Lords Sitting of 27 July 1891

NEW PEERS.
Sir George Stephen, Baronet, having been created Baron Mount Stephen, of Mount Stephen, in the Province of British Columbia and Dominion of Canada, and of Dufftown, in the County of Banff—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Samuel Cunliffe Lister, Esquire, having been created Baron Masham, of Swinton, in the County of York—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
Report, &c., of the Select Committee of the House of Commons: Communicated (pursuant to message of Tuesday last), and to be printed. (No. 267.)
RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
Proceedings of the Select Committee laid upon the Table, and to be printed (No. 268); and Minutes of Evidence to be delivered out.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY AND MR. STOREY.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I venture to ask your indulgence while I bring under your notice a matter concerning which I wish to make a personal explanation. I am sorry to occupy your time, but after the statements which have been made with reference to myself by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), on Thursday last, you will admit that I am fully justified in not allowing them to pass unnoticed and unchallenged, especially as those statements included the names of several other people who, on account of their position, are unable to reply for themselves. I would have brought this matter forward on Friday last, but, in the first place, I was anxious to obtain a
  374
  copy of the local paper which would contain a full report of the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland; and therefore I got a copy of Mr. Storey's own paper, which can devote more space to the speeches of a politician of the calibre of Mr. Storey than can the London papers. I further wished to obtain the fullest information with respect to the statement he made about myself from those who were best in a position to give it. This information has immensely strengthened my belief in the opinion generally held—that when a man has succeeded in making himself sublimely ridiculous, he invariably attempts to shift the responsibility of his folly on to some one else's shoulders. Mr. Storey is no exception to the general rule. He has attempted to fix the responsibility of his own folly on to the shoulders of no fewer than five persons; one a policeman, whom he says he can summon, and four others, myself among them, the chief constable of the county, and two inspectors of police. The statement that Mr. Storey made on Thursday is due to the prosecution of him by the police for perjury in connection with some evictions which took place in February last at some collieries of mine called Silksworth, in the county of Durham. In alluding to this prosecution on Thursday last, Mr Storey said that—
  "It was a police prosecution ostensibly, but the police did not venture to take the money out of the county fund, as they had a right to do, but went to private persons and to the owner of the colliery, the Marquess of Londonderry, for money with which to prosecute him."
  And further on he said:—
  "What is my remedy now? I could commence an action for damages against policeman Snaith. That is to say, that Colonel White, the two inspectors, and Lord Londonderry, who had combined in the matter, or found the money for conducting these criminal proceedings, would escape scot-free. I have no power over them, and if I have a remedy I could only go against the policeman."
  I am glad to take the first opportunity of contradicting most emphatically and flatly every word of Mr. Storey's statement. I was never approached myself and asked to provide money for this prosecution, nor was my agent, and I can assure your Lordships that I have not given a shilling towards it I therefore, as flatly and emphatically as is in my power, contra-

  375
  dict the statement of Mr. Storey. If I may venture to go further, and trespass on your Lordships' time, I will tell your Lordships what were the facts of the case. I need not enter at length into the evictions at Silks worth, for the simple reason that in March last I wrote a somewhat long letter to the Daily News on account of attacks which that paper had made upon me in connection with the evictions, and I am bound to say that in one of their leading articles within the next few days they gave me a fair and full apology. Mr. Storey came down for the purpose of attending these evictions, on February 20, and proceeded to a house known as Newport Farm, which is my own private property. He insisted on entering that house, in which, at the time, there were certain policemen and two inspectors named Oliver and Burrell. They requested him to leave the house, and on his refusing to do so they very properly ejected him into the street. On this he instituted a prosecution against the police on the ground of assault. I instructed my agent to render those policemen every possible assistance in the way of obtaining legal aid to defend them. In consequence the charge against one policeman was dismissed with costs against Mr. Storey, and Mr. Storey very wisely withdrew the charge against the other. Now, my Lords, I am glad of the opportunity which Mr. Storey has afforded me of expressing to you the opinion of those qualified to give it, that they regarded with sincere admiration the conduct of the police during the disturbances which took place at Silksworth. They said that the police displayed a moderation and a toleration which entitled them to the highest praise. But for that moderation and that toleration serious consequences might have ensued, and had these consequences taken place there is no impartial person who would have held Mr. Storey absolutely irresponsible. I thank your Lordships most sincerely for the manner in which you have allowed me to make this personal explanation, and for the indulgence you have accorded me. I trust that I have explained and proved to your Lordships that the statement made in the House of Commons on Thursday last is synonymous with the name of the man who made it, and that man is the hon. Member for Sunderland.

PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) BILL.— (No. 255.)
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments.
*LORD THRING: My Lords, I hope the noble Viscount opposite will regard with favour a clause which I move on behalf of my noble Friend Lord Clifford, which is to come in after Clause 7—that is the clause which provides that after two convictions for overcrowding, a house shall be shut up. This clause provides that when the house is shut up the owner may go to the Court and ask the Court to adjust the rights between the occupier and himself; in other words, the Court may on such conditions as it thinks right and proper turn out the occupier in order that the owner may do his duty. I do not see, myself, why the owner should be driven to proceedings in ejectment when the Court which has cognisance of the case and knows all about it, can deal with it. I confess I think that the Court may very properly be called upon to determine the rights as between the owner and occupier. I was told that the noble Viscount intended to bring in a clause in some other Bill. I quite admit that no one is better acquainted with the details of such legislation than the noble Viscount, but even if he did intend to introduce it into another Bill I trust your Lordships will think this Amendment is necessary.
Moved to insert the following new clause to follow Clause 7, page 6, line 3:—
"When a closing order has been made as to any premises, the owner of such premises may apply to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and the Court shall thereupon summon the occupier or occupiers of such premises to show cause why he or they should not forthwith give up possession to the owner, and upon the hearing of such summons, the Court, if it thinks fit, shall by warrant cause possession of the premises to be given to the owner within a reasonable time, to be stated in such warrant, and shall make such order as to the cost of the proceedings as to the Court shall seem meet."—(The Lord Thring.)
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, my right hon. Friend, the President of the Local Government Board, objects strongly to putting that clause here. If anything of the kind was wanted, it should have been put in in the Bill

377
which was passed last year with regard to the Housing of the Working. Classes. Your Lordships will think, I consider, that it would be very inconvenient to put in this clause, because you will find there is provision that when a nuisance arises notice shall be served on the owner, or, if he cannot be found, on the occupier. Then, if any structural alteration is necessary, of course notice has to be given to the owner, and if he does not do his duty, he will be subject to the penalties provided under the 4th and 5th clauses of this Bill. If the occupier is to be passed over for the purpose of the owner getting the premises into his own hands, it would be rather a premium on his not performing his duty and doing what he ought to do. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot accept the proposed clause.
*LORD THRING: I shall not press the Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Clause 41 and Clause 60.
Verbal Amendments made.
LORD HERSCHELL: In regard to the Amendment in Clause 60, page 35, line 40, for compensating the owners of houses or articles for damage caused thereto, or upon the destruction of any article, by the authorities, I would suggest to the noble Viscount that he should move the Amendment, omitting the words "and in case of dispute shall be settled by"; and for this reason, that the words "shall be recoverable in a Petty Sessional Court," would, of course, give that Court jurisdiction to settle the dispute in cases involving any amount. You do not want those words "to settle" disputes, because you would have this inconvenience, that under the section in the other Act, with regard to proceedings for recovering penalties, if the matter be taken before the County Court it is to be treated as if such claim were a debt. If you leave those words in, it might be open to the construction that even if persons were desirous of going to the County Court their claims could not be settled there. That, of course, is not intended. It will do no harm to leave the words out.
*VISCOUNT CROSS: I will agree to that. Then the end of the clause will read, "shall be recoverable in a Petty Sessional Court."
Amendment moved, in Clause 60, page 35, line 40, to leave out from (" shall ") to the end of the clause and insert—
"Compensate the master or owner of such house or part of a house, or the owner of such article, for any unnecessary damage thereby caused to such house, part of a house, or article; and when the authority destroy any article under this section they shall compensate the owner thereof; and the amount of any such compensation shall be recoverable in a Petty Sessional Court."—(The Viscount Cross.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 108.
*VISCOUNT CROSS: In this clause I have to move to leave out the words "or Sanitary Inspector." This is a point which was raised in Standing Committee, and I object to the insertion of those words on behalf of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board. The Standing Committee took a different view, and I have to ask your Lordships to reverse the opinion of the Standing Committee. The question is simply as to dismissal of the Sanitary Inspector, and it was sought by the insertion of these words to place him on the same footing as the Medical Officer. This is a question which has disturbed the Local Authorities very much. As originally drawn, the Bill had those words in; but very great objection was taken to them in the House of Commons; and an arrangement was come to by my right hon. Friend and all those who opposed the Bill, that the words should be omitted. In consequence of that agreement the opposition was withdrawn, and the Local Authorities were satisfied. As the Bill came up to your Lordships' House, therefore, those words were not in, but the Standing Committee inserted them, although I did all I could to prevent their doing so. I have now to ask your Lordships to strike out the words which the Standing Committee put in.
Moved in Clause 108, page 56, line 20, leave out ("or Sanitary Inspector"); lines 25 and 26, leave out ("or Sanitary Inspector"); line 28, leave out ("or Sanitary Inspector").—(The Viscount Cross.)
*EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I should not have attached so much importance to these words and have pressed their restoration rather than retention so much, if it had not happened that I have had almost a life-long experience of the great importance of enabling subordinate as well as more important officers in the work of Local Government to act fearlessly and independently. From the very first passing of what used to be called the New Poor Law, though it is now more than half a century old, a number of their officials, the Relieving Officers, the Medical Officers, and Masters of workhouses were rendered irremovable without the consent, in the first instance, of the Poor Law Commissioners, then of the Poor Law Board who replaced them, and now of the Local Government Board. Having served on a Board of Guardians, mostly as chairman and vice-chairman, for more than 40 years, and having during the greater part of the remainder of that time held the place of Secretary to the Poor Law Board, I can testify from experience, not only in a country Union, but from correspondence with Unions in all parts of the kingdom, as to the very great value and importance of enabling officers to discharge their duties fearlessly, without the dread of being dismissed at the instigation of some influential person in the body, whether a Sanitary Authority or Board of Guardians, or a London Vestry. The position of a Sanitary Inspector is still more invidious, still more open to misrepresentation, and still more likely to give offence than the position of a Relieving Officer. It is notorious—I speak from my experience now in another capacity, as having had a good deal to do for some years with the sanitary affairs of the Metropolis. I sat for years on more than one successive Metropolitan Commission of Sewers. I had the honour of being selected as chairman for all the latter portion of the time, and I know that sanitary improvement is in many instances just as unpopular with the tenants and lodgers, whose health is suffering from the unsanitary conditions in which they are, as it is with the owners of those unwholesome tenements. I am old enough to remember when one of the most powerful cries at an election was "The poor man's pig," and it is
380
difficult to say who was the most indignant at the compulsory removal of the pigs from the immediate proximity to human habitation, the owner of the pig or his neighbour. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the popular feeling among those who are most subject to the evils resulting from unsanitary conditions is on the side of improvement; it very often is just the reverse. The position of the Sanitary Inspector, who may be considered, as it were, a private in the ranks of the sanitary army, whereas the medical officer of health, who is made irremovable by this Bill without the consent of the Local Government Board, may be considered as one of the officers, is without some such protection as this, a most invidious and hazardous one. Sanitary inspectors are liable to be either tempted to neglect their duty or to suffer a real martyrdom, and to be deprived of their livelihood by giving offence to some influential vestryman—and under this Act the Local Sanitary Authority is the vestry—a vestryman who perhaps has taken great pains to get himself elected in order to protect from needful, but perhaps rather costly, sanitary improvement, the unsanitary dwellings and lodgings for which he is receiving a high rent. More than half the Sanitary Inspectors have now, in London, got certificates of competent sanitary knowledge from the Sanitary Institute after a regular course of pretty stringent examination by men like Sir Douglas Galton, Professor Schofield, Professor Corfield, and others, who are themselves notoriously experts in sanitary matters. I think the practical value of this Bill will be very much impaired by the elimination of the words in question, and of the protection to the Sanitary Inspectors; and highly valuable as it is, for it is consolidation into an accessible and intelligible form of the multifarious sanitary statutes under which the inhabitants of the metropolis are living, its practical value will be very much diminished; if all those whose business it specially is to examine and inquire from house to house are to do so at the hazard of their situations, and danger of being deprived of their livelihood by interested parties, owners—one may use the word "owner" because that does not necessarily mean the ground landlord—who, as I have said, in many cases

381
have taken pains to get elected in order to prevent the requisite sanitary improvements from being made at their expense. After, as I have said, a lifelong experience, almost, of the value of protection to officials who are engaged in useful, but unpopular duties, and as one who, for more than forty years, has devoted himself very much to the great sanitary cause, I most earnestly entreat the House not to accede to the elimination of these very important words.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My noble Friend has stated at such great length the arguments in favour of the amendment which he moved in Standing Committee, and which it is now proposed to strike out, that I owe an apology to your Lordships for saying a word upon it; but I think the matter is one of some importance, and I must say I deeply regret to find that the noble Viscount intends to strike out these words. The matter lies in a very small compass indeed. The Sanitary Inspectors have extremely invidious duties to perform, and it seems to me more than any officer who is employed under the bodies controlled by the Local Government Board can be expected to do without protection. It is desirable, I think, that he should not be dismissed without the consent of the Local Government Board. This is not a new principle at all; it has always been applied as regards all the officers who serve under Boards of Guardians, and they certainly have duties less invidious to perform than those of the Sanitary Inspectors. Even a Medical Officer hardly has, I think, duties so difficult to perform with perfect honesty as a Sanitary Inspector. I do not wish to impute any particular laxity in the performance of their duties to the Sanitary Authorities; but it must be perfectly obvious that where there are men sitting on a Board, who are themselves, as is constantly the case, with others on the Board, interested in the nuisances which are to be suppressed, the Sanitary Officer will be tempted to exercise the duties of his office with an extreme lenity. It is notorious that this is the case, and especially is it so, I am told, in London, where Sanitary Officers have not always done their duty. I think it is very important indeed in passing an Act of
382
this kind, the whole value of which consists not in the mere passing of the Act, but in the way in which it may be administered, that we should give this protection to the Sanitary Officers. It appears to me that was the intention of the Government originally, and although they have given way to pressure from the very bodies who are interested in the matter, and who ought not to have been listened to on the subject, I still hope the House will preserve the Amendment and keep the Bill as it left the Standing Committee.
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I should just like to say one word upon this matter. I have heard with great regret that the noble Viscount proposes to omit these words. He offered no argument upon the merits of this omission; he simply said he proposed their omission because there were a good many vestrymen who would not like them to be retained. That rather appears to me to be an argument for the retention of the words. Every argument that applies to giving the Medical Officer of Health the protection of the Local Government Board, applies with greater force to the case of the Sanitary Inspector, who is a man whose task is even more invidious than that of the Medical Officer, and he is a smaller man, so to speak, and therefore more liable to be under the influence of the vestrymen than the other officers. It is not proposed to make the Sanitary Inspector independent; I should be very sorry to think he should be placed in an independent position, because be might act unreasonably, or take an unreasonable view of the facts in certain cases; but it is necessary he should be protected, otherwise he cannot be expected to perform his very invidious task.
*VISCOUNT CROSS: I would ask your Lordships to allow me to say one word more. I think the noble Lord who has just sat down has rather misunderstood my argument. The argument which I presented to your Lordships was that the Government, having introduced the words originally, were compelled to give way in the other House, and that they pledged themselves, as far as they were concerned, that those words should not appear in the Bill. I am very much afraid that, if we insisted upon these

383
words remaining in, we might very much imperil the passing of the Bill.
On question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 12; Not-Contents 31.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

IMPRISONMENT UNDER THE VACCINATION ACTS.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD HERSCHELL,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in recent cases, persons committed to prison for breach of the Vaccination Acts have not been treated as criminals, and not as persons committed to prison for nonpayment of a sum of money, said: My Lords, I am led to put this question to Her Majesty's Government owing to an answer which was given some time ago to a question put by my noble Friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. The answer that was then given by my noble Friend Lord De Ramsey to that question was understood by me certainly to be to the effect that persons committed to prison for breach of the Vaccination laws were treated as persons committed for nonpayment of sums of money, and that their treatment was the same as that of debtors. I expressed my satisfaction with that answer, and stated that I was glad that was now the treatment to which those persons were subjected. Since that time, however, I have received various communications on the subject, alleging that since that time persons committed to prison for breaches of the Vaccination Laws have had to sleep on the plank bed and have been made to pick oakum; and that question having arisen with regard to one person and his treatment in a particular gaol, the Home Office have stated, in answer to an inquiry, that the imprisonment was in respect of the non-payment of a penalty for disobedience to a judicial order under Section 31 of the Vaccination Act, 1867, and that the instructions given were that the prisoner should be treated as a convicted criminal prisoner not sentenced to hard labour. Those instructions seem to me to be quite inconsistent with the answer given in this
  384
  House by the noble Lord, unless there is some distinction drawn between the treatment of some vaccination offenders and other vaccination offenders, because certainly the treatment of a convicted criminal prisoner not sentenced to hard labour is not the treatment usually meted out to persons imprisoned in respect of the non-payment of a sum of money. At least that is what I understood when I expressed my satisfaction with the answer of the noble Lord. The matter is of some importance, because I find the only point on which those not opposed to vaccination and those who are opposed to vaccination are pretty well agreed, is that it is inexpedient to add to the punishment of detention in prison for breaches of Vaccination Laws, the treatment as a criminal of the person so convicted. The reason why those opposed to vaccination are opposed to this course is obvious, and I need not refer further to that; but the reason why those who are favourable to vaccination are opposed to such a course is that it does not really tend to increase the number of persons vaccinated; while, on the other hand, it certainly does intensify and extend the area of the opposition to vaccination; and therefore, it is a proceeding with which neither those who are opposed to vaccination nor those who are favourable to it are satisfied. If this be the practice, and if it be possible for the Home Office by any regulations to alter the practice, I would certainly, speaking entirely impartially as between those in favour of vaccination and those opposed to it, urge upon Her Majesty's Government the great inexpediency of the treatment of those persons as convicted criminals, which I believe does no good to the cause of vaccination, but, on the contrary, does a good deal of harm.
  *LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, I regret, if through any doubtful expression in my answer last May, I led the noble and learned Lord to believe anything but what is actually the true state of the case. My answer was correct as I am informed, and I have but to repeat it to-day, but I will endeavour to make my meaning perhaps a little clearer than it was on the 11th May last. The noble and learned Lord suggested just now that there is a division in the way in which the

  385
  prisoners are treated. That is so. If a conviction takes place, and a fine is imposed, and is not paid, then that prisoner is treated as an ordinary criminal; but the difference occurs here: that where the default is in respect of costs only, the prisoner is treated as a debtor.
  LORD HERSCHELL: The difference is between cases where a fine has not been paid, and cases where there are costs only, and no fine?
  *LORD DE RAMSEY: Yes, that is the difference. The noble and learned Lord knows very well, I have no doubt, that a case of this sort can be found; a case was tried by Lord Justice Lindley in 1884 bearing exactly on the question which has now been twice put to me. I do not know whether I have explained the matter sufficiently. I have no more details, but if it is desired I should answer further, of course I will.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not, of course, press the matter if the noble Lord is not prepared now to make a further statement on the subject; but what I should like to suggest to him is, whether the Home Office would consider the expediency, if it is possible, in the case of those persons who are imprisoned even upon the imposition of a fine which they have not paid for breaches of the Vaccination Laws, of treating them as debtors or persons committed for non-payment of money; that is to say, of treating such prisoners, not as convicted criminals, but in the same way as if it were only a question of costs.
  *LORD DE RAMSEY: As far as I understand it, the matter rests in this way: when a man is in prison, what is he in prison for? Is he in prison for neglecting to pay the fine imposed upon him, or for neglecting to pay the costs, which, I believe, is called, "disobedience to an order"? If he is in prison for neglecting to pay a fine he is in one class, and is treated accordingly; and if he is there for not paying costs he is in another, and is treated as a debtor.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: We perfectly understand the explanation which the noble Lord has given; but what my noble and learned Friend wants to know is something else—not an explanation of the two kinds of convictions, but whether or not the Home Secretary can order, and if he can, whether or not he considers it would
  386
  be highly expedient to do so, as I certainly think it would, that in cases where prisoners had been fined, not merely where they have costs to pay, for not complying with the Vaccination Laws, those prisoners should be treated as debtors?
  *LORD DE RAMSEY: I am not prepared to answer that at this moment. I must ask the noble and learned Lord to give me notice of the question.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I will ask the question on a later day.

SALE OF GOODS BILL [H.L.]—(No. 262.)
Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 259.)

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I have to move certain Amendments, and I am very sorry I have not been able to place them on the Paper, as the Bill in the present form had not been circulated to the Members of the House in time. I have three Amendments to propose. They are not Amendments so much of substance as to explain the meaning of the Bill in various clauses, and to carry out what I believe is the intention of its promoters. The purpose of the first is to secure that the meeting of the District Committee, at which it is resolved to apply to the County Council, shall be a special meeting.
  Amendment moved in Clause 2, line 24, after the word "passed" to insert the words "and such application having been sanctioned"; and in the next line to strike out the words "a meeting" and to substitute therefor the word "meeting."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  *LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My noble Friend has been good enough to show me this Amendment before the House met, and I have no objection to it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The next Amendment is in Clause 5. The

  387
  object of this Amendment is to explain exactly what the Local Authority is for the purpose of borrowing. There is no doubt it is the County Council; but at the same time it is thought better that the words "County Council" should be inserted. I beg to move that Amendment.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 5, page 3, line 37, after the word "the" to insert "the County Council as the."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  *LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I have no objection.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The purpose of the next Amendment is to make the procedure under Clause 6 the same as the procedure under Clause 2.
  Amendment moved in clause 6, page 4, line 6, after the word "authority" to insert the words "at a meeting called by special notice to resolve by an absolute majority of their number."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  Bill to be read 3a to-morrow, and to be printed as amended. (No. 269.)

TURBARY (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 265.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, this is a Bill, the object of which is to enable the Land Commission, when tenants on an estate have purchased their holdings, to buy up any charge on the estate for the purpose of taking advantage of the turbary, the costs to be defrayed as part of the expenses of the Land Commission, and all the sums received by the Land Commission in respect of the Turbary so purchased will be under charge of the Treasury, and they will be applied as in appropriation of the money provided by the Land Commission, or they will be paid into the Exchequer. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and Committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

METALLIFEROUS MINES (ISLE OF MAN) BILL.—(No. 225.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, this is a Bill for clearing up some doubt that has arisen as to the jurisdiction of a Court in that island to enforce penalties under the Metalliferous Mines Act. The intention is to put the Isle of Man on an equality with England in this matter. I beg to move the Second Reading.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

POST OFFICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 254.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (the Marquess of SALISBUBY): My Lords, this is a Bill for the purpose of increasing the facilities given by the Post Office to the public in a number of small matters, among others that of having re-directed letters sent on without additional payment. All the alterations are in favour of the public, and I have no doubt the Bill will meet with your Lordships' approval.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

PENAL SERVITUDE BILL.—(No. 249.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a
  *LORD NORTON: My Lords, I wish to say a few words upon the Third Reading of this Bill. I want to ask whether there is any intention of renewing the proposal which was made in a most elaborate and able speech of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Herschell) last year, for a revision of our secondary sentences. I think this Bill shows more than ever the importance of such a revision, and the urgent necessity

  389
  of it. The Bill very usefully restores the minimum term of penal servitude, which was most unfortunately omitted in an Act which was placed on the Statute Book during a panic in 1864; but it shows more glaringly than ever the want of anything like system in the sentences to secondary punishments, It enacts that a sentence of imprisonment for two years may be awarded in cases in which the Act requires a sentence of penal servitude. In official statements from the Home Office it has been urged lately that the two punishments have become the same. Imprisonment with hard labour and penal servitude are sentences practically in the same category of punishment, only differing in duration, and in the necessity in the longer term, that of penal servitude, of a period being passed on public works preparing for discharge. I think myself that penal servitude was altogether a mistaken phraseology in substituting for transportation a new punishment which really had nothing whatever to do with it. It does not carry a greater terror than a sentence to imprisonment with hard labour—rather the reverse, in consequence of the uncertainty with which it is necessarily carried out under the present system; but when two secondary punishments are decided to be punishments of the same kind, yet differently named, in the same category it is important that both the judges and criminals may understand what they mean. There is confusion in the series of punishments by making two punishments of the same kind designated differently, and still more as this Bill proposes to make one mean the other at the discretion of the Judge. I think this shows the necessity of revision. Nothing can be more striking to anybody who visits our prisons than the number of recommitments; in fact, you may say that a first commitment is a rarity in our prisons. Nine-tenths of the prisoners, have been convicted five or six, and even as many as twenty times. That shows an inefficacy in our existing form of secondary punishments, which is very much caused by indistinctness of phraseology, which makes the penal code unintelligible both to the Judges and to the criminals. What is wanted is something like a definite principle laid down as to the meaning of our punishments and cumulative sentences upon the repetision
  390
  of crime. I want to ask, especially, the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Herschell), whose Motion for a Commission of Inquiry was accompanied by a very full and most able statement of the reasons why such an inquiry should be carried out, whether this Bill is all that is necessary. I observe that the noble and learned Lord in that speech reflected also upon the system of police supervision upon the discharge of prisoners as very much requiring reconsideration. All these experiments require re-consideration from time to time; and the noble and learned Lord suggested, and I fully agree with his suggestion, that now our Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies are distributed throughout the whole of the kingdom, they might be made a much safer and more practical mode of enabling discharged prisoners to get into employment, and to get into industrial life, than the police supervision which must, with all its details of reporting from time to time, be a great hindrance to a man's restoration to anything like a feeling of self-respect as far as regards himself, and a great check upon employers taking him into their service. Everybody is delighted with the undoubted fact that crime is being very much reduced in this country; and, therefore, many people are hastily thinking, if that is the case, what is the use of looking into the system. The system must be good under which crime has been reduced. But the reduction of crime, I think, as your Lordships will allow, is attributable not to the perfection of our penal system—I think that has been rather adverse to the reduction of crime—but it is attributable to the extension of education and the reformatory system, and to the Discharged Prisoners' Aid system in this country. Those are the three causes of the great reduction of crime. But that is no reason why we should not look into the faulty system which is fraught with injury and impediment to the effective execution of the law. I rather address my question to the noble and learned Lord opposite, whether he has any intention to re-introduce early next Session the Motion urging the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into this subject which he so ably proposed last year?
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, in answer to the question put to me by the noble Lord, I certainly do feel as strongly as I did when I brought the matter before your Lordships somewhat more than a year ago, that the time has come when inquiry might be very usefully made into our present system of punishments, with a view to see whether there could not be a better gradation of sentences than now exists, and also to inquire into the question of these particular terms of punishments, imprisonment and penal servitude. That inquiry has become more necessary in consequence of the one term becoming more assimilated to the other by means of the present Bill. There can be no doubt that different views do prevail among those who administer the law, not merely as to what is expedient to be done in particular cases, but as to the principle of awarding sentences. There are those who believe that anything beyond the first offence must be followed by very severe sentences; there are others who believe that for even many offences committed after the first one, if they are small ones, the sentences inflicted ought not to be for periods of lengthened detention. Those views have been acted upon at Quarter Sessions on one side and the other for a long time past; and I think the time has now arrived when inquiry might usefully be made as to the effect which has been produced during several years past by the application of those different systems. I think the present state of things has gone on long enough to enable useful knowledge to be obtained as to what the results have been as regards the repetition of offences and the numbers of persons imprisoned under the various sentences. There are other matters to which the noble Lord has referred, as, for instance, whether we could improve the present system of supervision of prisoners who are to be placed under some supervision for a time after their sentences have expired, and adopt some system which shall not tend, as it is to be feared the present system tends, to render it difficult for those who have been convicted to obtain or keep employment. The truth is, our present system has been going on for a very considerable time without inquiry, and I cannot help thinking there is an advantage in from
  392
  time to time overhauling a system of this sort by means of inquiry to ascertain where we stand and what improvements might be made, and, therefore, entertaining these views, I still propose to call the attention of the House to the subject, and early next Session to ask your Lordships to consider whether it is not expedient that such an inquiry should be made by a Royal Commission, Committee, or otherwise.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am under the impression that my noble and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department have already agreed on an inquiry into this subject. That is the information that has reached me from the Home Secretary.
  LORD HERSCHELL: No; the Home Secretary has communicated to me his willingness to grant an inquiry into the treatment of habitual drunkards, but he is not willing to extend it further.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think my noble and learned Friend has misunderstood the Home Secretary, or the Home Secretary has altered his mind since I made inquiry. If my noble and learned Friend will approach the Home Secretary I think he will find that he is not unprepared to have some inquiry on this subject.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am very glad to hear what the noble and learned Lord has said. I think it would be a pity to confine the inquiry to habitual drunkards. What is required is an inquiry upon the subject of habitual criminals. I had the honour to introduce a Bill into this House in 1869 which dealt with the treatment of habitual criminals. I think the time has arrived when it is very desirable to make some inquiry and see whether the system requires alteration and improvement, in these matters especially; and I am sure the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, will agree with me that it is quite necessary from time to time to look into the system and see whether changes are required. Such a step, of course, implies no want of confidence in the present Prison Commissioners. I remember when the inquiry took place upon penal servitude the very able Chairman of the Prison Commission, Sir Edmund Du Cane, told me that inquiries from time to time strengthened

  393
  the hands of the Prison Commission, for complaints which there is otherwise no opportunity of answering are very often shown to be groundless upon inquiry. The question of supervision was very carefully examined by the Commission, of which I was Chairman, and I would observe that the supervision exercised in cases of penal servitude is not supervision after the sentences have expired, but during the period when the prisoners are released upon license. It is very important to bear that in mind, because those who remember the introduction of the penal servitude sentences will recollect that the public were extremely alarmed when tickets-of-leave were first issued, and it was only when the system of the supervision of convicts, "on licence," as it is now called, was established, that the confidence of the public was restored. I entirely agree with those who think that the system of supervision should be enforced with the greatest care, so as not to impede the return to honest life of those who have committed crime, but as it is the fact that not a few of them do return to a course of crime, it is essential for public safety that there should be some means of ascertaining where these men are, and of being able to still watch them and know what they are doing. If that is done, as I believe it is done, with judgment by the police, I think such a system is useful and commendable; but, at the same time, with regard to the shorter terms of imprisonment followed by supervision, that system has never been examined into, and I should be glad if there were an inquiry into the matter. Then the grading of sentences requires careful consideration also, and especially the matter to which my noble and learned Friend referred, namely, the total differences of view which exist with regard to sentences which have been expressed with regard to those who have repeated their offences. A great number of people hold—I myself am one of them—that if a man has committed a long series of offences, not, perhaps, very serious, taking each of them, that man should be treated very differently from a man who commits an offence for the first time of the same kind. But some judges pursue the course of taking each offence upon its merits without reference to the previous history of the prisoner.
  394
  That being so, I think it is very desirable that the whole system should be examned into, because I am quite certain that every one will agree with me in saying that certainty in the infliction of punishment is of the greatest possible advantage. If people are not aware of what their punishment is to be, that must impair the efficacy of any system which may be adopted.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 228.)
Read 3a (according to order) with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered, That the Evening Sitting of the House to-morrow do commence at a quarter past Four o'clock.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.