly as I could through the very largely-extended case which I have to put before your Lordships consistently with doing anything like justice to it or making it plain to the House; and I have, in the last instance, to put before your Lordships what the remedies are which I propose in my Bill for these terrible evils. The Bill is really very simple and very brief. It contains in the 1st clause a provision which extends the protected life of a child to 14 for boys, and 16 for girls. That, as most of the other provisions are, is in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee of the House of Commons. It brings down, also, the absurd inequality between the death
  976
  expenses and the death profits by lowering the amounts for which children's lives can be insured. Then follows in Clause 2 a provision upon which I con fess I lay very much stress, though it has been strongly objected to, and it is the provision that the money shall not go to the parent or person insuring, but to the undertaker. This follows the analogy of the sick club, where the money does not go to the parent, but to the doctor attending the sick child. There can be no profit to the parent under this clause. But there are some objections put forward to this pro vision. The first is, that there may be collusion between the undertaker and the parent. Against that we pro vide by heavy penalties to be inflicted for any such collusion, and I should hope and trust that if there were any such attempts those penalties would be rigorously inflicted, and I should then hope that the sight of a collusive under taker and parent on the treadmill would have a very good effect in preventing those collusions for the future. But the principal objections which we have to meet, we may say, are two: one is, that it would prevent the parent providing for the medical attendance upon the child, as the money must all go to the undertaker. But the services of a doctor can be obtained for the payment of a penny a week by another insurance. There is nothing to prevent the parent doing that with no gain to accrue at the child's death. But, my Lords, if that is not thought to be enough I am perfectly willing to put a clause into the Bill which will provide for payment of the doctor's attendance out of the insurance money, as well as the undertaker's fees. Then, the last objection is, that you would greatly enrich the undertakers by this measure, because the parent who has insured his child for £5 cannot put it to any other purpose which may be desired, but is obliged to give it all up to the undertaker. Well, my Lords, I would rather that undertakers should be enriched than that children should be murdered—if you are obliged to do it. But you are not in the least obliged to do it. That objection could only apply to the death-profit on insurances now effected. It could only apply in case the operation of the Act is retrospective, because as soon as new insurances had to be effected under this Act parents

  977
  would not be so simple as to insure for a larger sum than was needed to provide for the funeral expenses, in order simply to enrich the undertaker. Therefore, the whole of these objections disappear, and would be at once met by doing what I am perfectly willing to do in Committee, that is to say, cutting out of the 9th clause the latter part, and leaving it simply that this Act shall not affect con tracts which have been entered into until after the date of its passing, thus making it entirely prospective. I can only say that I shall be perfectly prepared to consider any Amendments upon this clause which may be proposed in Committee, which will not interfere with the object and intention of this Bill, which is simply to prevent the possibility of a death-profit being made by the insurer. My Lords, if we cannot prevent this evil by this Bill of mine, or by some other Bill which your Lordships' wisdom may devise, then there is one other alternative, and to that we shall have to come. That is, the absolute prohibition of infant insurance altogether; because I am quite certain of this, that when the conscience of the English people is once fairly roused as regards the iniquity and cruelty now going on in connection with child insurance, they will come to one resolution at any rate, that do it as you may by legislation, settle it as you choose in your wisdom, one thing they will not have, one thing you must prevent, and that is a system by which parents all over England are making money by the deaths of their children. That is what the object of the Bill is. My Lords, the other provisions in this Bill are mainly provisions which are recommended in the Report of the Friendly Societies, Committee, to which I have already alluded: Let mo say a word or two in conclusion, perfectly respectfully, of the Report of that Committee of the House of Commons. That Committee, unfortunately I think, imposed upon itself a very severe limit as to taking evidence upon this subject. It excluded all evidence that was not sworn evidence, and the consequence was that a number of letters and published statements, which I have now read to your Lordships, were excluded from the consideration of the Committee on the ground that the writers were not there to swear to them. I have no doubt
  978
  the Committee had good reason for what they did; but the result, unfortunately, was the exclusion of a large amount of evidence, and the consequence was a very guarded and cautious Report. But the Report, nevertheless, states that there is considerable danger to infant life under the present state of the law, and makes a number of recommendations to prevent this danger which are followed in the pro visions inserted in this Bill. And now, my Lords, I have only to entreat you to pardon me for dealing at so great a length with this subject, which, I think, however, I could not possibly have com pressed into smaller limits than I have set myself in dealing with it. Believe me, I have shut out very much that I could have given in the way of evidence, much that I might have said, in deference to the convenience of your Lord ships; but I trust I have said enough to induce the House to consent to the Second Reading of this Bill. If your Lordships should be of opinion that the evidence before you is insufficient, and that the really well-conducted Friendly Societies should be heard before a Committee of this House the Bill is passed, I have no other objection except that it will delay this measure. I have and can have no other desire than that the best interests of the working classes should be fairly, truly, and properly considered in framing such a measure as this. But, however it may be dealt with, I am perfectly persuaded that your Lordships will not let this matter drop, that Parliament will not let this matter drop, and that the country will not let the matter drop, once the facts of the case are fairly brought before them. My Lords, I can assure you that I have not overstated my case; on the contrary, I have been careful to understate it, because I know that exaggeration has no weight with the judicial temper of this House. I have seen myself described in the papers, by my opponents, as the very pathetic prelate who is to persuade your Lord ships to pass this measure. The only pathos which I have brought before your Lord ships to-night is that of very sad and terrible facts. I would not attempt to induce your Lordships to pass this Bill by any persuasion of mine. If I do induce you to pass it, it will only have been by the unimpeachable evidence of its necessity which I have

  979
  adduced. If what I have said is believed by your Lordships to be really true, I feel sure that I have an advocate in the heart of every one who is now listening to me, that will plead for these poor little ones much more effectively than I can plead for them. There is not a parent present who is gladdened by the sight of his little ones, who has known the joy of looking into their faces, or who has known the sorrow of looking with ineffable anguish on the still, immovable face of a little one, whom all his wealth, all that care, skill, and affection could do has failed to snatch from death—there is not a parent here who will refuse to listen to me when I plead for these little ones who have, through all their lives, never, perhaps, known a kind word or look, but have only known that last act of cruel mercy which has terminated their lives. I feel sure that your Lordships will do all in your power to interpose the strong arm of the law to defend these little helpless, hapless children from the misery which now haunts their lives, and from the greed and cruelty which too often untimely end them. My Lords, I have the honour of moving the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Bishop of Peterborough.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I have to appeal to your Lordships' indulgence, speaking under circumstances of some personal difficulty to myself, but as I had the honour of being responsible in this House for the Act of 1875,I should be failing in my duty if I did not follow the right rev. Prelate through a portion of the remarks that ho has addressed to your Lordships' House. I am conscious of the enormous difficulty of attempting to mitigate in any way the effect of the impassioned appeal which the right rev. Prelate has addressed to your Lordships. He has told you that he has appealed to facts. There is one fact, and one fact only, in his speech. He told us he would produce evidence, and what he produced as evidence was only opinion. Is the evidence of opinion sufficient evidence for legislation, on a matter of this kind? Eloquence is a great gift, but I should be sorry indeed, if I possessed such eloquence as is possessed by the right rev. Prelate, to use it in the manner he has used it to-night. He began by telling us that the legisla-
  980
  lation on this matter began in the year 1875. My Lords, that is not quite consistent with my recollection of the facts. The Act of 1875 was, in respect of the burial of infants, only a consolidating measure, and kept alive the Act which was passed in the year 1854. The Bill of 1854, dealing with Friendly Societies, was introduced into the House of Commons by Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, than whom it will be admitted no more humane man ever sat in Parliament. It dealt with the necessity of such provisions as those which the right rev. Prelate introduces in his Bill. Lord Palmerston, who was then Home Secretary, said that his feelings on the subject of infant insurance were of a most painful kind; but he did not dissent from evidence being given and facts ascertained, and the measure was referred to a Select Committee of the House of Commons. On that Committee sat my noble Friend Lord Norton and also Lord Ossington, who was certainly an ornament to both Houses of Parliament. The members of that Committee went carefully into the matter, and they took evidence of a most searching kind, and it is to that evidence which I wish to call your Lordships' attention. They called before them, to give evidence, persons who were most qualified to give an opinion upon the subject, and that opinion was tested by cross-examination. Some of the gentlemen occupying the highest positions, who had expressed strong opinions á priori, when their evidence came to be tested by cross-examination were compelled to recede from the positions they had taken up. If I had had any notice that the right rev. Prelate would have framed such a bill of indictment against the working classes I should have been better prepared to answer it; but—
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: Would the noble Lord pardon me for a moment. I have framed no bill of indictment against the working classes. I expressly said that I desired to pay every tribute to their affection and kind ness for their children, and that the measure was necessary only for the small number in proportion to them of bad and cruel parents.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I do not think a few honeyed words are a sufficient apology for the eloquent attack

  981
  which he has made upon the working classes. I am afraid that in answering that attack I shall have to trouble your Lordships at greater length than I should wish with the evidence given before that Committee; but I think that is the best way of meeting such a general attack upon these poor people. If I had had any idea that the right rev. Prelate would have made the speech he has addressed to your Lordships' House, I should have been better prepared to deal with it; but I shall, at all events, present to you evidence upon this subject which is complete in itself, and which cannot be impeached, from one of the most valuable Reports, in my opinion, which have ever been made to Parliament. The right rev. Prelate1 has told your Lordships that the present state of the law presents a large incentive to infanticide. He laughed to scorn the only real test which can be applied in the matter—the test of statistics—and he was very jocose on the idea that infants who are insured should enjoy a more lengthened vitality than infants whose lives are uninsured. I do not read the statistics in the same way as the right rev. Prelate. I read them in this way, as showing that parents who insure the lives of their children are for the most part persons of thrifty and self-denying character, and that they take care to surround their children with home comforts, home care, and home independence, and that that accounts for the great advantage which vital statistics show the children who are insured possess over those who are uninsured. My Lords, the right rev. Prelate told you that by paying 1d. a month, I think, they would obtain a considerable sum.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: If the noble Earl will pardon me again, what I said was, by paying 1d. a week for six months they would be able to obtain a certain amount of death profit.
  EARL BEAUOHAMP: It does not affect my argument. The right rev. Prelate told us that by a payment of 1d. a week for six months, which would amount to 2s. 2d., £2 10s. could be secured at death; and he then went on to describle the vast organisation of these Insurance Societies, their employing un worthy collectors, who were going about all over the country persuading poor
  982

  working people to make this payment of 2s. 2d., by which at the end of six months they were to insure the payment of £2 10s. I would venture to ask, did any of your Lordships ever hear of an Insurance Society which was capable of working business on those terms with anything like profit to itself? How can an Insurance Society, by receiving 1d. a week for six months, gain a profit by paying £2 10s. at the end of that period? My Lords, the thing is monstrous, and your Lordships will see it is one of those statements which are made on á priori convictions, but will not stand the test of evidence and facts. I cannot understand how the right rev. Prelate has persuaded himself that it would produce any profit to an Insurance Society to conduct their business in such a manner as that. If that were done I am quite sure that Insurance Societies would always be in difficulties, they would be in a state of perpetual collapse. But I think in the very nature of things it is clear that an Insurance Society usually conducts its affairs with some kind of idea for its own profit, which certainly would be lacking to the shareholders if such a system of doing business prevailed as that which was described by the right rev. Prelate. Now, my Lords, the right rev. Prelate described how dangerous it would be to hand over the care of a sickly child to a sick-nurse before whom a temptation was laid that she should receive the amount of the death insurance. But the right rev. Prelate seemed to forget that in these cases the sick-nurse is the mother of the child, and I do not believe that there are many mothers in England—at all events, I am slow to believe it, and I should require very strong evidence to induce me to believe it—who could be driven by so miserable a bribe as that to terminate the lives—to murder their own offspring. We know that parental affection is one of the most powerful instincts, one of the holiest gifts which Almighty God has implanted in the human heart. Some few cases, I do not deny, there may be; but they are, I think, very exceptional—where people have forgotten their natural affections. But to say that parents will deliberately seek a profit will insure and destroy the lives of their children in order to gain this miserable

  983
  reward, is to make a statement which I, for one, without evidence, cannot accept. My Lords, I will not follow the right rev. Prelate through his arguments. The single—only—fact which he told us in his speech was that there were in London 12 undertakers who had announcements in their windows that they undertook to con duct an infant's funeral at an entire cost of from 15s. to£1 10s. That was really the only fact which the right rev. Prelate produced in support of his argument. The rest of his evidence consisted solely of opinions the value of which I will proceed now to show your Lordships. If I trespass somewhat upon the attention of the House by reading a portion of this Report, I think you will see the importance of it, and probably your Lordships would rather have the arguments stated in the calm and measured language of this Report than in my own. It states—
  "The subject of child mortality alleged to he induced by the temptation of funeral money having been referred to in the House by several Members, and having occasioned great uneasiness in the various Burial Societies throughout the Kingdom, received particular attention from your Committee. Four Judges, two Governors of Prisons, two Coroners, a Chief of Police, a Chaplain of a prison, a Registrar of Births and Deaths, and a solicitor who had been engaged in a prosecution for child murder, gave evidence before your Committee. Letters also from Inspectors of Factories were produced before them."
  I desire to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that this was evidence not given merely as a matter of opinion, but tested by a cross-examination.
  The substance of their evidence was as follows:—Mr. Justice Wightman did not remember to have tried more than one case of child murder, namely, that of Honnor Gibbons and Bridget Garrety, for the murder of a child of the former, nine months old, the inducement being a sum of £4 receivable from a Burial Sociey. Those prisoners were convicted."
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: Would the noble Earl state what is the date of the Report?
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: The date is 1854. I am only sorry the right rev. Prelate was not aware of this Report before he made his speech—
  "Mr. Baron Alderson did not remember to have tried any case of child murder. The depositions of such a charge having been laid before him, he noticed that crime in addressing the Grand Jury at Liverpool last December, and the Grand Jury thereupon made a presentment to the effect that the interference of the
  984
  Legislature was called for to put a stop to the system of money payments by Burial Societies. The prisoners, however, so charged having been tried before Mr. Baron Martin were acquitted, and that Judge informed the Committeee that there were no grounds at all for connecting the alleged crime with the receipt of funeral money. Mr. Baron Martin also informed the Committee that no other case of child murder had ever been brought before him for trial where the motive of burial money was alleged. Chief Baron Pollock gave the Committee information respecting a well-known trial for murder at Chelmsford in 1850, when a woman named May was found guilty of poisoning her husband and attempting to poison a grown-up son; and one at Lewes in 1849. In those cases the burial money was proved, or appeared to him to have been a temptation, though it was of so small an amount as between 20s. and 40s. The Governor of Chester Gaol recollected four prisoners since 1841 committed to his custody on a charge of child murder, two of whom were acquitted and two convicted."
  One of these cases was the case which was referred to by Mr. Justice Wight-man. Then—
  "The Governor of Kirkdale Prison, in an experience of 10½ years, has had no prisoner in his custody convicted of the charge of child murder."
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: Exactly so.
  EAEL BEAUCHAMP: He says—
  "One prisoner named, Betty Eccles, was found guilty and executed for the murder of three children in 1843, immediately before he became Governor of the gaol.
  The Coroner of Stockport, in an experience of 13 years, has held three inquests in cases of alleged child murder. One proved to be an accidental death, in one the parties were acquitted, and the third was the case of Gibbons, already referred to by Mr. Justice Wightman.
  The Coroner of Salford, in an experience of 22 years, has held only one inquest in a case of child murder alleged to have reference to a Burial Society, and that was the case which was tried before Mr. Baron Martin last December, when the parties were acquitted, and the evidence showed that they neither expected nor received the sum insured.
  The Chief of Police at Stockport, during 15 years, part of which time he was connected with the police at Manchester, and during the last nine months at Stockport, has never had a case of child murder brought under his notice.
  The Registrar of Births and Deaths, in a district at Manchester containing a population of 44,000, remembers no case of child murder and does not believe that burial money has been a temptation at all to infanticide. The Rev. W. Kelly, Chaplain, of Preston Gaol, who has published a pamphlet on this subject, said that he was not directly cognisant of any case of child murder for the sake of burial money, but that it is his opinion that the tendency of Burial Clubs is to induce neglect of an ailing child. Your Committee draw from the evidence adduced before them this conclusion: that the instances

  985
  of child murder, where the motive of the criminal has been to obtain money from a Burial Society, have been so few as by no means to impose upon Parliament an obligation for the sake of public morality to legislate specially with a view to the prevention of the crime. Your Committee refer to the evidence to show that no sufficient grounds exist for the general suspicion which seems to have been entertained on this subject; they believe that suspicion to have been almost entirely founded upon a few cases brought to trial exaggerated by the horror with which the idea of a crime so heinous would naturally be regarded."
  My Lords, I will not take up more of the time of the House by reading further extracts from the Report; but it deals with the proposal of the right rev. Prelate, that the money should pass directly to the undertaker. It also deals with other provisions, but I will not read more. What is really material is that the Committee, consisting as I have told you of most eminent men who went most carefully and thoroughly into the subject, arrived at the conviction that no ground existed for the general suspicion which they mention as being entertained upon the subject. With the sufferings of children, everyone must sympathise; but we must remember that it is very easy for a practised novelist to pile up the agony in a story of the description your Lordships are familiar with. We know ourselves that the very sympathy which we all feel with the sufferings of childhood does make us most anxious to do everything that lies in our power to diminish and to mitigate those sufferings; but while we are anxious to mitigate the sufferings of the children, do not let us do any injustice to other people. Do not let us in our righteous desire to diminish the amount of human misery strike a blow at the independence of the working classes, at their honest desire to keep themselves from the necessity of applying for assistance from the public rates, and to keep alive and maintain that home-life which is one of the noblest characteristics of the working classes. I now leave myself in your Lordships' hands. Feeling that I am responsible in some degree for the legislation of 1875, I thought it my duty to lay before your Lordships some of the grounds on which that legislation was founded, fortified by the Report of a Committee of eminent men, whose finding was that the suspicions entertained in this matter were groundless, and that there
  986
  was not sufficient foundation for them when the evidence came to be tested.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I cannot help saying that the noble Earl who has just addressed the House has a little understated the matter, because the opinions which he says are stated by the Report lie ought to have said were expressed by the Committee which made it 36 years ago. I do not think it is quite right to say that the matter does not require investigation at the present time. As to myself, I can give personal testimony in reference to some of the cases referred to by my noble Friend in his speech; and with regard to the cases which were tried before Mr. Justice Wightman of Gibbons and Garretty, that learned Judge expressed to me—I was a very young member of the Bar at the time—that he was anxious the Legislature should in some way prevent the temptation which, in his view, on that occasion had proved to be a fearful temptation in the circum stances of that particular class of persons; that is, the temptation of getting the money falling due upon the death of the child. I cannot help thinking, on the other hand, after what has been said in the course of this Debate, that it would be not a little rash to legislate without some further investigation. I think there should be some further inquiry made before we proceed to legislation. The right rev. Prelate might, therefore, do well to consent that after the Bill has been read a second time it should go to a Select Committee, before which the different views might be properly represented, and before which evidence might be taken, which, I think, would be more applicable to the present condition of things, which it is the opinion of a groat many people, as I am told, does produce evil. That evidence would be properly weighed before the Committee. For my own part, I should very much like to hear the views of two learned Judges, whose opinions have been read to us to-night, with the facts upon which those views were founded. Then I should like, also, to hear some thing more of the statements made by the various Coroners whose names have been mentioned, because, to my mind, the fact that people were acquitted, or that there was a failure to bring them to jnstice under circumstances of very

  987
  suspicious death, is by no means conclusive to show that this legislation is or is not required. There may be circum stances which, in the opinion of the Coroner, would not amount to evidence of the commission or concealment of a crime, though the opinion may be entertained that you should proceed by removing the temptation. That I consider to be the object of the right rev. Prelate, and that I think your Lordships will be glad to accede to. As I under stand, the right rev. Prelate is not averse to the course I have suggested. I think that would remove the objections which the noble Earl has expressed against your Lordships being induced to legislate in a hurry or without sufficient foundation.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I also very heartily support the Second Reading of this Bill, because I confess that an impression has been produced by the operation of this system of infant insurance which seems to show, in my opinion, that the legislation enacted in 1875 needs to be carried somewhat further. I would point out to the noble Earl also that the measure which the right rev. Prelate has brought for ward is a further step in this matter taken upon the lines of the Act of 1875. Whether it goes too far or not, of course, may be a question. The Act of 1875 recognised that it was inexpedient to permit the insurance of the lives of young children at a profit, so to speak, beyond the expenses to which the parents may be put in case of their death. That is quite a clear proposition, because it fixes a strict limit as to the amount of insurance, and it provides for necessary certificates to be given. I need not trouble your Lordships with the machinery pro posed by the Act; but it is provided also that, in cases of double insurances, if one Society has paid the other Society will not pay more than any balance there may be up to the statutory amount, and it is provided that the money is to be paid only on the certificates being forth coming that the child has not come improperly to its end. Therefore, the scheme of the Legislature was to limit the amount to a sum which, while providing for the payment of expenses, would not afford a temptation to the parents or persons having the care of the child, and to safeguard the life of the
  988
  child by requiring a medical certificate-Well now, my Lords, the suggestion is that the existing safeguards have proved insufficient, and that they have been placed too high. But I would venture to point out that the Legislature has not fixed any conditions for all time. At the present time, whatever may have been the case when the former legislation took place, it appears that these little funerals-can be conducted so cheaply that even with the medical and other expenses the-present maximum is fixed too high. That is obviously a case in which the-Legislature can intervene if that fact is established. It is also certainly open to consideration whether the other safeguards are sufficient. But, my Lords, I am very glad that my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack has made the suggestion he has of referring this Bill to a Select Committee. And for this reason. I think your Lordships will be somewhat sensitive about initiating legislation which concerns exclusively the working classes, who I know are not directly represented in your Lordships' House, in a manner which may affect their position considerably, without giving them an opportunity of expressing their views, so that your Lordships-may be in possession of those views and receive guidance from them before initiating this legislation. For example, you have the question of amount to deal with. That, I am sure, is a matter upon which you would like to hear what the Friendly Societies who largely represent the interests of the working classes have to say with regard to whether or not the present limit is to stand. As to the rest of the machinery proposed by the Bill, I have seen considerable objection taken to the money being paid to the undertaker. This difficulty arises. If you provide that the money is to be paid to the undertaker the parent says, "I do not get it, and no one else can get it, and I have no means of doing-anything." You obviously give the undertaker the entire control of the' insurance money, and you might then have the undertaker, who is certain of receiving his money from the Insurance Company, doing less than justice to-those who were concerned in causing the death of the child. I do not propose to deal with this matter further on the

  989
  present occasion. I have only to express my satisfaction with the proposal made to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. Your Lordships will re member that though you have to pass this Bill it must be taken elsewhere, and if you deal rashly or injudiciously with the interests of the working classes in this matter you will create a vast amount of opposition to the Bill elsewhere, and you will not facilitate its enactment by its passage through this House. But if your Lordships pass the measure through this House after the working classes have themselves had an opportunity of putting forward their views as to the machinery of the Bill, although there may be some little delay at the moment, you will, in the end, accomplish your object more speedily. In saying that I support the proposal of my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, I would add that I think it is not made as such proposals sometimes are with the view of delaying legislation, but really, as I think will turn out to be the case, of expediting it as much as possible.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: My Lords, I merely rise to say how entirely and readily I concur in the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord opposite, and I will take the opportunity of adding merely one or two words with regard to the criticisms of the noble Earl. The noble Earl seemed to think I must have been drawing upon my imagination when I stated that the payment of 1d. a week for six months would obtain a payment of £2 10s. I may say that I took the statement from the published tables of the Prudential Society. It is, therefore, no imagination;it is a simple matter of fact. Then the noble Earl asked whether these Insurance Societies would be likely to conduct their business at a loss. Well, I do not suppose for a moment that they would, and their tables, no doubt, are compiled on a profit basis. But I think the fallacy of the noble Earl's argument is that he assumes that every insurance case is one of child murder. In that case, of course, the loss to the Insurance Companies would be enormous. But if the proportion be as low as I have put it, namely, one in 1,000, that loss is amply covered by the gains on the other cases. Then, with regard to the lapses of policies,
  990
  in the large number of cases where children's names having been put on the books of the Insurance Company the parents have not kept up the premiums. It appears that those lapses amount to one-third of the whole number of insurances, so that the society can very well afford to pay in these murder cases, and write them off as bad debts. I do not suppose they would amount to a very large proportion among the four societies, as against the profit made upon the 600,000 child insurances during the year. Then, with regard to the statement that I have produced nothing but statements of opinion, I would submit that, on the contrary, that is exactly what the noble Earl did in his speech: he read to the House nothing but opinions 36 years old. My contention is, that it is within the last 25 years—and I go further, within the last 20 or 15 years—that this immense and dangerous development of child-insurance has taken place. It is perfectly clear that the noble Earl's authorities are out of date, and altogether out of Court in the case. I will not detain your Lordships longer in replying to the noble Earl. I am quite sure he is as anxious as I can be for the protection of child-life; and I have only now to say again, as I said in my speech, that I have not the slightest wish to unduly hurry legistation on this matter, even if it were in my power to do so. I fully and entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, that any appearance of a desire on the part of this House to hurry legislation of this kind would probably have a most injurious effect upon its prospects in another place. Therefore, I quite thank fully accede to the suggestion which the noble Earl on the Woolsack has made.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: Perhaps I may be allowed to add a few words in explanation. This evidence, to which I have referred, was, of course, taken in the year 1854, but your Lordships will understand that the practice of insuring children's lives had been going on antecedently to that time, and these suspicions, which were largely prevalent, were then care fully examined into by Members of the House of Commons, who were very competent to inquire into the matter, and were decided to be groundless, not upon opinions given in conversation or in leading articles, but upon evidence

  991
  given before and tested by that Committee of the House of Commons.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: I beg your Lordships now further to allow the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee, to take evidence and to report thereon to your Lordships' House.
  Bill referred to a Select Committee.

CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT GALWAY,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the management of Christ's Hospital has the sanction and approval of the present Governors, and whether the 148th clause of the scheme will allow the Charity Commissioners to alter the scheme without obtaining the sanction of Parliament, said: My Lords, I do not desire to enter into the merits or demerits of the case before your Lordships, but simply to ascertain whether the scheme proposed has the consent and approbation of the Governors of Christ's Hospital; and with regard to the second part of the question it seems to me that either the 148th clause is a redundancy if the Commissioners in bringing in another scheme are obliged to lay it on the Table of your Lordships' House—or under it they might effect a great change without the knowledge of Parliament. I beg to ask the question which stands in my name.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT CRANBROOK): My, Lords, the scheme to which my noble Friend refers is one which has been a long time maturing; I may almost say for the last 12 years. When it first emanated from the Charity Commission it was considered very care fully by the Education Department, and passed on, as there was an opportunity of taking the opinion of the Judicial Committee. I understand that Committee considered all objections made, sitting for 11 days, and eventually passed the scheme with one exception. The new scheme rcetified in that respect is now before Parliament, and, so far, has passed without OF position in the House of Commons on
  992
  the part of anyone, except as to a point of detail regarding which a Division was taken the other night—quite a small part of it. With regard to the attitude of the Governors when the scheme was before the Judicial Committee it was opposed by many of the Governors and the Corporation of the City of London, but they have determined now not to" oppose the scheme, and, so far as I know, opposition will not be carried into either House of Parliament. At least, I have no knowledge on the subject if that is intended. With regard to the second matter which has been called attention to by my noble Friend, under the 148th clause power is reserved for ordinary alterations to be made when the Governors call upon the Charity Com mission to make amendments for the better working of the scheme; not with the view to make it a different scheme, but with a view to make it a scheme which, under the management of the Governors, can be made operative. If the Charity Commissioners should make alterations, there is an appeal to the Court of Chancery provided for. If there should be on the initiation of the Charity Commission a change of scheme it will have to go through all the steps which the scheme itself has gone through.

  EDUCATION OF BLIND AND DEAF-MUTE CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL. (NO. 101.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order.)
  Clause 2.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (The MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, in this clause when the Bill was read the date of the commencement of operation of the Act was not inserted. I beg now to move the insertion of that date, 1st January, 1891.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 2, page 1, line 9, after ("the") insert ("first"), and after ("of") insert ("January one thousand eight hundred and ninety-"one").—(The Lord Ker [M. Lothian.]}
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: The Amendments proposed in the clause are simply to give better effect to it than it

  993
  would have as it now stands. It has been pointed out to me by the Board of Commissioners for Public Works Loans that there would have been some difficulty in carrying out this clause without these Amendments.
  Amendments proposed,
  In Clause 4, page 2, line 19, after ("district") insert ("and school boards shall have the same power of borrowing, and the Public Works Loan Commissioners of lending, for the purposes of contributing towards or of establishing, building, or enlarging such a school, as is conferred by section forty-five of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, with respect to providing or enlarging a school house"); line 20, leave out from ("provided") to ("1876") in line 23 both inclusive.—(The Lord Ker [M. Lothian).]
  Amendments agreed to.
  Report of Amendments thereof to be received to-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 123.)

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 119.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, this Bill is intended to remedy difficulties which have arisen in certain burghs which have adopted a certain number of clauses of the General Police and Improvements (Scotland) Act, 1862. A burgh may adopt either the whole of the Act or certain clauses of it, and it has happened in some cases that only certain clauses of the Act have been adopted. Owing to this, persons who are comprehended in a new Police Burgh, but who are not in the old burgh, have not received the power of voting, although they are liable to taxation, and to remedy that is the main purpose of this Bill. My Lords, Clause 2 effects that object. Clause 3 merely fixes the first election in any burgh which falls under this Act at the same time as those in other burghs which have adopted the General Police Act. Clause 4 refers to matters of detail. Those are the whole of the clauses of the Bill, and I beg now to move that it be read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and referred to the Standing Committee on General Bills.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.