Lords Sitting of 28 February 1896

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
Ordinance No. 148. General No. 33. Regulations for degrees in arts, supplementary to Ordinances Nos. 11 and 44: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed.—[No. 15.]
SUMMARY JURISDICTION (WHIPPING) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 16).
A Bill to authorise the whipping of juvenile offenders on summary conviction: presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a.
PUBLICATION OF INDECENT EVIDENCE BILL [H.L.]—(No. 17).
A Bill to authorise a court to prohibit the publication of indecent evidence: presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a.

ARMY SERVICE IN INDIA.
LORD MONKSWELL LORD MONKSWELL rose to call attention to the practice of sending band-boys to India at the age of 15; and to move:—
"That an humble address be presented for a return of the number of persons enlisted in the army as boys, who have been sent to India under the age of 20 during the last five years, giving the names, ages, and medical records of such of them as have died or been discharged invalided from the service, and the pensions granted to the latter."
He said, that the class on whose behalf he proposed to address a few words to their Lordships, was not a large or influential one, but he thought their case was worthy of attention. His attention was first called to the matter in the course of his duties as a Commissioner of Chelsea Hospital. The Commissioners met once a week to go through the list of soldiers discharged invalided from the army, with a view to deciding whether or not they were entitled to pensions. In
1358
going through these lists, he observed cases of lads of 17 or 18 discharged invalided after service in India. He thought that a very shocking state of things, and at his request another Commissioner, a general officer, promised to look into the matter and report. He met his gallant Friend on several subsequent occasions, and he always said he had the matter under consideration. The late Government went out in rather a hurry and his gallant Friend did not report to him, but as he implored him not to drop the matter, he had thought that he would have reported to the noble Marquess opposite. Some months ago he had a conversation with the noble Marquess on the subject. The noble Marquess met him in a very sympathetic and friendly spirit, and said he was obliged to him for bringing the matter to his attention and promised to inquire into it. He heard no more, and a few days ago he wrote to ask what had been done. The noble Marquess very candidly replied that the matter had entirely escaped his memory, and went on to say that the War Office had determined to make no alteration. In office and out of office he had tried to press the matter forward, but had miserably failed. His only course, therefore, was to bring the matter before their Lordships' House. It might be that the noble Marquess would tell him that these boys when they arrived in India were sent to hill stations. He was aware that that was the theory, but he was assured on high military authority that the practice did not conform with the theory. The colonel of the regiment did not like to break up his band, and was under great temptations to encourage these boys to remain in the plains. He would sometimes go round and say: "You are quite well, my lad, are you not? It will not do you any harm to remain here;" and the boy being pleased by the notice taken of him by his commanding officer, made no objection, and in many cases he remained, and, in the words of a distinguished officer, "the poor boy blows and blows till he can blow no longer." He ventured to put forward a general proposition which he was sure would have the unanimous assent of their Lordships and of the Secretary of State for War. It was this, that except in cases of necessity it was wrong

1359
for them to inflict on the children of other people dangers to health to which they would not on any account subject their own children. The noble Marquess could make out no case of necessity for sending these boys to India, and he hoped the Secretary of State would at least promise him to look most carefully into this matter. He ventured even to express the hope that he would go a little further, and would be able to tell the House that he had come to the conclusion that some considerable alteration ought to be made as to the age at which boys were liable to be sent to India. He begged to move the Motion which stood in his name.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (the MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE): I must begin by pleading guilty to the act of forgetfulness the noble Lord imputes to me. If I did lose sight of the wish he expressed, that wish was conveyed to me at a time when both of us were somewhat hurried, and it is only natural that his words should not have fixed themselves as firmly as they might have done on my attention. As regards the attitude of the War Office, I think the noble Lord will not complain if, considering the enormous attempts he seems to have made to obtain a change of policy in regard to this question, during the short time I have been connected with the department, I should not have taken the question up. I find it to be the case that these band boys have for a very long time past been sent to India at the age of 15. The question seems to have been under consideration more than once, but those in authority have never been satisfied that there was any sufficient cause for making a change. On one occasion, indeed, a proposal was put forward to reduce the age limit and to send out these boys at the age of 14, but that proposal was not accepted. I should have said at first that there are about 600 of these boys altogether in India at the present time, who went out to India at 15 years of age. It may be argued that as we avoid sending soldiers to India until they are past the age of 20, a fortiori it is a very wrong thing to send lads of 15 to that country. That is a view of the case which at first commended itself very strongly to me, but I am assured, on what I know to be good
1360
authority, that the facts do not entirely support these arguments. I am told by those who have a right to form an opinion, that growing lads of 15 are less liable to take harm from the effects of the Indian climate, and particularly from those diseases which are prevalent in that country, than men five or six years older; and the only statistics which I have been able to obtain since the noble Lord put his question on the Paper, certainly bear out that view, because I find that, taking the 10 years ending 1894, there were 9·55 deaths per thousand amongst boys under 20, whereas there were no less than 17·28 deaths per thousand among men between 20 and 25; and taking invaliding, the rate per thousand for boys under 20 was 10·55 and for men between 20 and 25, 26·57. These figures certainly at first sight seem to bear out the view I have expressed just now, and I think it will be obvious to the noble Lord, that there are certain reasons for which we might expect that these lads would probably suffer less from the climate than youths of a greater age; because those band boys are certainly very much less exposed to extreme fatigue and great heat than the regular soldiers. For instance, they escape altogether, I believe, duty as sentries—a very trying duty, as we all know, in hot climates. The noble Lord has moved for a return showing the number of persons enlisted as boys, their names, ages and medical records. I have no wish whatever to keep back anything from the noble Lord, but I am told such a return would take considerable time to prepare, that we should have to refer to every battalion, the records of each would have to be searched, and the information would be very far from easy to obtain. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will not press his Motion for a return, but will be content with the assurance I give him that I will have the matter very carefully looked into—particularly if he will assist me by communicating to me privately the authorities upon whom he relies for his statement—and let him know the result as soon as I have anything to communicate.
LORD MONKSWELL: I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether the statistics he has given include combatants?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: As no soldiers are allowed to go to India until they are past 20, it is obvious that the greater number of men returned below 20 must be these band boys.
LORD MONKSWELL: Do the figures include those killed in action?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Yes.
LORD MONKSWELLthought that the view taken by the noble Marquess was a little startling, because they all knew that it was dangerous to their health to send young men under 20 to India. The noble Marquess said that about 9½ per thousand of those under 20 died. That was a large percentage, but it was impossible to say, unless the noble Marquess produced statistics a little more in detail, how it came to pass that the enormous number of 17½ per thousand died between the ages of 20 and 25. There might be other reasons for that, which he would not go into now, besides the fact that some others were probably killed in action. The noble Marquess knew that in England it was a very rare thing for a boy between 15 and 20 to die. He understood that at Eton the death-rate was one in 2,000, and in industrial schools with which he was connected the death-rate was certainly not more than two in a thousand. A death-rate, therefore, of 9½ in the 1,000 was very high. The statistics of the noble Marquess really proved too much, because if he was right the moment a young recruit was enlisted they ought to send him out to India.
THE EARL OF WEMYSShoped the Secretary of State for War would also give his attention to the question of the service of immature boys in the army. Was it right or desirable that they should have served in the army and be reckoned as efficient soldier-boys under 20 years of age? He did not think that youths of 17, 18 and 19 ought to be borne on the army Estimates or reckoned as efficient soldiers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LICENSING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
THE EARL OF WEMYSS,in presenting a Licensing Ads Amendment
1362
Bill, explained that its object was to secure uniformity in the granting, by way of renewal or transfer, of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors. It was the same Bill which he introduced last year, and the late Lord Bramwell was its draughtsman, who had felt a Bill of this kind was necessary in the interests of justice. Last year he had been prevented from proceeding with it by the General Election, but it was before the country long enough to secure the strong support of the class affected by the licensing laws. He had in his hand a copy of a monster petition which he had presented. Although there were only 289 signatures to it, each signature was that of the chairman or president of an important Trade Defence Association. The petitioners said that at present beer retailers enjoyed a protection under the Act of 1869 which licensed victuallers did not possess. They said that the holders of full licences enjoyed by custom up to recent years a similar advantage, and that they were not interfered with by magistrates except for the purpose of preventing injustice or abuse, but that there had been a change since the case of Sharpe v. Wakefield, in which it was decided that licensed victuallers had no legal right whatever in their licences. They asked in their petition that they might be put on the same footing as beer retailers under the Act of 1889. It was, as he had said, in a spirit, and as an act of justice that Lord Bramwell had drafted this Bill, and he confidently trusted their Lordships would deal with it in a like spirit.
Bill read 1a.—[No. 18.]

LICENSING BILL [H.L.]
LORD NORTONpresented a Bill to amend the Licensing Act, 1872. He described the measure as the complement of that for which the noble Earl had just obtained a First Reading. The object of the noble Earl's Bill was to prevent magistrates from refusing to renew old licences on the ground that there were too many licensed houses in the district already. [The Earl of WEMYSS: "Without compensation."] The noble Earl thought that the renewal of old licences ought only to be

1363
refused on the ground of misconduct or abuse; he proposed at the same time that magistrates should have full discretion to refuse new licences on the ground that there were enough licences out already or on any other ground. Both these proposals had his approval. He thought they might fairly say that licences which had been renewed for a long period from year to year had created something in the nature of a vested interest, and ought not to be interfered with, unless justly forfeited by misconduct or abuse. He also held that magistrates should have the amplest discretion to refuse new licences on any ground they deemed just. It was, of course, very difficult for anyone to say how many licences were wanted in any given place. It would be difficult to say how many bakers' shops there ought to be in any locality; but in the case of public houses the difficulty was still greater, as the supply was excessive by a vicious demand, involving drunkenness, rioting, and adulteration of drink. What really ought to be done was to find out means by which to prevent this wicked abuse, and to adjust the supply of licences, as far as possible, to a legitimate demand. If public houses were arranged so as to meet a legitimate demand only, they would cease to have a bad repute, and would be as useful institutions in the country as any clubs or refreshment rooms. What they wanted, therefore, as a complement to the noble Earl's Bill, was a more efficient mode of preventing abuse and misconduct. The law at present was inoperative, not because the penalty that could be imposed was too light, but because it was too severe. The penalty for the abuse of a licence was nothing short of forfeiture, and disqualification of the licensee for a number of years. That penalty was so severe upon property that magistrates would not exact it. He proposed to give the magistrates a discretionary power in the case of persistent misconduct and abuse, to impose, instead of forfeiture and disqualification, a fine not exceeding £100, and to require the licensee to enter into recognisances for better conduct in future. This penalty he believed would be operative, and the great brewers who owned tied-houses could not complain of the
1364
exaction of a limited fine for the persistent misconduct of their servants. At the same time, the wretched pot-houses, of which there were so many, and which did so much mischief, might be reduced in number by even a mild infliction of a limited penalty. The subject was one closely affecting the morality of the country, and he was sure that their Lordships would recognise its importance. Alternative proposals had been suggested, but they were not practicable. One was that another body, not so good as the present, should be entitled to say how many licences were required. Another was the adoption of the Gothenburg system, which Parliament had condemned as inapplicable to this country.
Bill read 1a.— [No. 19.]

SHORT TITLES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY),in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that it was supplementary to the Measure passed in 1892. It gave short titles to all public general Acts passed since 1706, which had not already been given short titles, except such as were omitted from the Revised Edition of the Statutes by reason of their local or personal character. Clause 2 gave collective titles to some groups of Acts not already included in the second schedule to the Act of 1892. In some cases, when the greater part, but not the whole, of an Act had been repealed, the section giving the short title had by inadvertence been included in the repeal. The object of clause 3 was to provide that in such cases the Act might continue to be cited by the short title so given, notwithstanding the repeal. For the sake of convenience the Act of 1892 was repealed by clause 4, and its provisions were embodied in the present Bill.
Bill read 2a.

INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Infant Life Protection Act, 1872—Was presented by the Earl of Denbigh; read 1a, and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—[No. 20.]
House adjourned at Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before 11 o'clock.