Lords Sitting of 24 March 1890

COUNTY COUNCILS ASSOCIATION EXPENSES BILL.—(No. 37.)
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments agreed to, with Amendments and Consequential Amendments; and several others disagreed to, with a Reason; the said Amendments and Reason to be considered To-morrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Perhaps I may be allowed to ask the noble Marquess if he is able to give us any information as to the probable duration of the Easter Recess.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): We shall rise as usual on Friday next, only I believe there are Money Bills to receive the Royal Assent, and, therefore, we must nominally sit on the Saturday. The Bills in the other House of Parliament are not proceeding at any unusual or extravagant pace; and, therefore, if we meet again on Thursday after Easter week, I think it will be time enough.

VOLUNTEER EQUIPMENTS.
EARL PERCY, in rising to call attention to the means to be adopted for providing equipments for the Volunteer Force, said: My Lords, perhaps I ought to offer some apology to your Lordships for bringing forward a matter which has been lately the subject of debate m the Lower House of Parliament, but I do so for two reasons: In the first place, it appears that the Motion which was brought forward in another place embodied within it two things which appear to be entirely different and distinct: one was as to the debt which had been incurred by Volunteer Corps in past years, and the other was as to the demands which have lately been made upon those corps by the Regulations of the War Office. Now, I have nothing to say with regard to the debts which have been incurred by Volunteer Corps in times past. They have been incurred
1618
for various purposes. In some cases, no doubt, they had been incurred for purposes which were absolutely essential to the efficiency of the force, and they have no doubt been undertaken in some cases with the greatest regard to economy and to all prudent considerations; but in others it is said, though I do not sneak from my own knowledge on this point, that they have been incurred not for matters which were absolutely necessary, but for the convenience of the officers and other members of the corps, and upon rather an extravagant scale. If this be so, I confess it seems to mo it would be extremely difficult for the Government to discriminate between the two cases; and, at any rate, it may be said that the corps have incurred those expenses with their eyes open; that they knew what they were doing, and that they have small claim to be relieved from the liabilities they have so incurred. However that may be, I do not wish to press this point upon your Lordships' attention to-night; but what I do wish to press upon the notice of this House and especially upon that of the Government is the position in which the Volunteers are placed by the regulations with regard to equipment. The decision which was arrived at in the other House of Parliament is supposed outside, rightly or wrongly, to have been in some degree influenced by Party considerations. Whether that be so or not it is not for me to say, but it is an additional reason for my bringing the subject forward here to-night, because I think it will be very much to be deplored if a decision with regard to the maintenance of the National Forces of this country should be even suspected of being arrived at upon Party grounds and for Party considerations. My Lords, the War Office Circular, issued on the 27th of May last, mentioned two classes of equipment which, it was held, was absolutely necessary to render the Volunteers capable of taking the field in times of emergency. With regard to the second of these two classes, the War Office is prepared to pay to each Volunteer Corps £2 2s. per man on mobilisation; but with regard to the first class, it is expected that the Volunteers shall obtain the whole of this equipment without the slightest aid from the public funds. I

1619
do not clearly understand whether this sum of £2 2s. is in any degree to recoup the corps for the expenditure which they are now asked to incur: but as the money, which must be obtained for the equipment now required, is to he furnished from private sources, and as the £2 2s. is to come to the corps at some very indefinite period of mobilisation, it is difficult to see how it is possible for the Volunteers to recoup themselves out of it in any way. Therefore, it must be understood that the equipment, which is now demanded of the Volunteers, is to be supplied entirely from their own resources, or from, those of private persons. And in a subsequent clause of this Circular the corps are told that if this equipment be not obtained within a certain time the grant, which has hitherto been given for efficiency, will be withdrawn. Now, my Lords, I hold that this proceeding is wrong in principle and entirely unprecedented. I do not believe that there is any precedent for asking for the supply of the necessary means for conducting the Public Service out of private funds. I am aware, indeed, that when the Volunteer Force was first raised, when the system was still a tentative one, that the necessary funds to maintain them were sought for to a large extent from private sources; but from the time that the Volunteers became a recognised portion of the Forces of the Crown, the claim has never been disallowed that it was the duty of the Government to supply the means for rendering them efficient in every respect. The Volunteers give their time and services voluntarily; and the well-understood bargain with the country was, that as those services were given voluntarily, the country would, in return, undertake the charge which was necessary for making those services available. I think there can be no doubt about that, if we look at the Report of the War Office Committee which sat upon this question in the year 1887. There is not in that Report one single sentence to show that, in the opinion of that Committee, there were any grounds for this country shirking the responsibilities which it has been hitherto understood they have adopted. I observe that it has been said, on behalf of the Government, in another place, that
1620
the increased Grant for efficiency which was given a short time ago was given for the purpose of supplying the equipment which is now demanded, or a part of it at any rate. I can see nothing leading to that conclusion in the Report of the Committee, which recommended this increased Grant for efficiency. The words of that Report are these—
"Taking as a model a regiment with eight companies of SO men each, we consider the necessary charges for which no special allowances are made, and which, therefore, have to he defrayed from the Capitation Grant, will amount to about £1,108; the total Efficiency Grant which the Corps might earn would only he £960; a deficiency of £148 per corps may, therefore, be presumed to exist at present, and we consider, on the whole, that good grounds exist for a Deficiency Grant of 5s."
That shows, my Lords, clearly that this increased Grant was for the purpose of meeting charges which the Volunteers were then liable for, and not for meeting charges which the Government or the War Office might propose at some future day to lay upon them. The Report then goes on to say that as far as Artillery Corps are concerned they are in a still worse position than Infantry regiments, and that it would be advisable to give them the same Grant under even more favourable conditions. It is perfectly true that since then an issue of 2s. per man has been given in order that Volunteer corps might provide themselves with great coats; but a great coat varies in price according to the corps—on the average a greatcoat costs 20s.; and the whole assistance, as I understand it, which the Volunteers receive from the War Office in order to supply them with great coats is an assistance which will, in 10 years' time, enable those great coats to be obtained. There is one part of this subject as to which I confess myself quite unable to follow the calculations of the Government. I see it was stated on their behalf in the House of Commons the other day that 3s. 6d. would cover the whole cost of the equipment which was demanded by them immediately with the exception of the great coat. Now, the equipment which is demanded by them immediately is a pouch, haversack, waterbottle, and mess tin. I have not been able to ascertain exactly the cost of the pouch; but pouch and belts will cost 11s. However, I presume that is not

1621
what is required by the Government, for the cost of a haversack is 10½d., of a water bottle 1s. 6d., and of a mess tin Is. Therefore, it follows that the pouch, in the opinion of the War Office, is to be provided at the cost of 1½d. Without being' able to say positively what the amount is, I think I may safely assert that 1½d. will not meet it. But if Lord Harris's Committee of 1887, to which I have alluded, thought that 4s. 7d. per man was a charge which ought not to be put on Volunteer Corps, and recommended that 5s. should be granted in addition to meet it, surely it is not to be wondered at if an additional cost of even 3s. 6s. per man suddenly thrown by the Government on them should be thought a hardship. It is considered by the Volunteers, and I think quite rightly, that this is a great breach of faith with them. The compact—perhaps not a written, but a well-understood compact between the Volunteers and the country—was, as I have already said, that if they rendered their services voluntarily, and gave up their time and energies to fitting themselves to perform their duties, the Government on its part would supply them free of cost with the means of maintaining that efficiency. But they still further feel themselves aggrieved by the tone of the last clause to which I have alluded in the Circular of the 27th May last. It was surely scarcely necessary, in addition to putting this charge upon the Volunteers, to hold out a, threat that the Efficiency Grant would be withhold under certain circumstances, which is tantamount to the corps being disbanded. I think it was hardly desirable to tell the Volunteers that unless they met this additional claim which was made by the Government their services would be dispensed with altogether. It has been the custom to sing the praises of the Volunteers at inspections, at reviews, at public dinners, and in various quarters. Those praises have been sung not only by ordinary Members of Parliament, but by high officials, both in the Army and in the State. Perhaps they have sometimes verged upon the limits of hyperbole; perhaps it was thought right that Government should restrain the tendency which may have existed to
1622
over-rate the services of the Volunteers. Perhaps it was right that Her Majesty's Government should dissemble their love; but was it quite necessary, I would humbly submit, to give so very severe a kick downstairs to the object of their affections? I think, my Lords, that was a very unfortunate letter; but the strong-point which I would urge is that the demand is, in its essence and on principle, one which ought not to be made. What is the position of the Volunteers at the present moment? It is, perhaps, unfortunate that a general protest against the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government was not made at the time. It is now nearly a year since this Circular was issued, and although I believe then; was a protest then made no very overt expression of opinion has been made since. We cannot regret that the patriotism of the country and of the Volunteers themselves in the first instance prompted them to see how far they could meet the demands which were made upon them, though they thought those demands were unreasonable. There can be no doubt about this: that whatever efforts have been made the sum necessary for this purpose has not been raised, and in the vast majority of eases there is very little prospect that it will be. A great deal of caution should be used with regard to the reports which we hear on this subject. I was told myself that in several boroughs, the sum required, or something like it, had been raised. I am not able at present to give any statistics upon the point; but I know that in one or two instances in which I have made inquiry I have found these reports to be totally unfounded. In one particular case of a large borough I was told that the necessary funds had been raised, and raised easily and promptly. This was a very large borough, and one where I should have thought trade was good and prosperous. I wrote to one of the Commanding Officers there to know what was really the state of the case, and he informed me that, so far from the necessary sum being raised, there was a very large amount of it still wanting; and he added, somewhat gloomily, "I shall probably have—as I have often had to do before—to meet it out of my own pocket." Now not only

1623
has this sum not been raised, but the opportunities which Volunteer Corps have of raising it vary very much. There are some boroughs, and even, perhaps, some counties, which happen, from various causes, to be more wealthy than others. They may sometimes be the very places where the number of Volunteers is small. In other cases you may have a county or a borough in which there is a very large number of Volunteers, and where the means of providing them with money is not large. It is, I think, a most unfair demand; it puts these different corps in a most invidious position, that they should, in the first place, not only have to provide these equipments sometimes, and in other cases not possess them for want of means, but that they should be liable to this tremendous penalty, which is totally independent of their making themselves efficient in the sense in which it is generally understood, that if they do not do what is required now of them by the Government, they will be disbanded. Even where this objection is not put forward on the ground that the money is not easily obtainable, I know that this demand is felt to be wrong on the ground of principle. I know one case in which the strongest objection has been made on principle to it, not from any wish to close private purse strings, but on the ground that the cost of performing public duties should be defrayed out of public funds. There have been instances where the strongest objection has been made to giving a shilling in answer to the demands of the Government, and I am not altogether surprised at that being the case when I see the language which is sometimes used on behalf of the Government with regard to this subject. I was struck by the following statement, which I understand was made on their behalf the other day: "If a balance were to be struck between what the public had done and what the Government had done, the speaker thought that the Government might take this opportunity of putting forward what had been done towards making the Volunteer Corps efficient" But, my Lords, this is the first time that I ever heard of a national force being maintained upon a balance struck between the public and the Government. Is it to be understood that we are enter-
1624
ing upon a new epoch in which the public requirements, either local or Imperial, are to be met partly voluntarily and partly by the Government? If this principle that when you wish to make a public force efficient you are to supply the means for doing so partly out of the taxation of the country and partly out of public contributions is to hold good: contributions, mind you, not given voluntarily, but demanded as a kind of benevolence from the people, then I should like to know where we are to stop? Why should not the same demand be made for the Army or the Navy? Why, if you wish for an increase in the Police Force in a County, or if you want greatcoats or other clothing for the Police Force in a Borough, should not the Local Authorities have a right to say that they would not supply them unless the public came forward and assisted I Still less ought they to be allowed to add, as a threat, that if the public did not come forward half of that Police Force would be dismissed. I cannot help thinking that this demand has in it the small beginning of a very dangerous experiment, and that it is necessary we should make a protest against it. It is, no doubt, disagreeable for the Volunteers to have to come forward in formâ pauperis, after all the time and trouble they have bestowed, and all the money which many of them have expended (and remember, my Lords, that the War Office Committee mentioned the large sums which many Volunteer Officers have spent) I think it is hard that, after all the Volunteers have done in this way, they should have to come forward in formâ pauperis, and beg for assistance to provide their equipment, in order to enable them to avoid this terrible consequence of disbandment which is held over them. But they will feel, I trust, that this is put upon them through no fault of their own. I do not doubt that if the Government still hold the view that this regulation ought to be maintained, the Volunteers will have no hesitation in meeting the demand, and that others will be ready to help them. I do think it is a most unfortunate course which the Government has entered upon, and I trust they still may give us some hope that they will recede from it. My Lords, I have brought forward this question in no contentious spirit. I have

1625
put no definite Motion down upon the Notice Paper, because my object is not so much to ask the opinion of this House upon the question, although I trust some noble Lord will be found willing to add anything which I may have omitted on the subject in the remarks I have made. I have brought forward the matter in the hope that the case having been brought before their notice in the other House of Parliament, and in view of the feeling of the country, which is undoubtedly well-known to them, Her Majesty's Government will give us some hope that they will reconsider the decision at which they have arrived, and retire from a position which I believe is really untenable, and which places the Volunteers at so great a disadvantage.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, having had some personal experience of this matter during the last few months in my position as a Lord Lieutenant, I trust your Lordships will allow mo to say a few words on the subject. I cannot say tint I agree with the principles and theory which have been had down by the noble Earl who has just sat down, although I am brought reluctantly, I must acknowledge, by my experience, to the same conclusion as that at which he has arrived, namely, that there is no alternative, if these equipments are to be provided, as I think they ought unquestionably to be provided for the Volunteers, but to provide them out of the public funds. I must say I have never been able to feel that Her Majesty's Government were wrong in making their appeal in the first instance to the Volunteers themselves, or rather I should say to their supporters and friends in the country. I think the noble Earl is quite wrong in the view which he takes of the principles upon which this force was originally established. My recollection carries me back very well to that time. I was then connected with the War Office, so that I know the facts as they then stood, and for the noble Earl to say that the Volunteer Pores, when it was originally established, was not a portion of the regular Forces of the Crown is really quite a mistake. There was some doubt at first as to the extent to which the movement might go, but the moment that it was perceived that the movement was taking
1626
the very large extension which it did within a very short time, the Volunteer Force became completely a portion of the Forces of the Crown, and as we all know, at that time there was no idea of giving to them any portion of public money or any equipment except rifles and ammunition, and after a short time drill sergeants Therefore, really, the noble Earl ought not to charge his noble Friends below him with any breach of faith in this matter. There has never, so far as I know, been any such understanding between the Government and the Volunteers as that to which the noble Earl points and, therefore, I must certainly acquit Her Majesty's Government of having broken faith with them in the smallest degree. I quite admit at once that, except possibly in Loudon, of which I do not now speak with any special knowledge, it would be quite impossible for the Volunteer Corps, out of the Government grant, or out of the resources of the officers, or members of the Corps, to supply the funds necessary for this purpose. If Her Majesty's Government expect that to be done, then I think they have gone upon a mistaken idea. I agree with the noble Earl that the grant at present made is not sufficient to meet this charge; and I am quite sure of this, that members of Volunteer Corps, and especially the officers, have thrown upon them now quite as heavy money charges as they can possibly be expected to incur. The Volunteers give the country their time, and they give, in most cases, a good deal more—a considerable portion of their money. My Lords, there are, however, men in the country who might easily come forward and help in this matter. What is wanted is the supply of these articles once for all. In the earlier days of the Volunteer movement there were not merely among the officers, but in the ranks, a large number of wealthy men. That is much less the case now. Naturally, perhaps, men of that kind, when the excitement has passed away, have very much withdrawn from active service in the Volunteer Force; but I do think that that same class of men who came forward very readily at the beginning of the movement might again come forward and help in this matter, and supply for the Volunteers, in the first instance, this equipment, which is in the nature

1627
of an expenditure of capital, which Her Majesty's Government now ask for. That the Government are right in requiring that the Volunteers should have this equipment as necessary for their efficiency I suppose no one entertains any doubt? But, my Lords, the fact of the matter is, according to my experience of it, that the views which have been put forward to-night by the noble Earl are so widespread in the country that you will not get this money out of the public. I have done my best in the North Riding of Yorkshire, of which I am Lord Lieutenant, to obtain this money. I have issued circulars, called meetings, and appointed Committees. The sum wanted was between £4,000 and £5,000, and up to the present time I have been able to obtain very little more than £1,000. I am very certain that after the conclusion to which the House of Commons came the other night I have no chance, nor has anybody else any chance, whatever of getting any more money out of the public. I am therefore forced, from my own experience, to come to the same conclusion as the noble Lord, and to assure Her Majesty's Government that I do not believe they will find it possible to obtain this equipment from private sources in the country. They may, no doubt, do it here and there. I have myself taken part in a movement which has been somewhat more successful than that of which I have been speaking, in regard to the single battalion of which I am Honorary Colonel, but even there we have not got all the money wanted. I am quite certain that in the rural districts, unless the state of things is very different elsewhere from that existing in the part of the country which I have had to do with, there is very little chance of this money being provided by public subscriptions of any kind. But this equipment is very necessary; the Volunteers ought to have it, and I do therefore venture to join in the appeal made by the noble Earl not as a matter of principle, but upon purely practical grounds, and to press upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity of accepting the defeat which befel them in the other House, and of providing this equipment from taxation out of the funds at their disposal. I am not here to defend the latter part of the Circular of the Adjutant General, and I do not think the language there
1628
employed was calculated to help myself and others who have been engaged in doing what we could to forward the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this respect. However, we have failed, and I therefore again beg to press upon Her Majesty's Government that if this thing is to be done, as I think it ought to be done, it must be done out of public funds.
VISCOUNT BURY: My Lords, as I have had the honour of being connected with the Volunteer Force almost from its very beginning, I think it right that I should ask your Lordships to allow me to say a few words on this subject. I cannot quite agree with the noble Marquess of Ripon, who has just sat down, in saying that when the Volunteers first came into existence it was not the intention of the Government to give them anything in the nature of assistance except rifles, ammunition, and drill sergeants. You must remember the circumstances under which the Volunteer Force came into existence. A sudden panic arose in England, and very naturally the manhood of the country rushed forward to place their services at the disposal of the Government and to offer their assistance; in allaying that sudden panic. It was not known at that time that the movement would develop an enormous Force which could take its place in line with the other Forces of the Kingdom, or that it was going to extend over a period of now more than 30 years. Naturally, when the Volunteer Force thus originated took root as a permanent feature among the institutions of the country, it was at once seen that the Government must support them with help both in money and in kind, so as to make the Volunteers efficient if they were to be useful. As early as 1862 a Royal Commission was appointed to consider the matter, and the Committee originated the Capitation Grant under which the Volunteer Force have so long existed. Since that time several Committees and Commissions have sat upon the subject; and I will ask your Lordships to observe; that the net result of every one of those Committees and Commissions has been an expression of opinion, first, that the Volunteers were giving as much as they could reasonably be expected to give to the Public Service of the country; secondly, that they were

1629
in the main efficient; and, thirdly, that they ought to be still further helped. The first Capitation Grant that was given to the Volunteers was but a small one. The next time a Commission was appointed an additional grant was given to the Volunteers, on the ground that with their increased efficiency and with the increased demands upon them, it was the duty of the Government to do a little more for them. Then shortly afterwards came a Committee over which I had the honour to preside, and my noble Friend Lord Wantage was with me at the War Office. We went minutely and during a very long period into the circumstances connected with the Volunteers, and the result we arrived at was that the then Capitation Grant was not entirely sufficient, and that it—the deficiency—ought to be supplied. Then, in the year 1887, Lord Harris presided over a Committee which came very much to the same conclusion. One sentence especially in the Report of that Committee I remember very well. It stated that more was now asked from them—I do not remember the exact words, but that more had been required from the Volunteers, and that more ought, therefore, to be given to them. Lord Harris also said that he followed suit to his predecessors by increasing the Capitation Grant in a certain form, or increasing, at any rate, what was given by the Government. But now new demands are made upon the Volunteers beyond the claims upon their time and attention. They rise to those new demands whenever they can, as well as they can and as often as they can. In that respect they do all that in them lies; hut I do think that they ought to be supported as my noble Friend says, or if not to that extent that at least they ought not to be put to further expense. We are now asked to provide ourselves with great-coats, havresaeks, valises, and other things. Those things cost money. My noble Friend pointed out that the grant it was proposed to give was not sufficient to provide those things. Then, if the Government does not provide them, who is to provide them? Either they must be provided from private subscriptions, or by the Volunteers themselves. You must remember that the Volunteer Force has altogether changed its cha-
1630
racter since its first inception. At first it was a middle-class institution. I have had myself, in my own regiment, men with £2,000 or £3,000 a year standing in the ranks, men of high official and social position drilling' among the rank and file. Those men do not join ns now. They entered the Volunteer Force, and gave a good example at its first start; but those are not the men we get now. It has become a working-class movement almost exclusively, and the expenses of the Volunteer Corps as such, other than for those things which are provided by the Government, fall upon the officers. All sorts of expenses, in short, are thrown upon the officers. Very properly the Government discourages large expenditure upon bands, or upon those matters of show which are still essential to the very existence of the Volunteers. Their camps cost a great deal more money than the amount which the Government gives, and all their equipments cost a deal great more than they are allowed. Therefore, the officers are called upon to incur a very large expenditure, and they have nobly risen to that requirement. I dare say it would astonish some members of your Lordships' House to be told what very large sums have been expended upon rifle ranges and drill halls, and things of that kind, things of permanent utility of which the Government or the country have had the benefit. They have been mostly obtained from private sources, and are the result of private enterprise or private benevolence. Many a command ding officer has pat down his thousands of pounds for the purpose of providing ranges and drill halls. I do not suppose that any of us who have long been in command of regiments have been able to avoid very considerable capital expenditure of that kind, which could not be met out of the capitation grant under any circumstances. Then that is not the only kind of expense; there are expenses of other kinds. In my own case, I know I was saddled with a heavy law suit— for I had to stand the brunt of it—on behalf of my corps. My corps, like others, of course, had no corporate existence, and consequently could not be sued ns a Corporation. Individuals, therefore, had to be fixed upon, and I, as commanding officer, was fixed upon, with a lieutenant in the corps who was also

1631
acting as musketry instructor, and we had an action brought against us. I am not, of course, complaining of that. I only mean to convey to your Lordships that the officers of Volunteers have expenses thrust upon them which they unhesitatingly incur with the single heart desire to farther the cause of volunteering, but which your Lordships will agree ought not to be thrust upon them; and if, in addition to those things which are borne without too much grumbling, and with the satisfaction of knowing that it is a patriotic thing to do to support the Volunteers, Volunteer officers have to pat their hands into their pockets to provide these details of military equipment without which, as the Adjutant General very truly says, the Volunteers cannot take the field, then I think you are transgressing what my noble Friend has very properly called the unwritten contract between the Volunteers and the country, and that the Government ought to come in and support those charges. I do not want to occupy too much of your Lordships' time on this subject, but merely to express my appreciation of, and acquiescence in, so much of my noble Friend's speech as says that the Volunteers ought not themselves, in pursuit of perhaps an ideal efficiency, to be put to any further expense, and that, at all events, these particular items which the Adjutant-General has had down as necessary to their efficiency, ought to be supplied at the public expense.
LORD WANTAGE: My Lords, whatever may be the result of this discussion, and of the discussion which has taken place in the other House, I do earnestly hope that the officers of the Volunteer Force, who, I think it will be allowed are a most meritorious body, will not be called upon any further to put their hands in their pockets to make good the deficiencies which arise. I have seen frequently that in the answers given by Committees of Inquiry into these matters as to how deficiencies in the Corps Fund are made up, it has been stated to be done by contributions from the officers. That I am certain is a wrong system, and it has a mischievous effect. In the first place it deters many good officers from joining the Force, and I must say that the paucity of officers which we now regret to find in the
1632
Volunteer Force largely arises from the demands which are made upon their pockets. It also deters many of those deserving and excellent officers who quit the Army, or are pressed out of it in the full majority of their age, from taking up duties which they otherwise would do. My Lords, in regard to this question of equipment, it seems to me we are in danger, and I am speaking especially now of the Volunteers, of being called upon to play the game known as "No friend of mine," in which one of the players is pushed about by the others from side to side, until at last he has had enough of it, gets tired of the game, and will not play any more. The difficulty with regard to this grant has arisen, I think, from what I would describe as a muddle, in which some very distinguished persons have taken a part. First, I would mention the late Lord Mayor; then I would say the Adjutant General, and thirdly, the Secretary of State for War. The late Lord Mayor came very gallantly to the front—I cannot in any way blame him—and announced that he was going to raise what he called a Patriotic Fund. That fund, however, was for the purpose of equipping only a very small portion, about one-eighth of the Force. He mentioned a large sum of money which he was going to raise, but he did not succeed in getting much more than half of it. Simultaneously with the proposal to raise that fund by the late Lord Mayor, but not in the least in concert with him, a Circular of Instructions was issued by the Adjutant General, addressed to general officers, brigadiers, and others who are in the habit of inspecting Volunteers, and it gave an Instruction which I think was perfectly right. It states that if Volunteer Corps have not those articles which are absolutely necessary in taking the field they should be pronounced inefficient. Now, I have heard it rather pressed that this Circular of the Adjutant General of last May should be withdrawn; but I think if that is so those general officers, brigadiers, and others would be placed in this ridiculous position, that when they inspect a Volunteer Corps they would have to say, "This Corps is thoroughly efficient except in possessing all those articles which would enable it to take the field." Then the Secretary of State for War took some part in this matter, but he did so more

1633
in the character of a private individual. He attended the meeting of the Lord Mayor, and spoke in favour of raising this Equipment Fund. He sat next to that distinguished field marshal. Lord Napier, whose death we all so greatly regret, and he heard Lord Napier say that it was impossible the Volunteers could hold the field for one week without this proper and necessary equipment. Therefore, my Lords, we appear to be in this position: that there is no doubt as to the necessity for these things being supplied, but we are in the difficulty of not knowing who is to provide the funds. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, the resources of the public have been entirely dried up since what took place in the House of Commons and the statement in the Adjutant General's Circular. But in speaking of the Secretary of State for War I do not wish to dwell so much upon what he has not done as upon what he has done, and, as it is so thoroughly germane to the whole question of the Volunteers, I cannot resist for the moment pointing out what he has done. There has been no Secretary of State for War within my experience who has done so well and so wisely for the Volunteer Force. He has given them an organisation and place among the great defences of the country which they never had before. The Secretary of State for War, no doubt, feels a little disappointed at the adverse part taken by Volunteers in the recent Vote in another place, who ought to have remembered how much, the Secretary of State for War has done for the Volunteer Force; yet those Volunteers have this excuse, that, in proportion as they are being more and more pressed and encouraged to take up a responsible position in the defence of the country—gratifying, no doubt, as that is to the Volunteers themselves, yet they must be conscious that when they are put in this honourable position much heavier obligations rest upon them. And if they now ask for some additional allowances, and take part in a Vote which has been described as a Party Vote, I think some excuse must be made for them. But, my Lords, I want to say a few words more about what the Secretary of State for War has done for the Volunteer Force. He has given the Volunteer Force a brigade organisation which, in my humble judg-
1634
ment, is of the greatest possible advantage. It is all very well to have, as we have had for the last 30 years, a number of very efficient Regiments; but without a brigade organisation really they were very inefficient troops. When turned over to a general officer to be taken in hand those regiments could not be made use of. The question whether troops can be made useful or not rests entirely upon this: if they are handed over to a general officer as regiments they are useless, but if they are handed over as brigades then the general officer can handle them. He can give them a proper position in an Army Corps, and he at once knows how to use that machinery which is placed in his hands. For 30 years we have been without this organisation, and now I am thankful to say that we have a very complete brigade organisation, which is entirely under the control of the Volunteer Officers with the brigadiers, brigade majors, and the whole staff composed of Volunteers themselves. So that, on an emergency arising, we should not have to call in the assistence of the regular Army, but be able at once to take the position we might be called upon to fill. It strikes me as a matter of very considerable surprise, because so very little notice has been taken of it, that in addition to this brigade organisation we have had unfolded to us a most complete scheme of organisation and decentralisation which has been very carefully worked out. Practical positions have been purchased or obtained all over the country. Those sites have had no masonry erected upon them—no necessity of that kind, I am thankful to say, has been imposed upon us—but a great deal of trench work has been done, and all the works necessary might easily be thrown up. So that in a moment of emergency the Volunteers would be able to march to the technical position, and they would there find all that is necessary for their equipment supplied, and the whole thing would work as easily as possible. I hope my noble Friend Lord Brownlow, who occupies a post which I am sure he will fill with great success from his experience with this particular branch of the Public Service, may some day, acting in conjunction with his Chief, the Secretary of State for War, sit in his room, and be able to ring his bell and say that the Volunteers are to

1635
proceed to their stations as may be desired. We shall then be able to get a magnificent rehearsal of what can be done, and one which would inspire confidence both in this country and abroad. If I might be allowed to add a small criticism of the speech which was delivered by the Secretary of State for War in the House of Commons, when he unfolded the scheme which has been spoken of, I would for a moment call attention to this. He said—
"The second line of defence will be occupied solely by Volunteers."
He then went on to say—
"We shall have at least 18 Brigades of Infantry, and 216 guns allotted to them. It maybe said that this force is not sufficiently mobile to constitute a thoroughly efficient Field Army; to which it is opposed that it is not so intended, and that it may be doubted, with the comparatively small amount of time which the mass of our Volunteers and their officers are able to give to their work, whether it would be possible to organise them as a Field Army."
My Lords, I wish to say that I think in this speech, there is rather, as it appears to me, the source of what may be mischief. These Brigades are to be placed; the officers to command them are to be told that in no case are these troops to be used as a Field Army. The officer will say that he will attend to those orders. An emergency arises: he finds it impossible to adhere to those instructions; and then those troops are at once launched into the field, and have to do duties which it has been declared they are not fit for. I say that is putting the Volunteers to duties to which you ought not to put them, and I hope they will not be put to work for which they have been declared unfit. Neither do I think that they ought to be so inefficiently equipped as to be unfit. I think this portion of the speech of the Secretary of State for War has led up to the position of some difficulty in which we are. I have taken what I may call a technical regiment of eight companies, consisting of 80 men per company; that gives 640 men, all of whom I take as efficient. Every man being efficient the regiment will earn the full Capitation Grant of £1,120. That is all that the Volunteer regiment will get. Out of that sum the regiment has to equip itself with headquarters, pay for the hire of rooms, ranges, uniform, band and interest. If you will permit me I will shortly state
1636
what are the items which the War Office declare not to be necessary and inadmissible towards allowance for grants. There is the cost of attending Reviews; a portion of bands only are admissible; payment of men in camp is not admissible. Then we come to greatcoats, haversacks, mess tins, and pouches to carry 70 rounds. There are other matters which are not admissible, such as an extra pair of boots, and the like. When the War Office declare that these things are not admissible, they are under the delusion, as I think, that the Volunteers will never be called upon to act in the field. When they have come to the conviction that that view is incorrect, then, as a matter of course, these greatcoats, mess tins, haversacks and pouches will be made admissible. Those of your Lordships who are Volunteers know that it is absolutely necessary when a man goes into camp that he should have either a valise or a pack to put his things in. I quite admit that a valise is not tin; best thing, because it is not desirable that men should be called upon to march carrying their valises upon their shoulders; but I do say that if these men are to go into camp they must have some form of pack or knapsack in which their things are to be put. In that pack they ought to have at least a pair of boots, a pair of socks, and a, change of linen. That is not much to ask for, and it is within the Adjutant General's category of what is to be granted when the regiments are mobilised. I hope Government will take into consideration the fact that these things are necessary, and will at an early date give the Volunteer Force some sum—perhaps the two guineas spoken of by the Adjutant General—for procuring these necessary articles.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I only wish to interpose for a moment to say a few words with regard to the Circular issued in May last by the Adjutant General. I cannot agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down that it is a satisfactory document. I think it may be satisfactory after this full equipment has been given. It says that after a date to be named the possession of this extra equipment will be made a condition of efficiency; that their production for inspection will be necessary, in order that the Capitation Grant may

1637
be earned; which means, I presume, that the Capitation Grant will ho withheld if this equipment is not produced; hut if it is withheld, that would entirely cut away the ground from under the feet of that particular corps and cause its disbandment. Something was said upon this point in the House of Commons, and it was stated on behalf of the Government that the actual meaning of the Circular was not what was supposed. I should be glad of some assurance from the Under Secretary of State for War that that portion of this Circular would be suspended, if not withdrawn, until the equipment is obtained, so that it may not strike such terror as it does among the commanding officers. The effect of this would be the disbanding of the corps, which would be practically the same thing, I think, as cutting off a man's head to cure him of a cold in his head. I agree generally with what has been said by noble Lords, who have had great experience upon this subject. I think, if we are to maintain the Volunteer Force as a useful body, it should be properly maintained. With regard to the Fund which was got up by the Lord Mayor, I admire the public spirit of the subscribers; but I think it is likely to tell unfairly throughout the country. In a rich Metropolis like London, no doubt such a Fund can be provided, and in certain other districts money could be procured, but there are other districts whore it could not; and this immediate effect would result—that half your force will be fully-equipped, and the other half will be without equipment. The Committees which have sat upon the question of the Volunteers do not seem to have been thoroughly successful; and I hope when the noble Lord consults with his colleagues at the War Office these questions will receive careful consideration, and that something permanent may be the result of it.
EARL BROWNLOW: My Lords, the subject which Iris been brought before the House by the noble Earl to-night is one which has lately been considered both by the Volunteers and by the public. I am glad that the noble Earl, by bringing the subject forward, has given me an opportunity of making a statement upon the matter in your Lordships' House, where the Volunteer Force is so well and so ably represented, and I trust that the effect of this statement may
1638
be, at any rate, to remove certain misconceptions and misunderstandings which appear to exist. The idea has got about, I do not know how or whence, but I am clear that it exists, that the present Administration has not been favourable to the Volunteers. When we come to consider what has been done for the Volunteers during the last few years I think your Lordships will agree with me, in the first place, that no thinking man could bring such an accusation against the present Secretary of State for War. That point has already been ably dealt with by Lord Wantage. Battalions hate been told off into Brigades, and those Brigades have been placed under the command of the most competent and zealous Brigadiers that it has been possible to find. Then, again, the Volunteers have been encouraged to join Brigade camps; and I think every Volunteer will admit that the allowances for Brigade camps to enable Volunteers to take advantage of this very excellent military training has been given on a very liberal scale. Again, arrangements have been in progress by which Volunteers, when mobilised, will be able to receive their stores without any friction and without any confusion. And, finally, during the present Administration the Grant in favour of the Volunteers has been increased altogether by the very large sum of £100,000 a, year. Your Lordships, no doubt, remember, and it has been stated already to-night, that, at the beginning of the Volunteer movement there was no Capitation Grant at all. The Capitation Grant, I think, was first instituted in 1862, and since that time it has been continually considered and re-considered by Committees at the War Office. The last of those Committees was the Committee presided over by Lord Harris in the year 1887, and that Committee recommended in its Report that the Grant should be increased from 30s. to 35s. I wish to remind your Lordships that the same policy has always been adhered to from the very beginning of the Volunteer movement, and that policy is that the Volunteers should be given a Capitation Grant, and that with the aid of that Capitation Grant they should find their own clothing and equipment. The Capitation Grant has been from time to time increased to enable the Volunteers

1639
to find what is necessary for them. But I wish distinctly to point out that the policy of 28 years has never been altered; and I can only say this—that I believe the present Government, or any future Government, will consider the matter thoroughly and fully, and see that really good reasons are given before departing from the policy which has been pursued during that period. I will also ask your Lordships to remember that it is under this policy that the Volunteers have now risen to be a great and permanent source of strength to the country. I will now refer to the Adjutant General's Letter. It is dated the 28th May, 1889. In that Letter the Adjutant General divides the equipment of Volunteers into three heads, not into two, as the noble Karl stated. Probably he thought the third so unimportant that he did not care to notice it. The first head consists of greatcoats, havresacks, water bottles, and mess tins. The second head comprises what is necessary to make a Volunteer corps efficient in case of mobilisation, which is to be purchased for the £2 2s 0d. And the third head comprises the articles of camp equipment which would be issued on mobilisation. As regards this third head, I do not think I need trouble your Lordships; I will only touch upon the second head of articles to be purchased for the £2 2s. 0d. The noble Earl asked whether that sum was intended to be spent for the articles which had been obtained before. I can only say it was not so intended, but only for articles which would have to be obtained in a hurry. Then with regard to the greatcoats, havresacks, water bottles, and mess tins. I should like to call attention to the words used in the Adjutant General's Letter. He says that the inquiries of the various Committees which have examined into the subject of Capitation Grants, and the accounts received in this office, show that with the £2 2s. 0d. there will be sufficient to cover all the articles mentioned in Class I. He then goes on to say that the articles can be obtained without difficulty, and will be covered by the instalments as they become due. Now, in the year 1888 we obtained a Return of the equipments possessed by different corps at that time, and we found that out of 190 Battalions,
1640
131 were possessed of haversacks, and 86 were possessed of water bottles. I would remind your Lordships that this was at a time before any pressure at all had been put upon the Volunteers. I think it is only reasonable, seeing that so large a number of the Volunteer Corps have supplied themselves with these articles, that we should consider the time was approaching when the whole Force should be equally well supplied. I have not mentioned the greatcoats because they were only referred to in the Return of 1888. There was no Return except for greatcoats for either 1887 or 1889. It is necessary to get a Return on that head, because the Government gives 2s. per man for greatcoats, and a Return was necessary in order to find out what the Government will have to pay. In 1887, before the capitation grant was raised to 35s., the Volunteers had 40,640 greatcoats; in 1888 the number had risen to 67,402, and the grant paid for those greatcoats amounted to £6,740. This was before the Adjutant General's Letter was published. In 1889 the number of greatcoats was 94,303, and the sum given to the Volunteers for those greatcoats was £9,430. The number of greatcoats increased during those three years very rapidly, and it was hoped that the time would not be far distant, if the increase went on as rapidly, when the whole force would be equipped with greatcoats in addition to their other equipment. Now, the passage in the Adjutant General's Letter which has caused the most comment is this, "After a date to be hereafter named, the possession of these articles is to be made a condition of efficiency." It has been supposed, and I quite admit that the words might be a little misleading, that those words meant some immediately approaching date to be hereafter named. That was not the intention of the Circular. The intention was that after these equipments had been fully, or very nearly found, a date might then be fixed after which the Volunteers would be compelled to produce those things to prove their efficiency, in order to show that they were keeping up their supply. That was the intention of the Circular. However, I am perfectly ready to admit that it might be thought to possess some other construction, and I am glad, therefore, to have this opportunity of explaining the matter to the House.

1641
With regard to this point, that the Adjutant General believes the things will be obtained as the instalments become due, there have been complaints that the Volunteers have been unable to find tradesmen who would enable them to procure these things and pay off the cost by means of the grant. I can only say that if the commanding officers of Volunteer Corps would like to consult with the Clothing Department of the War Office, that Department would be glad to give them any advice in their power with regard to the choice of tradesmen and the means of providing the equipment. There is in store at this moment a considerable number of part worn greatcoats—that is a technical term which may mislead, because they are really the very same goods which have been served out to Volunteers in camp for several years past; most of them are in very good condition, and the whole number are available to be sold to Volunteer Corps, if they would like to purchase them, at a very reasonable rate. As your Lordships are, I daresay, aware, under these circumstances the Volunteer Corps would be able to have three years' credit to pay off the debt. That is had down in the Volunteer Regulations. I should like to call your Lordships' attention to this point—that in the Adjutant General's Letter there is not a single word said about raising voluntary subscriptions. The Adjutant General assumes that the grant of £2 2s. will be sufficient to provide these things. He does not say one word about the money being raised in any other way than by the capitation grant. It maybe said that though subscriptions have not been absolutely asked for they have not been discouraged. Certainly, I do not see why the Government should discourage subscriptions which show the interest the country takes in our Volunteer Corps; and in many cases some such subscriptions have been started, and notably in London. I believe in some places the equipment which has been provided for the Volunteers is very considerably in excess of anything the Government has asked for or demanded. I have no official knowledge of the fact, but I think we may see for ourselves Volunteers going through the streets with a very full equipment indeed—much more so than is required by the
1642
Circular. Now, my Lords, I have endeavoured to explain, as far as I can, the action of Her Majesty's Government in the past; and as regards the future I am afraid on this matter it is impossible for me to say much, or, indeed, anything definite. Her Majesty's Government perfectly recognise that after the Vote of the House of Commons the other night the whole question will have to be reconsidered, and what the result of this re-consideration may be it is impossible for me to say at this moment. But I can give your Lordships this assurance at least, that in considering this matter Her Majesty's Government will have but one object in view, and that is that those who give their time and services for nothing to the country shall, when the time of need comes, be able to turn out and take their place in any great struggle, with an ample and sufficient equipment

LICENSING ACT (1872) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 35.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I did not intend to trouble your Lordships at any length in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, but the noble and learned Lord Bramwell was good enough to inform me this morning that it was his, intention to move the rejection of the Bill, and, therefore, I shall be obliged to trouble your Lordships with some arguments in its favour. The noble and learned Lord is always a very formidable antagonist, and at the present moment I am quite in the dark as to what the nature of his objections may be. I may state that I have had sent to me by post a Circular upon this matter; but I am quite sure the noble and learned Lord had no hand in drawing it up, because, although it bears upon the same subject which was dealt with in the Bill of last year, it has no bearing upon the Bill as it at present stands before the House. Your Lordships will see for yourselves that in the Bill of 1890, though the number of words omitted or inserted, as compared with the Bill of last year, is not large, yet that a vast change has been made in the whole scope and operation of the Bill. The Bill of last year affected all refreshment rooms licensed for the sale of

  1643
  intoxicating liquors, whether already licensed or to be hereafter licensed. Objection was taken last year, as objection has been taken in the Circular to which I refer, that it would be quite impossible to bring such provisions to bear upon already existing licensed refreshment rooms, without entailing great difficulty in bringing the law into operation, and without throwing a great deal of hard-ship upon those who had invested their capital upon the launching of those undertakings; and though I may regret the limitation of the scope of the Bill, still it has the advantage that it now steers clear of all that class of objections. It does not interfere with existing licenses; it does not interfere in any way with refreshment rooms at present licensed; it does not restrict any existing right or put any burden upon people in respect of them which they ought not to bear. Now, why do I say this? For this reason: that in the Bill of the present year the important words are omitted which were in the Bill of last year, providing that the Licensing Authorities should neither grant any new license, nor renew any existing license. Those words have been left out. Therefore, the scope of the present Bill is considerably diminished, and it is no longer open to the objections which were levelled at the Bill of last year. I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord will appreciate the distinction which has been made, and that the objections he may make will be quite distinct from those put forward in the Circular to which I refer. In the Circular it is said that it is intended to extend the waiting accommodation. That is not the purpose of my Bill. It is to provide that where there is no proper waiting accommodation, such accommodation shall be provided, in the interest and for the comfort of the ordinary traveller. The object of the Bill is not to provide luxuries, but to provide that where waiting rooms do not exist at the present time they should be provided at Railway Stations where refreshment rooms already exist. I need not take up your Lordships' time by pointing out that the existence of licensed refreshment rooms is a question which must be regarded by Parliament; and, putting aside the objections against the Bill of last year
  1644
  as to interfering with existing arrangements, and looking to the licenses to be hereafter granted, nobody can say that Parliament may not properly impose such conditions as it thinks ought to be imposed in the interests of those who have to travel by railway. I need not draw harrowing pictures, but I wish to point out that of necessity where a refreshment room is licensed it presupposes the existence of a considerable amount of railway passenger traffic. Now, that traffic comprises persons of all ages, classes, tastes, and habits, and it seems to me a very great hardship that all travellers, whatever their age, sex, tastes, or habits may be, should be compelled to take shelter from the weather in what may be very little better than drinking saloons. That is quite apart from the interests of temperance; but I think, apart from those interests, there is a great deal to be said in favour of my contention. If you look at it from this point of view ordinary mankind may very properly be divided into three classes in relation to the sale of intoxicating liquors. There are those whose steadiness of purpose is such that if they desire to drink liquors they may trust themselves to take them in moderation whether in railway stations or in drinking saloons; there are other persons who neglect no opportunity which comes in their way of wetting their whistles and quenching their thirst; and there is a third and very large proportion of travellers who neither possess the steadiness of purpose of temperance theorists, nor are yet always seeking opportunities to allay their thirst, but who are liable to be acted upon by the influences to which they are subjected, and who are not of sufficiently strong purpose to resist temptation when it is thrown in their way. I am by no means a friend of grandmotherly legislation, and in my humble way I have done something to prevent it. This Circular says that this Bill is intended to strike a blow at the Licensed Victuallers; I have great respect for Licensed Victuallers. I had the honour, in 1874, to take charge of a Bill in the interests of that very respectable body of men, which obtained their support. But while I am desirous that the legitimate interests of the Licensed Victuallers should be protected, I do not desire that every traveller, whether he wishes it or not, if he has to shelter

  1645
  himself in bitter weather from wind or storm shall be driven to compete with the jostling crowds at the counter and tables of a refreshment room. I do not see what right, when the interests of the Licensed Victuallers are protected, they have to insist that everybody should be exposed, whether they will or not, to the influence of drink. I take it the Railway Companies are bound to provide proper accommodation for their travellers; and can that be called proper accommodation which does not secure adequate shelter without exposing them to the great inconvenience and discomfort of going into a refreshment room, whether it be large or small? Now, I have curious testimony to bring before your Lordships in this matter. An eminent Divine, who is known to many of your Lordships, writes from a junction where he was delayed for an hour between two trains, and ho says—
  "Perhaps the condition of things which I am now unpleasantly experiencing may be useful to you in the discussion on your Bill about railway stations. A polite official has just informed me that there is no waiting room for gentlemen at this large station except the refreshment rooms. Into one of these I made my way, and found it pervaded by a pungent odour of beer and whiskey, with loud chatter going on, and with doors on each side so as to form a passage through from one platform to the other. I was a little sceptical at one time as to the need for your Bill, hut certainly, in point of comfort as well as temperance, I am now of a different opinion."
  That, as I have said, has been sent to me by a traveller who was waiting for an hour at a station where there was no convenience for waiting, except a refreshment room, with all its discomfort and inconvenience. This Circular says there is no evidence about inconvenience experienced. I think everybody will bear me witness, who is conversant with the subject, that there is. It may be that none of your Lordships have been detained at stations where this accommodation is not provided; but there are large and important stations where there is no accommodation except of this nature. I do not know that we should do wisely at all times to appeal to our fellow subjects at the Antipodes for arguments, but I may say that so strong is the feeling among the colonists with regard to the sale of intoxicating liquors at railway station refreshment rooms, that in New Zealand it is prohibited
  1646
  altogether, and in Victoria such liquors are not allowed to be sold at railway refreshment rooms within a radius of 20 miles from Melbourne. That shows what they think of the evil in connection with this subject. I do not see that statistics are required in a case of this kind. I do not see that they are at all necessary to prove my case. When you are dealing with the motives and influences which affect men, I do not think statistics are indispensable for proving your case. If you are dealing with any economic question affecting the country, or any matters of trade, it is necessary to consult the Barometer of Trade; so, if you are discussing the increase or diminution of crime, statistics are very valuable; and again, with regard to education, you will find figures come usefully to hand. With regard to sanitary matters, too, or sanitary legislation, if you are going to inquire into the question of sanitation as affecting people's lives, vital statistics are of the utmost importance1. But I do not see that, in regard to the ordinary motives for human action, statistics are required to prove the case. I am content to appeal to the experience of mankind in this matter. All that is asked for in this Bill is to extend a principle which is already known to the law, namely, that the sale of intoxicating liquors should not be allowed without control. That is a proposition which has always found its place in the English law, and I need not discuss the necessity for such restriction. It was said last year, "Why not leave the matter to the discretion of the Licensing Justices?" I do not see that the Licensing Justices could properly deal with the question. What you are now asked to do is to provide that a license for the sale of intoxicating liquors shall not be granted on certain premises unless certain other premises are provided. Under the existing law all that the Licensing Justices have to do is to satisfy themselves as to the propriety and sufficiency of the accommodation provided in respect of the premises, and they would be, I think, exceeding their jurisdiction and going outside the sphere of the matters confided to them, if they imported into the consideration of licensing a railway station refreshment room the question whether there was accommodation apart from the refreshment

  1647
  room which they were called upon to license, Your Lordships will remember that the discretion of the Justices is already very much restricted by law—Parliament has limited the discretion of the Justices to certain matters. The discretion which the Justices exercise is of a very limited character. I need not point out the different qualifications and restrictions which Parliament imposes with reference to the different licenses, but in the case of publicans' licenses, the only matters which the Justices have left to their discretion are as to whether the required accommodation is necessary, and as to the respectability of the applicant for the license. They are rigidly restricted as to the minimum accommodation to be provided for the public, and they are restricted as to the penal disqualifications which the applicant may be lying under, or any disqualifications which may affect the applicant in regard to complying with the law. So, again, with regard to beer-selling, the discretion of the Justices is confined to the question of the value of the house licensed and other similar matters. Then, with regard to licenses for the sale of beer off the premises, there are restrictions on the discretion of the Justices. So that having limited the discretion of the Justices in those important respects, you are only asked now to extend the principle by giving them power to do that which they would not at present have power to do, namely, take into consideration other things beyond the accommodation provided by the refreshment rooms themselves. You are empowering them to do that which, without this legislation, would be wholly extraneous to the duties entrusted to them. In all these matters Parliament has pointed out to the Justices the rules by which they are to be guided, and I ask your Lordships to extend the application of this principle somewhat further, and to say that hereafter a license shall not be granted to any new railway refreshment rooms without taking care that adequate accommodation is provided for the public, without the discomfort, inconvenience, and temptation which occur where there are only rooms or promises in which the sale of intoxicating liquors is actively going on. This circular which I have
  1648
  received focusses all the objections which were made to the Bill of last year, but it is really a very misleading document. I have already pointed out to your Lordships that the first paragraph describing the professed object of the Bill is entirely misleading. The Bill has not for its object the providing of more extensive waiting accommodation, but requires that where there is no waiting accommodation now, it shall be provided before a licence is granted for a refreshment room. The fact is that the whole of this document comes a year too late. It looks as if it had been struck off a year ago and not put into circulation until now. Paragraph 3 says that upon consideration it will be found that it is sought to make the licence holder responsible for the mainten—ance of order in the other premises, and that the Licensing Authority is to be constituted the judge as to whether such waiting accommodation is sufficiently ample. That is perfectly true in respect of a licence to be hereafter granted. But it may be said that in this way a burden is being imposed upon the licencees, and there is a paragraph in the Circular following that points out that a licence holder is a person unconnected with the Railway Company's affairs, and has no right with regard to any part of the Railway Company's property, except that which is leased to him. That might be all very well with regard to the past, but it has nothing whatever to do with legislation for the future. Of course the licence holder must be ex hypothesi the tenant of the Company, and all he will have to do will be to obtain from his landlord a covenant that they will comply with the provisions of the law. There will be no hardship in that. If the Railway Company will be bound by that covenant, and if they fail to observe it the lessee would have his action against them for damages. I say that no hardship would arise if you limit the measure in the manner to which I have referred. I think if your Lordships will read the Circular attentively you will see that it admits there is good reason for some such legislation as this. The last paragraph says—
  "It might be possible to demonstrate that in some places sufficient waiting accommodation would be provided, but that cannot be done without making the licence holder responsible in the matter."

  1649
  Well, I say that can be done without making the licence holder responsible at all, because in all future leases all ho will have to do is to obtain that covenant, and he will then have his remedy against the company whose property is to be benefited by the granting of the licence. Then paragraph 4 says that—
  "It would be obviously wrong, unjust, and impossible to make the contractors under their existing leases responsible for the waiting rooms."
  That may be true. It may be, and it might have been a valid objection last year, but it does not lie against the Bill, as at present proposed for your Lordships' consideration. It may be said, if your Lordships' do not propose to touch existing waiting rooms is it worth while to legislate in this matter at all? I think it is. In the first place we are by no means at the end of the growth of our railway system in England. Our industrial conditions have altered very much during the past few years. The great Railway Companies have had to double their lines, and they all tell you that that is not the best way to deal with our heavy through traffic, but, on the contrary, it is far better to make alternative lines over which that traffic may be carried, so as to open up new country. And I think, with the accumulations of capital which exist in this country, it is by no means improbable that we may see much larger developments of the railway system than at present exist. With the increase of population, further accommodation is required for the travelling public, and I think it will be a very valuable tiling to place upon the Statute Book such a provision as this. I think if Parliament concurs in restricting future licenses in the manner I propose, it is not chimerical to suppose that the great Railway Companies, who have up to this time granted various rights under agreements, as the leases run out, would find it worth while to relieve their passengers and customers from the discomfort and inconvenience to which I have already referred, and in that way alone, I think the passing of this measure might have a very beneficial moral effect by bringing home to Railway Companies the duties they owe to their passengers and customers. Something is said in the Circular about the absence of public discussion in reference to this
  1650
  question. I have had an intimation that the great Temperance Organisations in thi country were anxious to agitate in favour of this Bill, but I thought it better to present the matter before your Lordships without embarking on any great popular agitation, and for this reason, that this Hill does not owe its origin to any great temperance organisation at all, and I do not see why your Lordships should be deprived of the credit which you will gain by legislating upon this subject of the sale of intoxicating liquors. For myself I am by no means disposed to accept the temperance platform. No doubt their agitation has done a great deal of good, but I think they carry their principles much too far. I would rather appeal to your Lordships' sense of justice than to popular agitation on this subject, and I trust that this House will take the common-sense view of the rights of ordinary railway passengers. I have been urged to incorporate in this Bill other matters with regard to this subject. There has been a great practice of hawking liquors about on the railway platforms. I believe that practice is thoroughly illegal, and the North Western Railway Company has abandoned it, but I am afraid the Croat Western still allow it to prevail. A license to sell intoxicating liquors in a refreshment room certainly does not carry with it a commission to hawk liquors on railway platforms; and I am informed that a great deal of mischief has been done by the practice. Still, I do not propose to incorporate that restriction in this Bill, as it lies rather outside the scope of it. I have thought it wiser to leave out of the Bill all questions of that kind, and to confine it simply to the principle of securing justice for railway travellers. Your Lordships are in a very favourable position for dealing with this question. You have interests which enable you to know the habits of those for whom you are legislating. As country' gentlemen and Justices of the Peace, you are familiar with the habits of ordinary travellers, and it is on their behalf that I ask you to pass the Second Reading of this Bill. I will repeat that the Bill is in no way intended to interfere with existing trade arrangements or existing contracts. I am all for freedom of contract and for preserving contracts when they are

  1651
  entered into. This Bill is free from the objections made to that of last year. I am by no means wedded to the wording of the Bill. If any noble Lord thinks it right to provide more clearly than he thinks is done by the Bill that it shall not affect existing arrangements, I shall be glad to adopt any suggestions, but I shall be surprised if the noble and learned Lord should think it right to repeat the statements contained in the Circular to which I have referred. I ask your Lordships for the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."
  LORD BRAMWELL: My Lords, I move your Lordships that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. I cannot defend the Circular from the many attacks which the noble Karl has made upon it, because, to tell the truth, I have not studied it. I thought the best answer to the noble Earl's observations was to be found in the Bill itself. But I may say one thing in excuse for the authors of the Circular, with which, indeed, I had nothing to do, which is this: that doubts have been entertained by very capable persons whether the Bill is limited to licenses which are to be granted to persons at railway stations for the first time. My construction of the Bill was that it is, but I imagine that those who drew up the Circular had their fears, and if they were wrong they may be forgiven, considering the doubts which had been entertained upon the subject. At all events, if there is any doubt in the Bill it can be set right, and I will deal with the Bill as one which is applicable, not to stations or to persons where or to whom licenses have been heretofore given, but to places and persons where or to whom licenses may be granted after this Bill becomes law, if it ever does so. But if that is so, does nor the Bill stand self-condemned? If these numerous stations are so conducted, and the circumstances surrounding them are such that no legislation is necessary in regard to them, what occasion is there for what I was going to call—without disrespect to the noble Earl—this sort of peddling legislation as to the half-dozen stations which may come into existence, where licenses may be granted, and where refreshments may be obtained? The
  1652
  noble Earl has told your Lordships that the reason ho has left these existing persons and stations out of his Bill is because it would be interfering with things that have been arranged, and I suppose he means "vested interests;" but if there is anything of such a character as to require legislation for future stations and persons, why surely something might properly be done as to those already in existence, except, indeed, for one reason—that, in my opinion, there is a tribunal already which could deal with them, that is to say the Licensing Magistrates. But in this Bill it is expressly enacted that the Licensing Magistrates, however satisfied they maybe with the arrangements for the accommodation required from the applicant for the license, however desirable they may think it that the license should be granted, shall not grant it, unless these particular things are existing which the noble Earl says should be there. I do not know whether your Lordships know what those things are. I will refer to them. There must be two separate rooms—one for ladies and one for gentlemen, besides the refreshment room. If rooms are not there already they must be built; if the land is not there upon which they can be built it must be obtained; and there must be a comfortable fire provided in each of those rooms. Those are the requisites which must exist already in order that the new licence may be granted. What is such a requisition as that worth? The consequences will be in many cases—they certainly well may be—that the expense of getting those two rooms and providing the furniture and fire will be such that it will not be worth the while of anybody to sell refreshments there, because, of course, the expense of so doing will be part of the cost of the arrangement that will have to be made for the purpose of getting the licence. I will ask your Lordships if it is not most unreasonable to exact such a thing as that? Two separate rooms to be furnished and fires kept going in them! What good is to be done by it? Of course, if the licence for selling "intoxicating liquor," as it is always called—I suppose that means beer, spirits, wine, and what not—is not granted, the premises will not be licensed for sailing anything there, even the most harmless refreshment in the

  1653
  world, not because these bars are supported by the sale of beer and spirits, but because the people at a refreshment room may only be able to sell half of what they would desire. And what is the consequence? Although it is admitted that a refreshment room would be desirable, and although the Licensing Justices, cither from their own knowledge or otherwise, are aware that the accommodation is perfectly sufficient for all reasonable purposes—not perhaps for anybody, who may be kept there for an hour, objecting to the smell of beer and gin, which, as we all know, may be very disagreeable—they are to be perfectly unable to grant the licence. Now, what will be the effect of all this? There will be two consequences: one that you will have a small beer shop established just outside the rail way station, which, of course, can always be got, instead of a decently-conducted railway station refreshment room. Then, in the other case, if these rooms are got and made so luxurious and comfortable as the noble Earl would make them, the beer and spirits will be taken into the warm and comfortable room instead of being drunk at the refreshment bar. It seems to me, therefore, that more drinking would be promoted by the scheme of the noble Earl than is carried on at present. I cannot help thinking that this is really a meddling with things without any occasion for it. The noble Earl says that at the Antipodes, in New Zealand, and the district within 20 miles of Melbourne, they are so rigorous in their objection to the sale of intoxicating liquors that they resolved that those liquors shall not be sold at all in those places. That would be an intelligible proposition, though it would be a mischievous one, I think; but the legislation of the noble Earl would put difficulties in the way of it, saying not that you shall not do it, but that you shall only do it under circumstances of discomfort. Now, there is another proof of unreasonableness here, I think, in the last clause but one, by which it is enacted that, if these rooms, when built and furnished, are not kept in good order and the fires kept up and the place made comfortable—what do your Lordships suppose?—why the unfortunate bar-keeper, who has nothing whatever to do with the rooms, and who cannot inter-
  1654
  fere with them, is to be liable for penalties as though he were selling liquor without a licence. Well, that is the proposition which your Lordships are asked to affirm. I think it is one of those examples which good people are always giving us. When good people are attempting to do good, they do not care at what cost to other people it may be that they will bring it about. The noble Earl said he did not think there was any necessity for statistics in this matter. I do not think there is, and I do not know that they would help him. But ho did give us most reluctantly some statistics of two persons; one was the unfortunate Divine who was kept in a refreshment room with the smell of beer and spirits around him for an hour, and the other was the noble Earl himself, because it is perfectly manifest that he dislikes these things. Those were the only two witnesses he called in support of his Bill, and I submit to your Lordships that it should be rejected.
  Amendment moved, to leave out the word "now," and to add at the end of the Motion the words "this day six months."—(The Lord Bramwell.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I think my noble and learned Friend has been a little hard on the noble Earl opposite. I think there is something to be said for the principle of this Bill, though I do not think there is much to be said for the mode in which its provisions are to be carried into effect. The first clause is, to my mind, open to some doubt, but that, I suppose, the noble Earl would remedy. It speaks of renewing a licence in such a way as that it would apply not only to new licences, but to those which would have to be renewed every year. I presume that would be remedied, and the Bill made strictly applicable to places where there are now no licences. I have not had much personal experience of station accommodation, but I should think it is a very objectionable thing, indeed, that passengers—men, women, and children—should have no place within which to wait except the refreshment bar. I do not think it is a satisfactory state of things. I can quite conceive, there might be no necessity for two waiting rooms in small stations where one general waiting room would be enough;

  1655
  but I think where a Railway Company or anybody authorised by the company applies for a licence to establish a refreshment bar, there is some reason for saying that some other place should be provided where passengers may wait if they choose. The primary object of railways is to carry passengers, and not to provide refreshment bars. Therefore I think there is something really to be said for the principle of the Bill. But with regard to the last clause, to which attention has been called, I cannot conceive that Parliament would enact such a provision, because one cannot imagine anything more intolerable than that if the Railway Company does not provide fire and coals, for example, the holder of the licence might be subject to all the penalties to which anyone is liable who sells intoxicating liquors contrary to the law. That is a provision which nobody would agree to; but I can conceive that, the licence being granted for one year, it might be presumed that the Railway Company desire the refreshment room to be continued in that place, otherwise it would not give its sanction; and when the licence holder comes again to the Justices for the renewal of the licence, and it is shown there has not been proper accommodation provided for the passengers, the licence should not be renewed. That would be a proper penalty. Of course, in some cases the companies themselves are the holders of the licences, and no doubt in those cases the conditions would be observed. I should think, my Lords, the Bill might be read a second time, and that these provisions might be considered and amended in Committee.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: I do not think it would be well that this Bill should be rejected as if it were a joke, as the noble and learned Lord suggests. He says it would affect only one or two small stations in the future; but when I looked around the Benches and saw all the leading representatives of the Railway Companies who have come down to the House to-night, I thought that there must be some very grave railway interest at stake. I do not quite agree with this Bill, but I am rather inclined to support the Second Reading for these reasons. Nobody admires the arrangement of our main lines of railway more than I do; but for those who have to travel across
  1656
  country, nothing more inconvenient can be imagined than the accommodation provided. I have, unfortunately, often to cross the country from east to west, and from west to east, and the way in which one is turned out of carriages and made to wait for other trains, and so on, is extremely provoking and trying. I can, therefore, support what has been said as to the necessity for having decent railway waiting accommodation. The time lost in crossing the country in that way is very great. I happen to know one place, a country junction, which I often have to visit, and I find there an exact picture of that which was so much jeered at by the noble and learned Lord as affecting not only the travelling public, but the railway people themselves. At this cross junction I and many of my country friends have often to wait, and the only place there is to wait in is in the booking office, through which there is a thorough draught, and where there is hardly room enough for those who want to take tickets. There is a place for ladies, and the only other place is a drinking shop which is extremely un-savoury from the very nasty chronic smell of liquor. I think that is a great hardship to the working-class people and middle-class people whom I constantly see at that junction. I believe if you put this to the test by having Circulars from the Board of Trade, as far as my knowledge goes from what I heard when I was in that Department, yon will find that there are a great number of places where there is no waiting accommodation except where liquor is sold. Though I do not belong to the Temperance Organisation, I think it is extremely injurious to the railway servants themselves that such a state of things should exist, and it does not make one's fellow-creatures sometimes pleasant company. I think that drinking at these stations is not a desirable thing for the general public. If you say it is a small thing for Parliament to interfere with, I think it was the interference of Parliament which induced the addition of smoking-carriages to trains. Parliament did not think that matter too trifling for interference, and I put it to your Lordships whether it is not more necessary that waiting rooms should be provided where people can wait and avoid the nuisances

  1657
  of these horrid drinking shops than to provide smoking carriages. Though I do not think the Bill perfect, I shall certainly vote in favour of it as a protest against the very wretched accommodation which the Railway Companies provide for their customers.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE: I did not intend to trouble your Lordships, but I think my noble friend has suggested the proper form for this Bill. It is this: that whenever it appears that a Railway Company has not done anything which people think it should do, the Justices should not renew the licence if it has one. I do not see that there is any connection between the two things. My noble Friend wants more extensive waiting room accommodation.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: No; I said a waiting-room.
  LOBD GRIMTHORPE: I know—in addition; therefore more extensive waiting-room accommodation. That is one of my noble Friend's ingenious distinctions. I submit that you must look out for some more straightforward way of enforcing duties, if they arise. But my noble Friend said that Parliament required Railway Companies to provide smoking carriages, in order to protect people who do not smoke from the illegal nuisance caused by people who do smoke. But that is exactly the sort of thing Parliament should do. If it thinks these refreshment rooms should be abolished, why not abolish them? If you desire to pass a Bill requiring these waiting-rooms to be established, well let some proper and trustworthy authority be enabled to order them; but I do not agree with this mode of inflicting the penalty. If they are not provided, fine the company in some other way. You would tine the holder of the licence under that wonderful 2nd clause, if the fire goes out or anything is not done which the local Justices or their friends want. Then my noble Friend said that the Justices have no control now. That is certainly not so; for by a recent decision which went to the Court of Appeal, and was acquiesced in—I do not know whether it was carried to your Lordships House—the Justices have full discretion in granting licenses, and in renewing them. That is a matter of perfectly settled law now. I know from my own experience as a Justice that there is always some
  1658
  body to be found ready to make every objection that can be offered when the license is to be renewed. I asked a man on one occasion for whom he appeared, and he replied, "I decline to say." I said—"If you decline to say, I decline to hear you." Of course, he had been sent to make objection by somebody—an adjacent public-house owner, or a Temperance Organisation, and if he had chosen to tell us we must have heard him. There is nothing to prevent people objecting to the granting or renewing of licences. We must hear them, and if we do not, the Queen's Bench will say that the Justices have not thoroughly heard and determined the case and that they had acted from prejudice. Therefore, as far as that goes, I cannot see the slightest necessity for the Bill, because, besides being wrong in principle, it is not required. My noble Friend said he had no statistics, and did not want any. Why does not he want any? Does he expect us to take his statements from one unhappy divine, who had to tolerate the smell of beer and spirits at a railway station for an hour, as conclusive? All I can say is that I should like to have the cross-examination of that gentleman. I have had some experience of railway stations, and where on earth there can be a large railway station in which a great divine was driven to sit in the refreshment bar all that time I cannot imagine. On the other hand, I know some where there is a waiting-room nearly half the size of this House, but no refreshment room; there is not a cup of tea to be had in the place. That is because people will not take refreshment rooms unless they can sell beer and liquors. I wonder what my noble Friend's clients want, if he has any? People want to get a cup of tea or coffee if they can. In every point of view, it seems to me, the Bill is entirely ill-founded; it is not well calculated to effect its object. Everyone who has spoken for it admits that it wants amending, and certainly my noble Friend has not quite appreciated the effect of his 2nd clause, for he passed it over as a thing not worth attending to. The unhappy licence-holder would have no means of controlling the Railway Company. We are always told that Railway Companies are very difficult people to control. It

  1659
  is no use talking about stipulation; if they put up their waiting rooms to auction they would always find plenty of people who would take them without any stipulation whatever. There is no doubt about that. I think, whether my noble Friend knows it or not, there is a good deal of temperance agitation at the bottom of his Bill.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: No.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE: I think, although my noble Friend may not be conscious of it, that is really the case. I can see no want whatever for the Bill. I complain of it, instead of doing what it professes in a straight forward way it does it in an indirect way. I quite agree that Railway Companies want a great deal of control in the timing of their trains, and if anybody will bring in a Bill for that purpose I will not stand in the way. I say, deliberately, that in those sort of things Parliament has a perfect right to interfere, and that it has always assorted its right to interfere, for the public convenience and safety, though not for the purpose of transferring railway profits to other trades. Those are the two things for which Parliament has a right to act, and beyond that it has no right to legislate in matters of this kind.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: I hope your Lordships will not be induced to approve of the Second Reading of this Bill. I have listened very carefully to what has been said, and I cannot say I have heard one single real argument for the Bill yet. I think there is a very strong feeling with regard to this matter; but the Railway Companies may be left to consider for themselves whether it is necessary to have one or two extra rooms at railway stations. This Bill seems to me a most irregular proposition, if my noble Friend will allow me to say so, and one which should not be accepted by your Lordships.
  LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, I shall ask your attention for a few moments while I endeavour very shortly to give a parting kick to this Bill. The noble Earl who moved it has more or less admitted that it is capable of improvement. I do not know whether he has considered the fact; but I am advised that Clause 5 will apply to Section 3, and that all those who apply for the renewal of their licenses would come under them. The noble Earl, I
  1660
  understood, denied that he advocated more extensive accommodation; but he did not mention once in his speech that lie proposed to separate the sexes at the stations. That would be necessary, I presume, and what would be the result? That we should have a first class refreshment room and first class waiting room for men; a first class refreshment room and first class waiting room for ladies, and the same all through in regard to the other classes of passengers.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: Not for the classes—for the sexes.
  LORD DE RAMSEY: I hardly think that the Railway Companies would alter their arrangements and put their first and third-class passengers in the same waiting-rooms to suit the clauses of this Bill. It is not practicable. I speak with some knowledge of the matter, and I confidently assert that the noble Earl is in advance of public opinion in regard to it. It is not a matter for your Lordships; it is essentially a matter for the Licensing Authorities; and if there is any body of people in the country who have a wish in this matter, why do not they show their strength at the Licensing Sessions, and use their influence with the magistrates not to grant the licenses as they exist at present? I am convinced, my Lords, that up to the present the Licensing Justices have used great discretion in this matter, and where they have not been wanted licenses have not been granted. This is, I suggest, an unnecessary interference with the Railway Companies and the contractors. I will take them together, because the Railway Companies in some cases carry on their own refreshment rooms, in others it is done by contractors. It is an unnecessary interference with them, and I fail to see, up to the present, that there has been any particular demand for this accommodation. To my mind, on the contrary, there is a very great objection to the noble Earl's Bill, and it is this: We all know that one of the great difficulties of the day is the carrying of the Metropolitan traffic by the great railways around this city. The noble Earl last year suggested the exemption of the Metropolis; but this year he has not said a word about that, and if this Bill were carried, considering the pounds an inch that land near London is worth, it would be impossible for the Railway

  1661
  Companies to do their duty to the passengers, for they would not be able to obtain space for the accommodation. I will not detain your Lordships further. This is essentially a matter of supply and demand. As far as we have seen, the Railway Companies have carried out what was wanted of them; but even if they had not, it is a matter for them to decide. It is to their interest to provide good accommodation for their passengers; and it is a certainty that where good accommodation is not provided in these days of competition, they will lose a large amount of traffic. I therefore would ask your Lordships to reject the Bill.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should like to say why I should vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. I agree very largely with the criticisms of my noble and learned Friend; but I think the Railway Companies do need a little pressure in this matter to meet a complaint which has been admitted to be reasonable by even those speakers who have opposed the Second Reading. I am afraid the optimistic view on the part of the noble Lord representing the Board of Trade is not likely to put that amount of pressure on the Railway Companies which they may need. The Bill only proposes to deal, as I understand, with railway refreshment rooms hereafter to be established. It is said that the system is in general a bad one, and that you should not have a refreshment room, only a waiting room; but there may be cases in which it would be possible to avoid any difficulty of that kind. I should like to say that, as far as the last point referred to is concerned, the power might well be exercised when licenses are asked for in respect of railway stations, upon ascertaining what accommodation is provided there, and upon its being shown that there is reason why the accommodation provided should be the only accommodation.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I have only a few words to say. The noble Lord has said that last year the Metropolis was exempted, and that there is now no exemption. It is for this simple reason: that the mischief is done in the Metropolis. On the Underground Railways in London, where land is so valuable, the stations have all obtained their licenses, and they therefore are exempt. Then the noble and
  1662
  learned Lord said all existing licenses may be brought under the operation of this Bill as it stands. That is not my intention, and if any form of words can be suggested to make that meaning clear I will gladly adopt them. I have no objection to make any concession on that point. Then with regard to what was said by the noble Lord on the Treasury Bench, I think it has been answered by the noble Lord opposite. As to temperance agitation, I can only deny what Lord Grimthorpe has attributed to me. As regards the Licensing Justices, I do not think anybody with the slightest pretensi6n to being a lawyer can say that they can deal with the subject at present. I was much surprised to hear my noble Friend say that the matter is already provided for by the law. I am sure the Licensing Justices cannot deal with the matter. The Licensing Justices act under the authority of Parliament. They have no power at present in granting a license for one set of premises to inquire into the state of, or what is done on other premises. If the Licensing Justices wore to take into consideration the state of premises A and B when called upon to license premises C and D they would be exceeding their duty, which I think is what the Licensing Justices are not in the habit of doing. The noble Lord near me has evidently his own views about the timing of trains. He is very anxious to have a Bill introduced with regard to that subject, and to to keep Railway Companies to the contracts they have entered into, but that is entirely a different question. The noble Lord has his hobby, and may deal with it. I maintain that Railway Companies are bound to provide due and proper accommodation for railway passengers, without exposing them to unnecessary discomfort and inconvenience. That is a very simple proposition; and I do not think it is a good argument that because we have allowed the Railway Companies to slip out of our control to a great extent we should allow them to escape from it still further, and I do not see why adequate provision should not be made in this matter. A noble Lord said that the Railway Companies might put the licenses up to auction, and A, B, C, and D might contend with each other for them, and disregard the conditions. They might; but what would be the

  1663
  consequence? They would have no grievance whatever to complain of on being deprived of their licenses. It is quite possible the penalty in the last clause may be too severe. If so, I shall be happy to amend it; but nobody knows better than Lord Kimberley what difficulties there are surrounding such a question as this. I shall be glad if your Lordships will give a Second Heading to this Bill, which I am quite sure will be of great use to a large portion of Her Majesty's subjects.
  On Question, that the word "now" stnad part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 17; Not-Contents 54.
  Resolved in the negative.
  Bill to be read 2a on this day six months.

TRUST COMPANIES BILL.—(No. 42.)
Amendments (on Re-commitment) reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
COLONIAL COURTS OF ADMIRALTY BILL.—(No. 44.)
Read 3a (according to order); an amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
THE BERLIN LABOUR CONFERENCE.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, before asking the question which stands in my name on the Notice Paper, I should like to express my great satisfaction that Her Majesty's Government have found themselves in a position to accept the invitation to assist at the Congress now assembled at Berlin for the discussion of certain matters affecting labour. It would, I think, have been a very unfortunate thing if this country, which has taken the lead in manufacturing enterprise, and also in the care and consideration bestowed upon the people employed in them, as shown in such matters as the observance of Sunday, and the restrictions placed upon the employment of children, young persons, and women, had not been adequately represented at a Conference of this nature. My Lords, I do not myself attach a very great, certainly not an exaggerated, importance to what the probable and immediate results of the Congress may be as far as this country is concerned. I
  1664
  have no doubt a great deal of good will result to workers in foreign countries, and I hope that a great deal of good will eventually result to the workers in this country. But the matter is one which has attracted a great deal of attention, not only on account of the exalted position of the originator of the idea, and on account of the fact that this is the first occasion on which Governments-have met together to discuss matters affecting labour, and to endeavour to devise means whereby the interests of labour may be furthered in their respective countries. It also attracts attention on account of certain matters which are to be there under discussion. There can be no doubt that a great result will be achieved if this Congress itself, or future discussions originating from it, can devise any means whereby in the event of international competition becoming excessive and injurious in its effects, means may be devised whereby those injurious effects upon the moral and physical health of the working populations might be modified. But there is one particular point which is of enormous importance to us in this country, and that is the second and third matters which are mentioned to be brought under discussion. It is said that inasmuch as the working-day in mines is fraught with great danger to health, it is a matter for discussion whether it should be subject to limitation. As to that proposition, I have only to say that I am sorry it does not go a little further, and say that there is danger to life, for I have not the slightest doubt that thousands of lives have been lost in this country, owing to carelessness arising from fatigue, which has been caused from working excessive hours in mines under hard conditions. The other subject of discussion to which I alluded is, whether it would be possible in the public interest, in order to assure the regularity of the output of coal, to subject labour in mines to International regulations. I need not point out to your Lordships the enormous importance to this country of anything affecting the output of coal. The coal industry is in one respect the greatest in the country; that all the other manufacturing industries depend upon it; and the coal industry itself, to a great extent, depends upon the foreign trade in coal. On account of this particular subject which is to come

  1665
  under discussion, and on account also of the great importance for several reasons that have appeared of this Congress as a whole, it seems to me (that is, of course, supposing no injury can accrue to the Public Service by doing so) that it would be very desirable that the Instructions under which our Plenipotentiaries and Delegates are discussing these matters, should be presented to Parliament before the Recess, and I therefore wish to ask Her Majesty's Government if they will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Instructions given to the Plenipotentiaries appointed to represent this country at the Labour Conference at Berlin?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is entirely unusual to lay the Instructions given to our Representatives at a Congress or Conference on the Table before that Conference is concluded. I do not mean to say that there have been no exceptions to the rule, but the exceptions are exceedingly rare. On the present occasion I do not think there is any temptation to commit an irregularity, because the Instructions, if laid upon the Table, would not interest my noble Friend in the least. They are of the most general character, and mainly echo the terms of the Despatch in which the invitation to the Conference was accepted. It is obvious that only general Instructions could be given, because we were not aware of the precise nature of the proposals which, it was the intention of the German or other Governments to submit. If the Conference had been one of our suggestion, or had been summoned by this country, of course the summons would have been given with certain specific objects which might have been dwelt upon in Instructions to Plenipotentiaries. But where the Conference is of a character so entirely novel, and the precise nature of the recommendations suggested for submission is a matter of uncertainty, there clearly could be no advantage in giving hypothetical Instructions. Of course, our Representatives act on the principle that nothing of importance shall be assented to without the sanction of Her Majesty's Government being first obtained; and, knowing who the Representatives are, I do not think that there is any danger of their giving any unwise or incautious assent. But I have every ground for believing that, although the results of the Conference
  1666
  may not appear very large as compared to the sensation which the Conference has created and the notice which has been attracted to it, still considerable advantage will result from, its deliberations, and not the smallest advantage will be that it will give some hope that other countries will come up to the level which this country has already attained in the care which it bestows on the regulation of infant and female labour, and for the provision of the weekly rest which we so much value. If that is done, not only will a great and philanthropic end be obtained, but also a great end of justice for the labourers of this country. Our working population has now for many years past been working at a great disadvantage in point of pure commercial competition by reason of the very care and precautions which Parliament has properly taken in their higher interests which I have named. If that result comes from the Conference, it will be of great advantage. I do not say that other results may not come, and that there may not be matters coming up at the Conference with respect to which Parliament will have subsequently to be consulted; but I think that there is every ground for believing that the recommendations which the Conference is likely to make will be in general harmony with those principles which the English Parliament has hitherto pursued.

THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE SWEATING SYSTEM.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: In asking your Lordships to exempt me from further attendance on the Select Committee which you appointed three Sessions ago to inquire into the Sweating System, I do not think it would be proper for me to go into my reasons in detail on this occasion, however desirous and anxious I might be to do so, and I am most anxious. Your Lordships will, I think, realise that this inquiry is, in some respects, very peculiar in its character. You will understand that it is not a very pleasant thing to ask to be dissociated from one's Colleagues in a matter of this kind, and I hope your Lordships will believe that, in my mind at any rate, the motives which actuate me are amply, and more than amply, sufficient. Your Lordships know that, in the first week of last August, your Com-

1667
mittee decided to postpone, on account of the late period of the Session, the consideration of the Draft Report, which, as Chairman, it was my duty to bring up. And you are probably aware, because it appears to be generally known, that when the Committee re-assembled a month ago they, on a Division, unanimously decided not to take into consideration that same Draft Report; and they have not met since. I do not wish to make any remarks about that, other than to say that it indicates, of course, a very considerable difference of opinion between the Chairman and the Committee as to the whole nature and character of the Report that is called for by the evidence that was given before the Committee. The House will some day have an opportunity of judging of all these matters; and when your Committee report, assuming, of course, that I am still alive and not disabled by the decrepitude of extreme old age, I shall be able to enter into any explanation that may seem necessary or desirable. I will only add that I feel myself to be in a very unsatisfactory and equivocal position in so far as I am credited with duties and responsibilities that I am not in a position to fulfil and to discharge. I am and must be held liable, outside this House, at any rate, in matters of fact and opinion which I am powerless to affect or influence. If any good could result from my continuing to serve on your Lordships' Committee, I think it would be my duty to put on one side any considerations of that kind, however much my opinions or my views might be liable to misconception, but I can be of no service to the Committee or to the House, or to the public in this matter. Any useful work that I was able to perform was accomplished many months ago; and as I feel certain that no harm can possibly arise to any person interested in the matters that were brought before the Committee, I feel myself at liberty to ask your Lordships to relieve me from what I think is a false position, a position very unsatisfactory and disagreeable to me; and with all respect I ask your Lordships to dispense with my further services on this Committee.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, of course I do not rise for the purpose of objecting to the Motion of the noble Earl
1668
opposite, however much I and other Members of the Committee may regret the decision to which he has come; but I quite agree with him that this is not the time at which any controversial discussion can take place with regard to the causes of his retirement from the Committee. In the first place, it would be contrary to the Rules of this House to enter into a discussion upon the proceedings of a Committee which is still sitting and has not yet reported; in the next place, even if it were not contrary to order, it would be contrary to common sense, because it is quite obvious your Lordships can be no judges of the merits of a dispute with regard to which you have not the Papers before you. Neither the Report to which the noble Earl has referred nor any other which may be substituted for it are in your Lordships hands; and in the absence of those documents it is clearly impossible for you to form any judgment upon the question at issue. I will only say that in my judgment, and I may say in the unanimous judgment of those who sat with me upon the Committee, there is really no such fundamental difference of opinion between our views and those of the noble Earl as he seems to imagine, and we did not, and do not, see that there was anything to necessitate his retirement. At the same time, we fully admit that is entirely a question for him to decide. We therefore accept his decision, and we shall always do full justice to the care and attention and the assiduous labour which he has given to what lie truly calls an unusually difficult and protracted inquiry.
LORD THRING: My Lords, I feel called upon to make a few observations upon this subject, Of course, as the noble Lords have said, it is impossible for us to discuss the matter now. The draft Report of the noble Earl has not yet been made public. Those of the other noble Members of the Committee are not even printed yet, and, therefore, we cannot compare them. But there is one circumstance to which I feel bound to call your Lordships' attention. Immediately after the sitting took place at which the noble Earl's Report was rejected, there appeared a paragraph in various newspapers stating that the noble Earl's Report had been rejected because it showed too much sympathy with the poor and prophesying

1669
that the Report which bears my name would be colourless, would express no sympathy with the poor, and was altogether the Report of a political economist of the oldest and driest school. I shall say nothing with regard to the Report, for it will speak for itself; but this I will say, that I and the other noble Lords on the Committee were not less careful of the needs and wants of the poor than the noble Earl; and I am able for myself and Colleagues to express the admiration which we have felt at seeing the patience with which the poor bear their sufferings, at the absence of exaggeration on the part of the witnesses and the plain and simple way in which they related their tales of misery; and more than that, our admiration at that which has, perhaps, still more impressed itself upon our minds than any other circumstances in this inquiry, namely, the unbounded charity with which, according to the evidence, the poor relieve each other's necessities. I may assure your Lordships that the Report will do full justice to the conduct and needs of those whose position was inquired into.
Ordered, That the Lord Kenry (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl) be exempted from further attendance on the Select Committee.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.