Lords Sitting of 22 May 1890

REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR IRELAND.
Lord Carbery—Petition of William Charles Baron Carbery in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.

ROYAL ASSENT—COMMISSION.
The following Bill received the Royal Assent:—
Commissioners for Oaths Act (1889) Amendment.

ROYAL ASSENT—COMMISSION.
  EDUCATION OF BLIND AND DEAF MOTE CHILDREN BILL.
  A Bill to amend the law in regard to the education of blind and deaf-mute children in Scotland was presented by the Lord Ker (M. Lothian;) read la; and to be printed. (No. 101.)

PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I desire to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can give any information as to the progress of this Bill? It is regarded with great interest in Scotland, and the only news we have of it is that the Lord Advocate in the other House promised that the Second Reading should be taken before Whitsuntide. I am aware, of course, that there is a clog of business in the other House, but I hope my noble Friend will be able to give your Lordships favourable tidings with regard to the Bill.
*THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN): My noble Friend has kindly given me private notice of the question he has asked in regard to this Bill. I am almost tempted to answer my noble Friend's question in what is supposed to be Scottish fashion by putting another question in reply. I should be inclined to ask my noble Friend whether, from his great influence, he could give any information as to the progress likely to be made with Government measures in
1550
the other House? I have no doubt, however, from the statement which was made by an eminent statesman in East Anglia the other day as to the almost entire absence of obstruction in the other House, that the Second Reading-of this Bill will be taken in that House as set down on June 2. With regard to the assurance of the Lord Advocate, it was the intention of the Government to take the Second Reading before Whitsuntide if possible; but in consequence of that which my noble Friend is pleased to call the clog of business in the other House it is now impossible to do so. It is the intention of the Government that the Bill should come on at the earliest possible time, and I hope to he able soon to introduce it in your Lordships' House.

YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL. (No. 96.)
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order).
*LORD NORTON: My Lords, I will only say a few words upon this Bill. I do not intend to trouble your Lordships by moving any Amendment at this stage, but I will attempt to carry the Amendments I lost in the Standing Committee on the Third Reading. They are three in number, and they are intended, first, to prevent a child convicted of an ordinary, not for a grave, offence from being sent, during the interval between his conviction and his reception in the reformatory to a common gaol. My second object is that there should be places provided to which such children, if sentenced to imprisonment, could be sent, not being a common gaol, but to places for the purpose under Government control, in connection with a few principal reformatories, where the child might pass his sentence, not exceeding three weeks, or in worse cases for longer periods of imprisonment, before being sent to the reformatory school. My third object is that the education of such children after punishment should not be in schools of a penal character retaining the stigma of criminality during the whole of the child's education, and keeping up in the

1551
child's mind a sense of criminality which is not only cruel and unjust, but absolutely foolish and obstructive of the object of his being sent to school at all. The fact of there being provisions for child imprisonment in common gaols, and penal education in an amending Bill on the subject, I think, shows to what a small extent the idea on which those institutions have been founded has yet been generally accepted. Both the Commissioners' Report and the answers to Circulars which have been sent round to all the Petty Sessions in the Kingdom are against children of that description being, except in aggravated cases, sent to common gaols, and prove a growing opinion that ordinary child convicts should not be treated as adults. I venture to speak on this matter, for I have had very considerable acquaintance during nearly 50 years with the legislation and the working of these institutions, and with the sort of children who come to them.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOB INDIA (Viscount CROSS): It would be only respectful to the noble Lord who has just spoken that I should say I know no one who has paid more attention to the subject than he has done, or who has had more practical experience with the working of these schools. With the greatest sympathy, however, for the objects he has in view, I am afraid that I shall have to show reasons on the Third Reading why the Government cannot accept the propositions he has mentioned.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I only desire to say a few words upon the Report being received. I wish to express my great regret that, in consequence of the adoption of the system of Standing Committees, the public are quite unaware of the great pains which your Lordships have bestowed upon this and other kindred Bills. I have not been able myself to take part in the discussion upon them; but I think no one who has attended in those Standing Committees can doubt the minute criticism and care bestowed upon the Bills before them. Valuable, however, as the criticism is which is given in the Standing Committees, I think it would be still more valuable if it could be given in this House, where the Debates would be reported. The public would then have
1552
some knowledge of the pains and time which your Lordships have bestowed on these Bills. I make this protest, because I hope the time will come, before long, when the House will see how much it has lost by the system of Standing Committees, and how much it has thrown away by delegating to hole-and-corner meetings of Committees upstairs deliberations which ought to take place in the face of day.
LORD HERSCHELL: I do not see any reason for regretting the change which has been made. The misfortune in former times was that discussion did not take place in the House, and the work which is done by these Committees was not done at all. No doubt if the House were to deal with Bills in the same careful way as the Committees deal with them perhaps the same result might happen; but, unhappily, that has-not been done. I do not think anybody can doubt that Bills are now carefully revised in a manner which they never were before.
*LORD BRABOURNE: As I was the first to raise the standard of revolt against these Standing Committees I am glad to see that the feeling against them is becoming more widely extended than it was formerly. If it be a good thing that the Standing Committees should continue, I think it is desirable that a rather better record should be made of their proceedings than at present. Some of those proceedings are of great importance. For instance, we were debating the other day upon a question of principle. I was in a considerable minority, and when such is the case I always look forward to the time when that minority will become a majority; but, unfortunately, the record of the proceedings did not give the slightest clue as to what it was that the Committee voted upon. I can only say that the effect of these Standing Committees has, it appears to me, been exactly what I expected upon their being founded. I do not believe that Bills receive a more searching criticism in the Standing Committees than they used to receive in this House before the change was made. On the other hand, it is a change which debars a large number of Peers from taking part in the discussion of business which they are interested in, a change which entails that business being conducted with a certain

1553
amount of secrecy, and which, to my mind, has only the effect of spoiling the deliberations in your Lordships' House afterwards; because Peers apparently do not care afterwards to attend in the House and again debate upon the Bills.
*THE EARL OF HARROWBY: I quite agree with what my noble Friends near me have said. These Standing Committees now sit at half-past 3 o'clock, and if these large Committees can sit at that early hour, there is no reason why the House itself should not be summoned at that hour on occasions when there were heavy Bills to go through in Committee, and thus transact in public the work lately delegated to the Standing Committees—the work of which is now practically unrecorded. I have heard in former times most valuable discussions in Committee of the whole House, and these having been formerly recorded by the daily Press, often most valuable communications and suggestions from persons of experience outside were received, which enabled the House, by being thus brought into relations with persons of knowledge and experience regarding the questions in hand, to introduce useful Amendments at later stages—while the public were aware, from the newspaper reports of our discussions, of the reasons for Amendments made by your Lordships. I think the loss is very great, not only to the Public Service, but to the credit of the House, from doing in secret this very useful business of Committee. It has the effect of entirely precluding the public from being aware of what we are doing. I can only hope, in common with a large number of your Lordships who attend these Committees, that the matter may be re-considered hereafter.
*VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I entirely concur with what has fallen from my noble Friends. I do think it a very serious matter that the whole of these discussions should be withdrawn from the Committees of the whole House. I think one of the evil results which has not been pointed out by my noble Friends is that the public in general, being unaware of the time which is spent in discussing Bills in these Committees, is under the impression that when the House meets on Tuesdays at half-past 5 o'clock and adjourns, perhaps, at 20 minutes to 6.
1554
that is all the work the House has done during the day. They are necessarily unaware, because no Reports are published in the Press, of the fact that an hour and a half or a couple of hours has been devoted previously to the discussion of the very measures which make so little show in the Press reports of the Sittings of the House. It is most important that the feeling should not get abroad that this House is not giving the same full discussion to the matters which come before these Committees as the public have been accustomed to see transacted in public, when there are regular Reports given of the proceedings. I do not wish for a moment to detract from the great zeal and assiduity with which my noble Friends review the subjects which come before the Grand Committees; but those are facts of which the public is wholly unaware, and I think it does not reflect credit upon the proceedings of the House that so much of its business should be transacted behind the scenes. I observe, also, that very few notices of Motions or Questions are ever put down on Tuesdays as on account of the House meeting so late; whatever attendance there may have been before the Grand Committees, there is always a very thin attendance of Peers in the House.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, I do not wish to express any opinion as to whether these Committees have been found to be successful in their operation or not; but they have been found fault with for two reasons: In the first place, it is said that the subjects which are taken into consideration by them are withdrawn from the cognisance of the House. I wish to remind the House that it is entirely in the power of the House to prevent such a withdrawal, and to determine whether a Bill should be send to a Standing Committee or not upon notice given. After a Bill has been read a second time, a Motion is made by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to refer it to a Standing Committee, and it is for the House itself to give its assent to the Motion or to refuse it. Upon the Motion to refer the Bill to either the Committee on Law or the Committee for General Purposes, it is quite within the power of the House to decline to accede to it, and in that case the Bill

1555
would go before the Committee of the whole House. That evil, therefore, if it be one, may be remedied by the action of the House itself. As to the other fault found, namely, the want of publicity, of which complaint has been made, I can only say that on the first meeting of the Standing Committee the reporters asked leave to be present at the Sittings and to be allowed to report the proceedings; permission was given; but though the report was made on that occasion, we saw no more of the reporters. It is, of course, impossible for the House to ensure publication in the daily newspapers of an adequate report if the editors do not choose to publish it. I am afraid I see no remedy for that. But I think it. would be better if greater discrimination were used as to the Bills which are referred to the Standing Committees and those which are left for consideration by the Committee of the whole House.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, I quite agree with what has fallen from my noble Friends, and having been always opposed to the system of Grand Committees, I may, perhaps, be allowed to say a few words. With regard to the first objection by my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal,. that it is quite competent for the House when the Motion is made to refer a Bill to one of the Grand Committees to say that it shall be referred to a Committee of the whole House, I would appeal to my noble Friend himself, and ask him whether there would be the smallest chance in 99 cases out of 100 of that course being taken? In fact, the Grand Committees have been established for the purpose of having all the Bills possible taken before them.
EARL CADOGAN: No.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: Well, the greater part of the Bills introduced. I think he would be a bold man who would attempt to take from the cognisance of the Grand Committees the Bills which are proposed to be sent there. That is all I wish to say, but feeling very strongly that the system is a bad one, I did not like to let the matter pass without comment on my part.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to say a word upon this matter before he replies.
1556
Having attended the Committees regularly, I should like to point out that there are two sides to this question. Undoubtedly we have to balance between two evils, or two advantages, whichever you like to call them. On the one hand, there cannot be a doubt that the public get an impression that we are doing-nothing because we no longer go through Bills in full Committee when the Debates would obtain publicity. But the deliberations of the House in Committee upon Bills was not generally of a serious character. The Bills went through with very little discussion, and of that even very little appeared in the newspapers. At the present time I do not think it can be denied by anyone who has attended these Committees that the Bills which come before them do receive a more severe and complete examination, and there are several reasons why it should be so. One reason is, that the proceedings are somewhat less formal, and Members of your Lordships' House will get up and make most useful suggestions and observations, who might not make speeches in the House. Again, discussion is facilitated and time saved. I quite agree that the system is on its trial. But I would put this to my noble Friends who take an interest in this matter, that there are two things which are quite distinct—one is to do business, and the other to seem to be doing business. I think we are doing-business at the present time. I quite admit that we do not seem to be doing as much business as we are. It will be for the House to determine whether the advantages from the revision of Bills which come before us in Grand Committee are not sufficient to outweigh any disadvantages which the House may suffer from the public, owing to the change in our arrangements, being unaware of the work done. It is not quite true that there is no report made of the proceedings. On two occasions recently, when important discussions took place in Committee—my noble Friend opposite probably had not observed them—there were short reports of the proceedings given in the newspapers.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I only want to point out that nothing has been really withdrawn from

1557
the cognisance of the House, and that there has been no abbreviation of the proceedings of the House. I understand that certain of my noble Friends are panting to discuss in Committee these industrial Schools and Reformatory Kills. But why do not they do it? These Bills have all passed through Committee of the whole House. It was then open to my noble Friends to go through them with all the minuteness of detail which, we understand, was the practice in former times. But they never opened their lips. Was it that they were exhausted with what they had done in Standing Committee, or that they found it was impossible for them to repeat here the arguments used there? There was no reason whatever why the full discussion, which we are told used in past years always to take place in Committee of the whole House, should not have taken place in all its former amplitude of detail. The matter lies entirely in the hands of noble Lords themselves, and depends upon their appreciation of the importance of a measure. But I entirely agree with the noble Lords opposite that there was no discussion on Bills of this class in Committee in former years. Bills of adequate importance were no doubt discussed in Committee, but Bills of a less important character were not discussed in Committee at all. I have gone carefully through the record in Hansard of similar Bills which have been passed in previous years, and have carefully examined that record to see what discussion they received in Committee of the whole House, and I find that before the Standing Committees were appointed Bills of the less important class received very little examination in Committee. What the cause is, why Bills which are so carefully examined in Committee are so perfunctorily discussed in the House, I do not know. There seems to be something in the atmosphere of this House or in its traditions which makes noble Lords unwilling to open their months within its walls; but I appeal to the experience of those who have sat constantly through the Debates in this House in former years as to whether our mode of dealing with the committal of Bills in former times was distinguished by that thorough discussion on details the opportunity for which it is now complained has been withdrawn.
Bills reported without further amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday, the 12th of June next.

SUCK RIVER DRAINAGE (PROVISION OF FUNDS) BILL.—(No. 92.)
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment; and to be read 3a on Monday, the 9th of June next.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 57.)
Read 3a (according to order), with the amendments; Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons: and to be printed as amended. (No. 103.)

ADJOURNMENT.
Moved, "That the House do adjourn to Thursday, 5th June."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: On the Motion for the Adjournment I will take the opportunity of suggesting, with regard to the minute examination of Bills, that if the noble and learned Lord Herschell and the noble Lord who sits near him would bring to bear in this House that minute and valuable criticism which they bring to bear in Committees upstairs we should all benefit very much. I really must say that I think the noble and learned Lord opposite is alike the sole cause and vindication of the system of Standing Committees upstairs.
*LORD BRABOURNE: I wish to call the noble Marquess's attention to one fact. He states that nothing has been withdrawn from the consideration of the House by referring Bills to a Grand Committee. I cannot agree in that. Take, for instance, the General Standing Committee. I am not a Member of that Committee, but I am a Member of the Committee on Law. I was told that if I applied I could be nominated on both Committees. On inquiry I found that the number of Peers which could be added to the other Committee was limited, and when I asked to be put on it I found it was not possible to be done. Only certain noble Lords are Members of that Committee, and the power of discussing such Bills as go before it is practically taken away from

1559
those noble Lords who are not Members of that Committee. It is not in human nature to get up in this House and recommence a discussion upon a Bill which, one knows has already been fully discussed upstairs.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would only reply to what my noble Friend has said that that limitation of Members appears to be an error which I think it might be very desirable to correct. I think any such result as he has related was certainly not contemplated and ought not to have taken place. There should be no difficulty in adding to a Grand Committee any noble Lord who desires to be a Member of it. But I cannot admit that it is not in human nature to discuss again in this House a Bill which has been already discussed upstairs in Committee. There are G70 specimens of human nature legislating a "little further down the House, and I believe those 670 specimens of human nature find no difficulty in discussing, and discussing at considerable length, Bills which have previously been dealt with upstairs.
On Question agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes before Five o'clock, to Thursday, the 5th of June next, a quarter past Four o'clock.