Lords Sitting of 2 August 1898

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—
Consolidated Fund (No. 2); Locomotives; Mussels, Periwinkles, and Cockles (Ireland); Companies; Metropolitan Police Courts; Pauper Children (Ireland); Isle of Man (Customs); Telegraph (Money); Rivers Pollution Prevention (Border Councils); Electric Lighting Orders (No. 9); Electric Orders Confirmation (No. 13); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2); Tramways Orders Confirmation No. 2); Water Orders Confirmation; Gas Light and Coke Company (Capital Consolidation); Coventry Corporation Gas; Great Western Railway (General Powers); Leyton Urban District Council; London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway; Metropolitan Railway; Middlesbrough Corporation (Gas); Tynemouth Corporation Water; Dublin Port and Docks; Easton and Church. Hope Railway (Extension of Time); Clontarf and Hill of Howth Tramroad; London and North Western Railway (Wales); St. David's Railway; Clacton Gas and Water; Maldon Water; Southampton Gas; Caledonian Railway; Leicester Freemen; Paisley Corporation (Loans); Saint Marylebone (Church Rate Abolition); Burnley Corporation (Tramways, etc.); Ipswich Dock; Usk Valley Railway; Manchester Carriage and Tramways Company; Birmingham, North Warwickshire, and Stratford-upon-Avon Railway; North Eastern Railway; Isle of Wight Railway (Brading Harbour and Railway); Vigors' Divorce.
The LORD CHANCELLORtook his seat upon the Woolsack at a Quarter-past Four of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments to be considered on Thursday next.
  BUCKIE (CLUNY) HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  GREAT NORTH OF SCOTLAND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  NEWHAVEN AND SEAFORD WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL (ON RE-COMMITMENT).
  Reported with further Amendments.
  GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
  Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  KEIGHLEY CORPORATION BILL.
  Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  WEY VALLEY WATER BILL.
  Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  PAIGNTON IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (NEW WORKS) BILL.
  Read the third time, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Read the third time, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill and returned to the Commons.
  ST. HELEN'S CORPORATION BILL.
  Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. 143 and 143A be considered in order to their being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill; agreed to; Bill read the third time with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  EXETER, TEIGN VALLEY, AND CHAGFORD RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  MID-KENT WATER BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment to be considered on Thursday next.
  FILEY GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  CARLISLE CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  FORRES WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  WHITECHAPEL AND BOW RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 198.]
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.
PUBLIC BILL.
  BENEFICES (No. 2) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to, with consequential Amendments: The said Amendments to be considered on Thursday next.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AFRICA (No. 7) 1898.
  Papers relating to recent events in the Uganda Protectorate (in continuation of Africa (No. 2) 1898).

  TRADE REPORTS, 1898.
  Annual Series: Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance:
  No. 2,167. Austria-Hungary (Bosnia and Herzegovina);
  No. 2,168. China (Wuchow).

  NAVY.
  I. (Courts-Martial)—Returns of the number of courts-martial held and summary punishments inflicted on seamen of the Royal Navy, etc., during the year 1897;
  II. (Health)—Statistical report of the health of the Navy, for the year 1897.

  GREENWICH OBSERVATORY.
  Report of the Astronomer Royal to the Board of Visitors of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, read at the annual visitation of the Royal Observatory, June, 1898.
  POST OFFICE (PARCEL POST WITH SWEDEN).
  Supplementary parcel post agreement with Sweden, and additional detailed regulations.

  CAPE OF GOOD HOPE (OBSERVATORY).
  Report of the Astronomer at the Cape of Good Hope Observatory to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, for the year 1897.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (BERKSHIRE).
  Order made by the County Council of Berkshire, altering the polling districts and polling places for the several Parliamentary divisions of the county.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie upon the Table.

  BANKRUPTCY.
  Fifteenth general annual report by the Board of Trade.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie upon the Table.

  COMPANIES (WINDING-UP).
  Seventh general annual Report by the Board of Trade.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie upon the Table.

  HIGH SHERIFFS (EXPENSES OF OFFICE).
  Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to order of Friday last), and to be printed. [No. 193.]
PETITIONS.
  HABITUAL INEBRIATES BILL.
  In favour of; of persons signing; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  VACCINATION BILL.
  For the Amendment of; of the Royal Institute of Public Health; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
BILLS ADVANCED.
  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
  Read the first time; to be printed; and to be read the second time on Thursday next. [No. 194.]— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  KINGSTOWN HARBOUR ROADS TRANSFER BILL.
  Read the first time; to be printed; and to be read the second time on Thursday next, [No. l98.]—(The Earl of Denbigh.)
  SEED SUPPLY AND POTATO SPRAYING (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read the first time; to be printed; and to be read the second time on Thursday next, [No. 196.]—(The Earl of Denbigh.)
  TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Read the first time; to be printed; and to be read the second time on Thursday next, [No. 197.]—(The Lord Balfour.)
BILL SUSPENDED.

  GENERAL POWERS DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BILL.
  On the consideration of the Commons' message of Friday last—
  "That the promoters of the Bill which has been introduced into this House in the present Session of Parliament, and which has passed this House and been sent to the House of Commons, shall have leave to introduce the same in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than three o'clock on the day prior to the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon, up to that period, be paid:
  "That such Bill shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session:
  "That the proceedings on such Bill shall be pro formâ only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in

  801
  the present Session; and that no new be charged in regard to such stages:
  "That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to the said Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session."—(The Earl of Morley.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): I have to move, my Lords, that this message be considered, and that your Lordships resolve in the words of the Notice standing on the Paper in my name. That Notice is a very unusual one; it is to enable the promoters of the General Powers Distributing Company's Bill to postpone the Bill, and to take it up next Session at the same stage at which it was this Session. The reason why I make, this Motion is that the Bill was extremely delayed from the fact that it was referred with a number of other Bills by your Lordships' and the other House's orders to a Joint Committee to consider the principles which are to regulate the procedure of these Bills. The other Bills have passed, but this Bill, which was the largest and involved the most novel process, has been delayed in consequence, and I venture to think that the House will consider it is fair to the promoters that, as they were delayed by the action of this House, they should have this indulgence shown them.
  Motion made, and Question put.
  Agreed to.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  INDIA OFFICE (STORE DEPOT) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): The Amendment proposed by the Committee made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendment to be received on Thursday next.
  VEXATIOUS ACTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
  CIRCUIT CLERKS OF JUSTICIARY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time on Thursday next.
  PARISH FIRE-ENGINES BILL.
  Read the third time (according order), and passed.
  METROPOLITAN COMMON POOR FUND BILL.
  To be read the second time on Thursday next.—(The Lord Harris.)

  PRISONS BILL.
  On the Motion that the House do go into Committee on this Bill,
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I venture to trespass for a few moments on your Lordships' attention at this stage of the Prisons Bill. I should not otherwise have done so, but the facts are these. The Bill was before your Lordships' House for the first time on Thursday last, and it was read a second time on Friday, before it had even been circulated. Those, therefore, of your Lordships who reside at some distance from London were not in a position to take any part in the Debate upon the Second Reading. In these circumstances I hope I may be pardoned if I ask your Lordships' leave to say a few words about it now. The Bill is one of supreme importance, and the small amount of debate which it received in this House was due, no doubt, to the fact that it had already been elaborately considered and all its provisions thoroughly thrashed out elsewhere. The Home Secretary in introducing the Bill spoke of it as one of the largest Measures of the present Session, or

  803
  probably, of many Sessions. He described the present juncture as—
  "an, opportunity far reviewing the whole field of our prison enactments, and for introducing legislation which, if it could not at the present moment absolutely enact a new code, should at all events tend in that direction."
  I cordially subscribe to the Home Secretary's account of the importance of the matter, and as one of those who have for some years given attention to the whole subject I am anxious to express my sense of the praise that is due both to the provisions of this Bill and to the more extended scheme which, it seems clear, must soon follow; for the Bill itself is a mere trifle, a mere shell, or husk, which contains the as yet invisible kernel. The Rules to be hereafter framed under this Bill are, of course, the thing that really matters, and upon the wording and working of those Rules everything, as time goes on, will depend. We are practically giving the Home Secretary a blank cheque, to be first filled up by drawing out the Rules, and then to be spent as the Rules are administered in the various prisons throughout the country. I believe, my Lords, that we are absolutely right in doing so. I believe there is no other way in which the changes which public opinion now desires to see effected in regard to our prisons can be properly and consistently and conclusively carried out. To alter Rules which have statutory authority, and which form part of an Act of Parliament, is a tedious and cumbersome process, but to alter Rules which depend upon the fiat of the Home Secretary for the time being is a considerably simpler process. Those concerned in the practical administration of our local and convict prisons will have simply now to ask the Home Secretary for such alterations as experience may from time to time show to be desirable, and no Home Secretary will, I feel sure, fail to respond to such requests from tried and competent officers. But, besides this, it will now be possible for him, as the years pass, to take such measures as may be necessary for giving effect to public opinion—and public opinion, my Lords, when this Bill is in operation, will be far better informed than it is now. The visiting committees, the lady visitors,
  804
  and the rest of the new or improved machinery, will spread a wholesome interest in the condition of our prison population, and thus a far wider public interest will be taken in the subject than has been taken heretofore. My Lords, I confidently believe there will be large, and drastic, and far-reaching changes introduced in these Rules, as the years go on. Ten years hence we shall see not, I suppose, less discipline, but a more intelligent and reasonable sort of discipline, and a far larger amount of variety introduced into the management of our prisons than is to be seen, to-day. Such a change, in my opinion, would be entirely for the public good. It may be said that this is mere nebulous prophecy. Turn then from prophecy to history, from, theory to fact. If we are asked whether public opinion is likely to bring about changes in such a direction, let our reply be a quiet examination of the stages, of our progress during the last decade. Take the Rules and the customs (many of them never formulated into Rules) which were prevalent in the management of our prisons 10 years ago. Then take the draft Rules, as drawn up when this Bill was first introduced into the other House of Parliament a few months ago. Then take the proposed Rules now printed for our information, as modified by the Debates which have taken place, both inside and outside the House, during the last few months. If you do that, you will see how rapid and how marked has been the educational process which has taken place. In this Bill, my Lords, and tin the draft Rules which accompany it, the Home Secretary is simply giving effect to what is desired and warranted by public opinion outside. As specified instances of what I mean, I would refer to the various stages of the Rules or provisions affecting solitary confinement, or, as it is sometimes euphemistically called, "seclusion"—or the provisions affecting letters to be received and written, or the regulations sanctioning the visits to be received by the prisoner, according to his character and antecedents. But the wholesome change I am referring to is noticeable, I think, not so much in positive enactments as in the marked tendency towards giving larger elasticity and greater freedom to those to whom the charge and

  805
  government of our prisoners is committed. The principle which lies behind all that is now being done is the fundamental principle that adequate weight should be given to the curative element in our prison administration, as well as to the punitive element. Hitherto the punitive element has been pushed to the front, while the curative treatment has been kept in the background; and I, for one, rejoice to see that to the curative system is given a larger place than it has ever had before in the Bill which is now before your Lordships for consideration. The endeavour to promote what I have called the curative system has been more marked—perhaps has had more emphasis given to it—in other countries than in our own. America, with characteristic enthusiasm, has gone in this direction considerably further than other countries have gone. The results are before us. Whether we are to attribute to the supposed comfort of some of the American prisons the fact that, while we in England have only got one person in prison out of every 1,764 of the population, the United States has one person in every 759, I do not know. But this I can say, that a careful perusal of the admirable Report of the Chairman of our own Prison Commission upon the State Prisons in America, with their Turkish baths, their gymnasiums, their musical instruments, and the rest, has convinced me that we should not be acting wisely were we at present to enter upon the somewhat far-reaching experiment which has been made in some of the American prisons. What we do want is a larger elasticity, first in the Home Office at headquarters, and then in the various prison departments throughout the country. Such elasticity, such power of adaptation, and even of experiment, this Bill, with its Rules, will render for the first time possible. There has, of course, for many years been a steady reaction going on against that rigid and inexorable uniformity which it was the principal object of the Bill of 1877 to introduce, and which was noticeable also in the previous legislation of 1865. Such rigidity, such introduction at least, of a sterner and more uniform system, may have been a necessary concomitant of the administrative changes made in these years. If so, it has, I think, done its work. The reaction in favour of more
  806
  elasticity has now come. Now, my Lords, one of the points I want to make is this: the new liberty we desire to see carries with it responsibility for our seeing that those who are called upon to use in our prisons those larger and more varied powers shall be made thoroughly well fitted for their task, and shall not be overtaxed in any way whatever in the performance of it. If the governor of any one of our prisons is to be fit for the increased responsibilities which will now be laid upon him, he must be a man who is not only keen and active and competent, but the man who has given attention to these matters, and who has learned to understand some of the very difficult and complicated problems which will be before him day by day, in the endeavour to give effect to the new Rules, which will allow him so much freedom of action. What applies to the governors applies also in their several degrees to the chaplains, the schoolmasters, and the warders, and so on, down to the very lowest officials. Therefore it is that I for one hail with satisfaction what the Prison Commissioners tell us as to the training schools and training system for our prison workers and administrators which has for some little time been in operation. I desire to see that system strengthened and increased, and I know that those who are most familiar with our prison system welcome every endeavour that is made to give more knowledge both intellectually and otherwise to the men who are to have the very responsible and difficult task laid upon them of giving effect to the rules which the Home Secretary is now about to place in their hands. During the last decade a great deal of absolutely new light has been thrown upon the whole question of our criminal statistics, and of the difficulties attending prison administration, and the dealing with criminals of such varied kinds. For a good many years statistics have been published, but with little use. The statistical tables which compose the portly Blue Book would be of little use were it not for the lucid and powerful preface with which they are annually accompanied, a preface which will richly repay the study of anyone who cares to devote an hour to understanding what is to be culled from the statistics which are

  807
  annually presented to us. Some of these statistical tables, say as to the origin of our criminal population, as to the trades, occupations, course of life, ages, and so on, of the various men and women who enter our prison gates, are impressive and suggestive to the highest degree; but, on the other hand, some would be very incomprehensive but for the annual introductory commentary to which I have already referred. For example, you turn to a table specifying the professions or occupations from which the criminals are respectively drawn, and you find to your surprise that the profession which furnishes the largest percentage of criminals is that of "journalists and authors," and the next to them in criminality come "accountants." This looks rather puzzling, until you learn from the introductory remarks that the table is compiled from the prisoners' own statements, and that the "accountant" is nothing of the sort, but probably a betting agent, and that probably the "authors and journalists" are gentlemen of nondescript occupation, who describe themselves in that manner, rather with the hope of attaining that eminence than with any evidence of having as yet reached it. These introductions and the statistics which accompany them are the sort of material which is now provided in ample store for the study and care of all those who are to administer in any capacity whatever the larger system which will be in operation when this Bill has become an Act. With such knowledge as will now be acquired, and by utilising the recorded experience of others, the curative process, which is even now going on, will every year become a more marked and important element in prison administration throughout the land. There is already, as your Lordships are no doubt aware, a steady diminution of the numbers occupying our prisons. In 1883 the average daily number in prisons was 27,140, in 1893 it was 18,233, and in 1896 it was 17,076—that is to say, in the course of a few years there was a fall of 35 per cent. in the number of persons who are in our prisons. My belief is that that fall will become very much more rapid, and the number in our prisons will become very much smaller when we have gone forward for a year or two upon the lines of careful classification, and of
  808
  almost unlimited freedom of experiment, which will be rendered practicable under the rules which will shortly, I suppose, be laid upon the Table of your Lordships' House. There is one clause in the Bill itself upon which I desire to say a single word. It is the clause which refers to the department of prison officers with whom the bishops have specially to deal—the prison chaplains. Till now the law has rendered it impossible in ordinary cases for a prison chaplain to hold at the same time any clerical office outside the prison walls. By the clause to which I am alluding that restriction is removed, and it will now be possible, if suitable arrangements can be made, that the same man may be exercising his functions as a prison chaplain and carrying on work of a clerical character outside the prison walls. The result of that will be infinitely to the advantage both of the prisoners and of the chaplain, and also, I believe, to the advantage of those to whom these clergy are ministering outside the prison walls. The larger experience of life gained by the chaplain in mixing as a parish priest with people outside will give freshness and variety to his prison ministry, and will thus be infinitely to the benefit of the inmates of the prisons, and at the same time the chaplain will have a frequent change from the depressing and sometimes exceedingly trying occupation to which he is at present bound to devote his whole time. Hereafter he and his colleagues—for of course the staff must be proportionally increased—will be able to devote a portion of their time to varied duties outside. The change is a wholesome part of a larger and more general change of plan. Our aim at this juncture is a high one. What we desire to do is to bring the interests of those out-side the prison walls and the interests of those inside the prison walls into harmony and touch in every possible way. This will be brought about partly by the boards of visitors enlarged in numbers and enlarged in power. The encouragement given to lady visitors will, among other gains, have this good result, that it will make a very large number of people outside the walls of our prisons know a great deal more than they know now, and care a great deal more than they care now, about what goes on within those walls. At present the average

  809
  British citizen is satisfied with the knowledge of the fact that within the high prison walls he occasionally sees there are some 17,000 or 18,000 of his fellow-citizens confined. He knows they are for the present kept out of mischief. He hopes and believes that within the prisons things generally are well arranged, and that is about all. But that ought not to be all. The greater interest taken outside in what goes on, within the prison for the benefit of those therein confined will be an enormous gain to the nation at large. If we find, as I observed in the statistics of a year or two ago, that out of 43,000 persons convicted in one year, 17,000, or about 41 cent., were under 21 years of age, we can see how important for the future it is that the curative process that I have spoken of should have every opportunity given it that can possibly be devised. My belief is that in years to come we shall be very thankful indeed for the enlarged powers which this Bill has given to the Home Secretary, and those who work under him. I give my hearty and cordial support to the Bill, and I ask your Lordships to go into Committee upon it now.
  LORD BELPER: I only ask the House to allow me to say one or two words, and especially to express my regret that any unfortunate mistake should have occurred which prevented the House from having the opportunity of hearing the right reverend lord prelate upon the Second Reading of this Bill, especially as he is so competent to express an opinion upon this subject. The fact is that the Bill was circulated in the morning, though not with the early papers, but it was in the hands of your Lordships before it was read a second time, and I can assure your Lordships that there was no want of courtesy on my part in reading it a second time. The remarks which the right reverend prelate made have been followed with great interest. He referred in some little detail to the rules which form a substantial part of the Bill, and which practically, as to details, are almost the most important part of the Measure—but I think he gave credit to the Home Secretary for having a little more latitude in this matter than he really will have when he said we were
  810
  giving him a blank cheque. The fact is we are giving him a cheque, which, though a blank, to be filled in by him, will have to be countersigned by both Houses of Parliament, and in which the amount may be altered after he has settled it. In fact, as I pointed out, although there has been a discussion over the draft rules which the Home Secretary has already laid upon the Table of both Houses, this Act will not come into force until these rules have been laid upon the Table next Session, and there will be full opportunity for your Lordships to express any opinion you may wish to do upon the details of them. With regard to the other remarks of the right reverend prelate, I may perhaps remind those who were present at the Second Reading, that I referred to the great advantage which the prison governors will have in the future owing to the elasticity which will be given them by the new rules, which will not be made by Act, of Parliament, but which it will be possible to alter from time to time, and which will be accommodative to the age, sex, tradition, and other qualities and the different classes of persons who are under prison rule. The clause relating to the prison chaplain, to which the right reverend prleate referred, is also one of some importance. The fact that the chaplain who will be appointed will be able to hold other cures at the same time will, no doubt, be a great advantage in many ways, for it will induce a better class of men to take up the important duties of a prison chaplain. I hope, my Lords, it will not be necessary, after the remarks I made on the Second Reading, to go at greater length into the subjects touched upon by the right reverend prelate.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the House resolve itself into Committee."
  Agreed to.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEEStook the Chair.
  Bill passed through Committee, and reported to the House without Amendments.
  The House resumed.

  The Commons Amendments to the London University Commission Bill considered, and agreed to.

  VACCINATION BILL.
  LORD HARRIS: I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which makes a change—an experimental change—in the law relating to what has been called—erroneously called—compulsory vaccination; for, as your Lordships are perfectly well aware, what the Act secures is not that the children shall be vaccinated, but that those parents who do not have their children vaccinated are punished, either by a fine or by imprisonment. That is the present state of the law. With reference to the Bill now before your Lordships, it is important to remember that it is an experimental Bill for five years; therefore, if at the end of that time experience shows that its provisions have not been wise, it will be possible for Parliament to revert to the present system, or to adopt a modified form of it, as it may think necessary. The important changes in the Bill are three in number. It secures the use of a lymph called glycerinated vaccine lymph; it secures that the children shall be vaccinated at their own homes instead of at the public vaccination stations; and, in the third place—and it is upon this part of the Bill that dispute has mainly raged—it abolishes the infliction of a penalty upon a parent, where that parent has been able to convince the magistrates that his objection to vaccination is a conscientious objection. I shall have to deal with these three points in some little detail presently, but I think I am justified in detaining your Lordships for a short time while I venture to draw attention to the facts which have necessitated—which have compelled the Government to ask Parliament to assent to these changes. I do not think it will be contested that there has been and is a very grave apprehension in the minds of some persons as to the result of arm to arm vaccination, and the fact that diseases—human diseases—are communicable by this system of vaccination is admitted by the Report of the Vacci-
  812
  nation Commission; but, whether the cause be well established or not, I do not think it can be contested for one moment that there is a very serious apprehension in the minds of some people as to whether vaccination is safe, and these apprehensions have been built upon by the agitation of a certain number of persons—I honestly believe many of them to be well meaning—who have conducted a campaign against vaccination throughout the country. In consequence of that agitation it is very possible that the apprehensions have been somewhat exaggerated. At any rate, it is undoubted that that agitation has induced many people to entertain these apprehensions, and I venture to suggest to your Lordships that there is one factor in this difference of opinion, which is an essential and most important factor, and one which I have not seen mentioned in any of the speeches made in the House of Commons, and that factor is maternal apprehension. My personal belief is that a very large percentage of the motherhood of England has been seriously alarmed as to the safety of the health of the children, and, if that be so, I appeal to your Lordships whether it is not very natural that that apprehension should have received a wide circulation amongst those whose business it is to administer the law. Of course, this apprehension has regard to animal diseases as well as to human, but I think in the former case it is confined to a very small section; and I believe it is undisputed that the medical authorities admit that the use of glycerinated calf lymph absolutely disposes of this latter apprehension. As regards the latter, I must ask your Lordships to allow me to quote from the Report of the Royal Commission, and I shall have to refer to this Royal Commission once or twice, because it is upon it that every recommendation of the Government in this Bill is based. Tour Lordships will remember that this Commission was appointed in 1879, and I may remind your Lordships of some of the most important men who were upon that Commission. There were Sir James Paget, F.R.C.S., Sir William Guyer Hunter, F.R.C.P., Mr. William Scovell Savory, President of the Royal College of Surgeons, Mr. John Syes Bristowe, F.R.C.P., Mr. William Job Collins,

  813
  F.R.C.S., and Mr. Michael Foster, M.A., Professor of Physiology in the University of Cambridge. That Commission was appointed in 1879. It took some seven years to consider the mass of evidence brought before it, and when it reported it made this statement, which I think, as regards the point I am touching upon—the communication of human disease—is so important that I should bring it before your Lordships' attention. In paragraph 430 they say—
  "The evidence offered to us would lead us to the belief that whilst with ordinary care the risk of the communication of syphilis, in the practice of arm to arm vaccination can for the most part be avoided, no degree of caution can confer an absolute security."
  My Lords, I imagine it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government—I venture to say that I hope it is—but, at any rate, it is my honest private opinion that, the Motion which I see has been put down by the noble Marquess, whom I do not see in his place, that this Bill should be read a second time this day three months, which would mean a reversion to arm to arm vaccination, is absolutely impossible, if your Lordships bear in mind what the Royal Commission said, that such a danger is possible. I do not care how minute the danger is, I do not care however small the presumption may be, I would never dare, from this moment, to introduce, as a Government Measure, arm to arm vaccination, after such a statement by such a body as the Royal Commission. Then there is another cause which has led to objection, and it is a cause which, no doubt, exists in a great many cases—the strong objection of the mother to have the bother of vaccination with a puling child. That is believed by those who have gone into the matter closely to be largely responsible for some of these objections to vaccination. Finally, there is the question of these penalties and accumulative penalties—that is to say, repeated penalties in the case of the same child. As your Lordships know, in the law as it stands a parent may be proceeded against time after time, as regards the non-vaccination of one child, with the result—and these cases often happen—that the parents' means may be entirely exhausted, his goods may be distrained
  814
  upon, and finally he may be committed to prison. Up to a certain date, whilst this Commission was sitting, he was treated as a criminal; so I do not think it is to be wondered at that the agitation which was got up by the conscientious objectors, rolled up into larger dimensions, and met with a considerable amount of success. The persons who were so proceeded against, and who went to prison, were met at the prison doors on their release, in some cases with bands of music, and paraded through the streets. All that agitation was very objectionable, but it was quite likely to induce converts to join the ranks. I have pointed out to your Lordships that in consequence of this agitation the Commission was appointed, and I have read you some of the names of those who served on it. There was one Member of your Lordships' House upon it—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Herschell—who, I regret to say, has been called away upon Imperial duties to another part of the country, and whose absence I specially deplore tonight, as I could have looked to him to support me in what I lay before your Lordships to-night, as a Bill depending upon the recommendations of this Commission. There was another result of this Commission. It sat for seven years, and since it reported the Government have been considering how best to carry out its provisions for two years. During these nine years the law has, in many parts of the country, been practically in suspense—that is to say, that a large number of the boards of guardians have not been carrying out the law as Parliament intended they should, with this result: that I believe I am well within the mark when I say that one-sixth of the boards of guardians at this moment are not prosecuting for non-vaccination, and with this further result, as regards the children, that it is estimated that out of 900,000 children born in the year only some 600,000 are vaccinated. Out of the other 300,000 deductions have to be made for deaths, for migrants, and for other causes, but undoubtedly a very large percentage of children are not vaccinated on account of objection to the system of vaccination. Your Lordships will see at once that the change proposed by the Government is not between what

  815
  is proposed and a system of universal vaccination, but between what is proposed and a system of vaccination which was desired to be universal, but which the Government have never been able to make universal, and which, in consequence of agitation, and in consequence of inquiry resulting from agitation, has in many parts of the country broken down. What is the outcome of the Report? Because, as I have already twice told your Lordships, this Bill depends upon the Report. In the first place, it recommends the use of glycerinated calf lymph. That is provided for in the Bill—that is to say, that, whereas the practice up to now has been arm to arm vaccination, when this Bill is passed, it is secured that, unless the parent wishes for arm to arm vaccination, the child shall be vaccinated with this glycerinated calf lymph, the Government undertaking, of course, to provide a sufficient quantity. That is recommended in paragraph 437 of the Report of the Royal Commission, which I do not think I will read to your Lordships, because it is practically accepted that it is a wise measure. As regards any fear of tuberculosis, it is satisfactorily accepted that the glycerinated calf lymph destroys all these organisms, which might be communicated from an animal to a human being. There is another advantage in using glycerinated calf lymph. Whereas now a child has to attend a second time on the eighth day, in order that the lymph may be taken from the vesicle, that will henceforth be quite unnecessary, and will be practically done away with by the use of glycerinated calf lymph, unless the parent is willing or wishful that it should be taken away. At present the law makes it penal if a parent refuses to allow lymph to be taken from the child. That will be swept away, and no one can be penalised in future, if this Bill passes. There is also an advantage in this way: it has been though that erysipelas has been caused in consequence of the vesicles being broken that danger will be removed. Secondly, domiciliary visits are strongly recommended by the Commission, and your Lordships will see, without my detaining you, how very convenient it will b for many poor people, who have had to take their children, perhaps in inclement
  816
  weather, to a distant vaccination station, not only once, but twice, that that should no longer be necessary, but that the doctor will be obliged to visit the children in their own homes. That is strongly recommended by the Commission, from their experience of what they find was the practice in Scotland, which is mentioned in paragraph 443, and which I do not think I need weary your Lordships by reading. Finally, I come to the third important provision in the Bill, which is as regards the abolition of penalties in cases where the parent can obtain a certificate from two magistrates that his objection is a conscientious one. I must explain to your Lordships precisely what will occur. The parent must either have the child vaccinated, or obtain a certificate that it need not be vaccinated, because the parent has a conscientious objection. He must do one of these two things within four months of the birth of the child. If he fails to do that, the public vaccinator, who will have become aware of the fact through the channel of the registrar of births, will call at the house of the parent, and offer to vaccinate the child with glycerinated calf lymph. If the parent has not had the child vaccinated, or does not produce the magisterial certificate within six months from the birth of the child, then he is liable to be prosecuted for non-vaccination once up to the age of four years, and then again, under another clause upon public vaccination, once more before the child is 14 years of age. That is the effect of the change in the law—that is, that the parents may be punished twice only—and it is a curious thing, historically curious, that it might have been the law 27 years ago but for a Division in this House. In 1871 the House of Commons, upon the recommendation of the Select Committee, sent a Bill up to this House which provided that parents should not be punished more than twice. I do not remember the names of many Members of that House of Commons Committee, which was a strong Committee, but I remember one gentleman whom I have had the honour of serving under officially, and whom I always thought was one of the most practical men I ever met in my life—Mr. W. H. Smith. That Committee recommended that the penalty

  817
  should be limited to two convictions. The Bill was debated once, I should think, from the look of "Hansard," for about a quarter of an hour, in a very thin House—so thin that it could not now count for a Division. There were 15 Peers present, and they divided—eight in favour of the cumulative penalties, and seven in favour of the Bill as it came from the House of Commons. Lord Redesdale moved that the House of Commons Amendment be struck out, and it went back to the House of Commons in that form on the last day of the Session, and Mr. Forster preferred to accept the Bill as it came down to losing it altogether. I am speaking by the book when I say that 27 years ago it was within an ace of being the law that there should be only two penalties, on conviction, instead of, as has been the law for 27 years, that there should be repeated penalties upon repeated conviction for the same child. I know, my Lords, that there are some in this House who object to this conscientious objection clause, and I have pointed out to you what the effect of it will be when the parent has an opportunity of alleging it within the first four months of the birth of the child. I, in my subordinate position, am not responsible for policy, but if your Lordships have read the speeches of the Leader of the House of Commons and of the President of the Local Government Board, I think there will be found to be practical evidence to anyone that what has caused the change from the Bill as it was originally introduced, when it did not contain the conscientious objection clause, and as it came up to you Lordships, is a very remarkable change of opinion in that House during the progress of the Bill through that House. Mr. Chaplin carried his Bill on the Second Reading by a majority of 10 to one; and on the Report stage, after the Bill had come down from the Grand Committee, where the conscientious objection clause—not the one you find in the Bill now, but another—had been inserted, I gather from the speeches then delivered that the Government upon the whole concluded that it was wisest to accept the conscientious objection clause rather than lose the Bill. Now, whatever may have been the policy of the
  818
  Government originally, it can certainly be supported by the experience that the Government has had of what took place in consequence of this practical suspension of the law, pending the Report of the Royal Commission. At any rate, the Bill, as your Lordships have got it before you, is practically the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and I think I must ask your Lordships to allow me to detain you a few moments, while I read a few passages from the Royal Commission to substantiate my statement. In paragraph 524 the Commission state—
  "After careful consideration and much study of the subject, we have arrived at the conclusion that it would conduce to increased vaccination if a scheme could be devised which would preclude the attempt (so often a vain one) to compel those who are honestly opposed to the practice to submit their children to vaccination, and, at the same time, leave the law to operate, as at present, to prevent children remaining unvaccinated owing to the neglect or indifference of the parent. When we speak of an honest opposition to the practice, we intend to confine our remarks to cases in which the objection is to the operation itself, and to exclude cases in which the objection arises merely from an indisposition to incur the trouble involved. We do not think such a scheme impossible."
  Again, in paragraph 525, we find—
  "It must, of course, be a necessary condidition of a scheme of this description that it should be such as would prevent an objection to the practice being alleged merely as an excuse to save the trouble connected with the vaccination of the child. We may give the following as examples of the methods which might be adopted. It might be provided that if a parent attended before the local authority and satisfied them that he entertained such an objection, no proceedings should be taken against him. Or, again, a statutory declaration to that effect before anyone now authorised to take such declaration, or some other specified official or officials, might be made a bar to proceedings. We do not think it would be any real gain to parents who had no conviction that the vaccination of their children was calculated to do mischief, to take either of these steps rather than submit them to the operation."
  Paragraph 527 says—
  "We are quite conscious that the proposal we have made will be regarded by some as a retrograde step in the cause of vaccination. We do not believe that it would prove to be so in practice. Too blind a confidence is sometimes reposed in the power of an Act of

  819
  Parliament. It is thought that if the law be only sufficiently stringent and inflexibly enforced the desired end is sure to be attained. There is, however, abundant experience to the contrary. When that which the law enjoins runs counter to the convictions or prejudices o many members of the community, it is not easy to secure obedience to it. And when it imposes a duty on parents the performance of which they, honestly, however erroneously, regard as seriously prejudicial to their children, the very attempt to compel obedience may defeat the object of the legislation.
  "At the same time we think it would b well to make the change a temporary one in the first instance, say, for a period of five years, and that in the meantime its effect should be carefully watched."
  Those paragraphs appear in the main body of the Report, which was not agreed to unanimously. The minority Report, signed by Messrs. Guyer Hunter and Jonathan Hutchinson, says—
  "The undersigned do not find themselves able to go so far in recommending relaxation of the law as is implied in paragraphs 524, 525, 526, and 527. We think that in all cases in which a parent or guardian refuses to allow vaccination, the person so refusing should be summoned before a magistrate, as at present, and that the only change made should be to permit the magistrate to accept a sworn deposition of conscientious objection, and to abstain from the infliction of a fine.
  "We are also of opinion that, in spite of the difficulties as set forth in paragraph 533, a second vaccination at the age of twelve ought to be made compulsory."
  The last Minority Report, signed by Messrs. Whitbread, Bright, Collins, and Picton, says—
  "We cordially concur with the recommendation that the conscientious objector should be respected."
  These are the Reports of the Royal Commission upon this point, and, as your Lordships will see, the recommendations of the Government, as embodied in the Bill, practically carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Those are the grounds upon which I support this Bill and ask your Lordships to read it a second time, because it practically carries out the recommendations of a body of most distinguished men appointed specially to consider this very subject, and who gave an immense amount of time and consideration and care to it by examining an enormous amount of evidence. They did not report hurriedly,
  820
  but deliberately, and, after all these years of consideration, that is what they reported, and the Government has practically accepted their recommendations. I am aware that there is a Motion down upon the Paper that this Bill be read a second time this day three months, and I want your Lordships to realise what the effect of such a Motion, if carried, would be. You would lose the advantage of the use of glycerinated calf lymph, unless it were possible by Executive Order to secure its use; but you cannot make it illegal to take lymph from the arm, excepting by means of an Act such as this. It will still be legal to take lymph from the arm of a child, even if it were possible to have glycerinated calf lymph used by Executive Order, and you would distinctly lose the advantage of domiciliary visits, which, as your Lordships, from, very great experience, must know, would be of infinite advantage, especially to the poor. What will be the most serious effect of rejecting this Bill? The children would not be vaccinated. Your Lordships will not secure that, the children will still go unvaccinated, and you may depend upon it Parliament, would have to go into the subject again. Once more I venture to press upon your Lordships that I submit to you the present Bill because its provisions are supported by an authority so wide and so learned on this particular subject as the Members of the Royal Commission. I will add this, if it is of any use: it is only a personal matter, and I do not know that it carries very much weight. I came to the consideration of the subject a few months ago, when I became aware that it would be my duty to bring it before your Lordships, with a private conviction in favour if the advantages of compulsory vaccination as legalised here. To-day I can honestly say that my conviction is that the Measure that has been introduced by he Government, and which I move to-light, is, upon the whole, the safest and the wisest way of dealing with this most difficult question. I do not believe that by adhering to the system of penalties, more or less severe, as the case may be, and certainly severe when they fall upon the poorest shoulders, will make vaccination popular. The object of us all, whatever view we may take as to what legisla-

  821
  tion should be, is to secure the vaccination of the largest number of people, believing as we do, and as I stated in the resolution of the Royal College of Physicians, that vaccination is the only known means, and the best means, of securing immunity from small-pox. That is the interest of us all. I venture to submit to your Lordships that the wisest and the most statesmanlike course is to endeavour to enlist the sympathy of the people in this country in the legislation which deals with this matter and to endeavour to make it a popular question. These are the convictions which have, to my mind, justified me in using the arguments which I have used to-night, and I thank your Lordships for listening to me, and I now beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That this Bill be read a second time."
  Agreed to.
  LORD HARRIS: I have to apologise that the Bill was not circulated at your Lordships' residences at an early hour this morning. I have made inquiries, and I find that the House of Lords is not responsible for its non-circulation. I propose to put the Bill down for Committee on Thursday.

  PERMANENT YEOMANRY SERGEANTS UNIFORM.
  VISCOUNT GALWAY: I wish to make one or two remarks with reference to the question which appears on the Paper in my name. An order has been issued by the War Offce to the effect that the permanent sergeants in the Yeomanry were to be used for recruiting purposes for the Army, and therefore they were always to appear in uniform. In consequence of that, Yeomanry officers feel that out of their pittance it is not fair that they should be called upon to pay for that uniform. On approaching the War Office on the matter, we were told that the uniforms of regular regiments would be given to these permanent sergeants, or else that an equivalent in money given, and the sergeants kept in their yeomanry uniform. After a
  822
  two months' interval, I went to the War Office to ask the officer in charge of the auxiliary forces as to whether the War Office had made up their minds as to what they were going to do, and I was given the stereotyped answer that it had been handed over to another Department. Two months does seem to be a very long time for the Yeomanry to be uncertain as to how that uniform is to be paid for, and, therefore, I think it is my duty, on behalf of the Yeomanry regiments, to bring the matter forward, and to get a definite answer from the noble Lord himself. We have heard many complaints of delay in War Office matters, but I am sure that the noble Marquess is not responsible for this delay. I certainly think it would be a good thing if the pigeon holes in the War Office were occasionally looked over, and business done more rapidly. I therefore beg to ask the noble Marquess if he can say whether the War Office has yet decided what uniform is to be worn by the permanent sergeants in the Yeomanry while they are engaged in recruiting for the Army, and from what fund it is to be paid for?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): I think my noble Friend judges the War Office rather hardly when he complains of delay in dealing with this question. Only two months have passed since he brought the matter before us, and those two months, as he must be aware, are two of the busiest months in the year. Details of this kind have to take their chance with many other great and difficult questions with which the Department has to deal; but I can assure the noble Lord that, the matter was not lost sight of, and I am able to tell him how we propose to meet the point which he has raised. As the noble Lord has stated, it has recently been decided that the sergeants on the permanent staff of the Yeomanry shall, when not engaged with their Yeomanry corps, be employed on recruiting duties for the Army. This decision entailing, as it does, their wearing their uniforms much more frequently than before, will undoubtedly lead to extra expense in clothing. We recognise that this expense will be incurred in the interests of the Army as a whole, and not in those of the Yeomanry, and we

  823
  admit the justice of the plea that no extra expense should fall upon Yeomanry corps by reason of the employment of these sergeants as Array recruiters. We propose, therefore, in future to supply to each sergeant so employed the undress uniform of the cavalry regiment to which he belongs; and it is upon that dress that the extra wear, caused by his recruiting duties, will fall. His full dress Yeomanry uniform will continue, as heretofore, to be provided by the corps out of the annual allowance granted to it for that purpose. I trust that this solution will be satisfactory to the Force, and to my noble Friend.
  Subject dropped.

  IMPRESSMENT DURING FRONTIER WARS.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, the last newspapers that arrived in England from India contained an account of a somewhat remarkable meeting that took place at Simla. That meeting was held at the United Service Institution at Simla, and it was called together to listen to a lecture given by Colonel Hutchinson on the recent campaign against the Afridis, and the lessons to be drawn from that campaign. The Viceroy was present, and the chair was taken by Sir Edwin Collen, the military member of the council of the Viceroy. There were present at that meeting the Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjaub, Sir James Westland, the Financial Member of the Council of the Governor General, and Sir Charles Nairn, the Acting Commander-in-Chief of the Army. I do not suppose that on any previous occasion there ever has been such an assembly of dignitaries at any meeting in India of that class. Colonel Hutchinson did not confine himself in his speech merely to the military operations, but he discussed the reasons which he supposed to have led to the outbreak of the Frontier tribes. He was followed by Mr. Thorburn, a Civil servant of considerable standing, who fills the important office of Financial Commissioner in the Punjaub—an appointment nearly next to that of Lieutenant-Governor of the province. Mr. Thorburn stated his objections to the
  824
  recent policy on the Frontier, but I am not going to allude to what he said on that point, because I am satisfied, from the assurance given in the dispatch from the Secretary of State for India to the Viceroy, which was presented to Parliament, that there will be a gradual and, in my opinion, most salutary change in the recent policy on the Frontier. My object to-night is to allude to only one remark that was made by Mr. Thorburn. In the course of his speech, he declared that Frontier wars force on the Government "the wholesale impressment of man and beast throughout the Punjaub." He went on to say (I am reading from a report which appeared in the Simla News)—
  "Impressment is, of course, only excusable from necessity, but as practised in the Punjaub, without discrimination, without system, and without organisation, it entails upon the unfortunate rural population tenfold more suffering than would be necessary with system and with organisation. In proof of what I say, the Deputy-Commissioners of the Punjaub impressed about 100,000 animals and 25,000 owners, although perhaps not more than one in five was sent to the front."
  That is a statement made in India, by Mr. Thorburn, and upon it I have to remark, in the first place, that Mr. Thorburn is probably the most competent authority in India to speak upon this matter, because, being Financial Commissioner, it is his duty to attend to the condition of the agricultural classes and watch over their welfare. Secondly, I have to remark that this statement made by Mr. Thorburn at Simla was not contradicted by the speakers who followed him at the meeting, and that those speakers included the Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjaub—who must have known all about the circumstances of the case—Sir James Westland, the financial member of the Council of the Governor General, and Sir Edwin Collen, the military member of the Council of the Governor General, who must also have had particular knowledge of the circumstances of the case. I fear, therefore, that the statement made by Mr. Thorburn is correct, although I should rejoice to hear that I am mistaken. I will assume, however, that it is correct, and that impressment on a large scale has taken place in the Punjaub, both of men and beasts. The

  825
  question, therefore, that I have to ask tonight of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India is, under what law does that impressment take place? Of course, my Lords, it is impossible that there has not been some legal warrant for the impressment of Her Majesty's subjects in the Punjaub and the forcible taking away of their property. I have no recollection of any such enactment, but that may be because during the time that I was in India we had no Frontier wars. If impressment is really necessary—which I should greatly question myself, because it appears to me that it is a mere matter of money—I cannot understand that men cannot be hired and animals cannot be bought for a campaign of the nature which we have recently undertaken; if it is absolutely essential to have this impressment, I do not think any of your Lordships would deny that a power of that kind should be exercised with the greatest care, that there should be regulations carefully drawn up to ensure that the burden is fairly apportioned among the people, and that it is not arbitrarily and unnecessarily imposed. Mr. Thorburn spoke very emphatically as to the defects of the present system. He asserted—and, as I said before, he has not been contradicted—that this impressment has taken place without discrimination, that it has taken place without system, and that it has taken place without organisation. This is a very grave charge to make against our administration, and calls for a prompt and stringent remedy if it is a true one. Now I ask, my Lords, that an account of any inquiry that has taken, place and the result of that inquiry shall be laid before Parliament, in order that we may hear what the real circumstances of the case are, and what has been done in order to remove the grievance. Colonel Hutchinson said in his account of the campaign that there were 20,000 camp followers, and if Mr. Thorburn is correct, of that number about a quarter have been impressed. The English Government about 15 years ago had to interfere with the administration of Egypt, where we found in existence the system called the corvée. The corvée was an impressments
  826
  under which the natives of Egypt were obliged forcibly to assemble on the banks of the Nile in places where the Nile was abnormally high and likely to overflow its banks, in order to make dams. Under our administration that system, which was the subject of the gravest complaint by the people of Egypt, has been remedied, if not abolished, and to hear altogether abolished, and to hear that now we have actually carried on, not for the purpose of protecting the country, but for the purpose of wars which, in the opinion of many people of high authority, are both unnecessary and impolitic, a system of impressment in one of the most loyal and important provinces in British India, is, I consider a matter of grave humiliation to the country. I shall say nothing more upon the subject, but I shall be very glad to hear any explanation which the Under Secretary of State may be able to give upon the matter, and I sincerely trust that it may be a satisfactory one. At any rate, I trust that there will be no objection to the Motion of which I have given notice, and which is as follows—
  "To call attention to a statement made by Mr. Thornburn, Financial Commissioner in the Punjaub, that 100,000 animals and 25,000 owners have been impressed in the Punjaub for the recent frontier operations; and to move an address for copies of any correspondence between the Government of India and the Secretary of State for India in Council, and also between the Government of India and the Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjaub, upon the subject."
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of ONSLOW): The Notice of the noble Earl only appeared on the Paper of your Lordships' House this morning.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I gave notice to the Secretary of State yesterday.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am aware of that, but the time has been too short to enable me to obtain any information from India in consequence of the inquiry of the roble Earl, and I can only say that no correspondence between the Government of India, and the Secretary of State for India in Council has taken place, nor have

  827
  we received any correspondence which has taken place between the Government of India and the Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjaub upon the subject. I have no doubt that some such correspondence has taken place and probably in due course it will come to this country, but in the meanwhile we are without any information upon the subject, and we have only the statement contained in the Indian newspapers of Mr. Thorburn's speech, to which the noble Lord has referred. I am not able to say whether that statement is correct or incorrect, but, as the noble Lord has observed, Mr. Thorburn is in a position to obtain information upon the subject, and therefore I do not intend in any way to challenge its accuracy. But I should like to point out to your Lordships that the circumstances under which this statement was made were of home peculiarity. Mr. Thorburn is an eminent member of the Indian Civil Service. Not only is he that, but he is also chairman of the Committee which was appointed to inquire into this very subject, and if he entertains these views as to the system and the organisation of the impressment in the case of war, he had every opportunity of laying those views in an official manner before the Government of India in the Report of his Committee; but however that may be I do not think it is in accordance with the practice in this country, nor do I think it is in accordance with the practice in India, that a public servant such as Mr. Thorburn should, in a public manner, make what can only be looked upon as an attack upon the policy of the Government of which he is a servant. I believe Mr. Thorburn has expressed his regret and apology to the Government of India for the way in which this statement was laid before the public, and that apology has been accepted, and therefore the matter so far may be said to have ended. In regard to this particular question of impressment, the noble Earl will no doubt expect to hear that it is not done without proper legal sanction and authority, and there is in the Bengal Code a regulation dating back as far as 1800 and amended in 1825 under which these proceedings are taken. That Code has been applied to the whole of India,
  828
  and I think that it is hedged in with, I must say, sufficient safeguards against abuse. It is the duty of a collector in case of war to call upon the landowners in the district through which the troops will have to pass, to furnish the necessary facilities and the necessary supplies, and in the event of their refusing to do so, or not exercising due diligence—the words are
  "fails to exert himself for the due execution of the duties so assigned to him."
  —there is a power to impress upon him forthwith according to his position in life and the circumstances of the case. There is not a power entrusted to the sole authority of the collector, but there is in addition a power of appeal to the Board of Revenue in whose jurisdiction the board may be constituted, so that if there is ample authority for impressment, there is ample room for appeal if the persons are dissatisfied with the action of the collector. In this country we, fortunately, in this generation at least, have no need for any of those greater sacrifices which have to be imposed upon countries when they are at war; but I think that the noble Earl will agree with me that even in England there is a power to impress into the service for the purposes of war the horses and the animals of private individuals, and in that respect the people of India are, excepting for the fact that wars there are of undoubtedly more frequent occurrence, not in a specially worse position than the people of this country. The noble Earl compared the system of impressment with the system of the corvée in Egypt. The system of the corvée is imposed, not for the purposes of war, when the expenses are such that private individuals have to make very large sacrifices, but it was imposed for the purpose of preventing the overflow of the Nile, and I do not think that the conditions are at all upon the same footing. I know that this impressment has been made use of upon many previous occasions, and as recently as the expedition to Chitral. The noble Earl says that it would be quite possible to obtain the necessary animals and drivers without the system, but it is asserted that the only arrangement which the native understands is the system of compulsory im-

  829
  pressment, and he is obliged on these occasions, although, of course, no one would wish to put impressment into force excepting under the stress and circumstances of war, to sacrifice himself upon the altar of duty to his country, and to accept double rates of hire for so doing. The noble Earl is, of course, aware that full provision is made for compensation in these cases, and that every precaution is taken by the Government of India to prevent any system of peculation on the part of the subordinate officials. In the Chitral Expedition there was an officer in charge of every 500 animals, so as to prevent any possibility of interference with the pay of the men who are impressed. I am sorry that I am unable to give the noble Earl more information than this, but, as I have already informed your Lordships, the time has been too short to obtain it, and we have not received from India any of the documents which the noble Earl asks us to lay upon the Table of the House.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I understand that the Simla Gazette, in which this account of the meeting is given which is brought before the House, is dated the 28th June, and the occasion was certainly a very remarkable one. I am not going to discuss what took place on that occasion, but I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken, that the criticisms upon the Government of India which were passed by Government officials upon that occasion, were of the character of a very unusual proceeding, and one which I gather from the noble Earl, is not approved by the Government, and for which one gentleman has tendered an apology, which has been accepted. I am glad to hear that, because, although open criticism in an assembly which is brought toether for that purpose is very salutary, it is not, in my opinion, desirable that Government officials should undertake at a meeting of that kind to criticise the proceedings of the Government they serve. I gather, therefore, from what the noble Earl said, that the attention of the Secretary of State for India was directed to what took place on that occasion, and I cannot help expressing my surprise that inasmuch ns no one could have read the proceedings without observing this
  830
  remarkable statement on the part of Mr. Thorburn, no step appears to have been taken to obtain information on the subject; and certainly it is not an unusual thing for the Indian Office to study the newspapers. On the contrary, it is one of the ordinary duties which is performed there, and a very useful one, and I should have thought that when a statement of this kind was made which is of a very serious character, that no time would be lost in an inquiry by the Government into the circumstances of the case, and asking for an explanation. That was not done, and therefore all that we can do is to wait until the explanations, which will no doubt be asked for, are here, and then we shall be better able to judge of the whole matter.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR: It is unfortunate that this discussion should have taken place at a time when we are still in some doubt as to the precise facts. The noble Earl who has just spoken complains of delay on the part of the India Office in ascertaining these facts.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: They have done nothing; they have not only delayed—they have done nothing.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR: The speech in which the episode referred to by the noble Earl below the Gangway took place, was delivered on the 28th June.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That is the newspaper report.
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR: It is, therefore, clear that the full report of that speech could never have been in our hands at this end by now. The telegraphic summary did not contain any reference to Mr. Thorburn's attack upon the transport arrangements. I think we must all agree with the noble Earl that anything in the nature of forced or impressed transport by human beings is odious, and should, if possible, be avoided, and I do not think there is any result which has followed from the extension of British rule in different parts of the world more satisfactory than the disappearance of anything of the nature of a corvée, such as that which

  831
  used to obtain in Egypt. But in time of war it is absolutely impossible that we should not in the last resort rely upon impressed service of some kind or another. And, as a matter of fact, there has been no time in tie history of India when the Government did not resort to the impressment of labour, either of animals or of human beings. It cannot be said that the idea of compulsion is one to which the people of India are not accustomed; it might, perhaps, be said that they have not always been accustomed to be paid, as they now are, on a most liberal scale whenever their animals were taken from them, and, as the Under Secretary of State said, we, in this country, take exactly the same power. There is the ordinary power, to which regard is had in time of peace, and there are the more stringent powers which can be resorted to in what I think is spoken of as a case of emergency. Under the Army Act, section 112,
  "Where an emergency has arisen, a general or field officer may require the justices to provide carriages and horses of every description, subject to payment, the differences as to which are to be determined by the county court judge."
  If that is the law in the United Kingdom we should not be too much shocked if we find that similar provisions exist in regard to India. The practice in India, as I understand it, is, in the first instance, the local officers endeavour to obtain the necessary transport animals by hire, and it is only failing hire that compulsion is resorted to; and I think it is must be perfectly evident that, in the 100,000 animals referred to in Mr. Thorburn's speech, a very large number probably were obtained by arrangement by hire from the owners, but that is one of the facts which we shall ascertain by-and-bye. I quite agree that every effort should be made to mitigate the hardships of impressment of this kind. You can do that in several ways. One is by using very great care in the choice of your agents, because there is this to be remembered, that in an Eastern country, however liberal the terms offered by the Government may be, there is always a great risk that in the arrangements actually made the minor local officers, who are not always persons of a very high character, may be dirven to resort to
  832
  extortion in one form or another. Therefore that is one way in which the evil may be minimised. Another way is by doing what I understand the Government of India has recently endeavoured to do, and that is to maintain in time of peace a considerable reserve of transport animals. But of course the moment comes when you get to the end of your reserve, and when you have to fall back upon hire, either voluntary or compulsory. I know—and I speak from experience—that at different times the Government of India has sought to place these arrangements for impressing transport upon a different and better footing; and I believe I am correct in saying that, under Lord Elgin's Government, a Committee sat in the year 1896 or 1897, of which this same Mr. Thorburn was the president, but until now the proposals which have been made, whether by that Committee or by other persons who have inquired into the matter on former occastons, have been proved to be impracticable and not desirable for adoption, and that is how the matter stands at this moment. I think, as I said at first, we must all regret the inconvenience and possibly the suffering which is occasioned by this system of impressment, but I believe that the terms offered by the Government are invariably liberal, and that to a large proportion, at all events, of the owners of transport animals the arrangement is a very profitable one, and one to which they are extremely glad to be parties.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I quite understand what has fallen from the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State, that the time was very short in order to get the information necessary to explain what I have brought before your Lordships; but after I had given notice to the Secretary of State of my intention to put the question, he did not ask me to postpone it, which I should otherwise have done. The regulation quoted by the Under Secretary of State does not appear to me to cover the ground with respect to this impressment, but I understand from the noble Earl that some later regulation has been issued upon the subject, and I hope that he will not object to the production to Parliament of this new regulation, under which

  833
  the impressment of men and animals is now carried on in India. I cannot conceive that there can be any objection, at at any rate, to the production of that regulation. The noble Marquess said that the same power exists in this country as that which has been used in India, but I think he must have forgotten that the subject to which I alluded was not specifically the impressment of animals, although I mentioned that fact, but the impressment of 25,000 men—and I doubt whether there is any power existing in this country for the impressment of 25,000 men for any purpose connected with war—and if it is necessary to exercise such an extreme power as that in India, I take it that there would be some authority——
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR: I would venture to ask the noble Earl to be careful, and quite sure that these 25,000 men were compulsorily impressed. It is perfectly clear that they could not all be compulsorily impressed. The large majority, probably, were hired with their animals. I merely ask the noble Earl to suspend judgment upon that point.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I exercise no judgment. I gave a statement that 25,000 men were impressed, and that statement was not denied on the spot by persons perfectly competent to deny the statement. I do not assume it is true. I am only asking for inquiry, and asking that the regulation should be laid before Parliament. I do not think I am too bold in asking that, and I trust that the noble Earl will promise that when the information does arrive from India, and the correspondence between the Government of India and the Secretary of State for India in Council, and also between the Government of India and the Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjaub, it will be laid before Parliament, in order that we shall know what has actually taken place upon this matter. I was sorry to hear the noble Marquess trying to depreciate the real seriousness of this question. It does seem to me to be a matter of the greatest importance; although I do not deny that there may be cases in which such a power must be used, I should be very sorry to deny the
  834
  possibility, and I should very much doubt whether the circumstances under which it has been used were such as to justify the exercise of such a power. I hope the noble Earl will allow me to amend my Motion by adding,
  "And the regulations under which the impressment of men and animals is now carried on in India."
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am not able to give any promise to the noble Earl that these papers, when they come home, will be laid upon the Table of Parliament, but I will draw the Secretary of State's attention to it, and when they arrive the matter shall receive consideration. With regard to the actual regulation under which this impressment takes place, we will take care that it is ascertained what the exact regulation is. Those that the noble Earl has in his hand are the regulations of Bengal, but I believe they are the same, if not identical, in the Punjaub; and if it is in accordance with the practice of Parliament, those regulations shall be laid on the Table with those already published.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I did not suppose that the documents were in our possession here. It has certainly been my experience, very common indeed, to lay documents which are accessible upon the Table of the House. For the convenience of the House, the noble Earl will probably consider it when the question arises, and I should think he would find that, if the correspondence is laid on the Table, there will be no difficulty in laying the regulations also.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: Will not the noble Earl agree to my Motion for the production of the regulations?
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will present them if I find it possible.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: In a matter of this sort, if the Government refuses to lay before Parliament the law under which this power is exercised, I consider it to be a very considerable abuse of their prerogative.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: If the noble Earl will not press the Motion, I will

  835
  make inquiries, and if the documents are material, they will be laid on the Table.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: That satisfies me entirely, because they cannot help being material, as they are the law under which this grave power has been exercised.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  THE IRISH LAND COURTS.
  "To move for a return showing, for the twelve months ending 31st March, 1898 (by counties)—

  "I. The number of cases heard by Sub-Commissions in which applications for rehearings were lodged and proceeded with:

  "II. The total amount of fair rent fixed by the Sub-Commissions:

  "III. The total amount of fair rent reported by the court valuers, namely—(a) the number of cases in which the court valuers agreed with the fair rent fixed, and the total amount of such fair rent; (b) the number of cases in which the court valuers recommended the fair rent to be increased, and the total amount of such increase; (c) the number of cases in which the court valuers recommended the fair rent to be reduced, and the total amount of such reduction:

  "IV. The total amount of fair rent fixed on rehearing, namely—(a) the number of cases in which the court confirmed the rent recommended by the court valuers, and the total amount of such rent; (b) the number of cases in which the court increased the fair rent recommended by the court valuers, and the total amount of such increase; (c) the number of cases in which the court reduced the rent recommended by the court valuers, and the total amount of such reduction."—(Lord Clonbrock.)

  LORD CLONBROCK: In moving for the Return which stands in my name on the Paper, I should like to say a few words as to my object in doing so. I am aware that a portion of the information which is asked for in this Return has been or will shortly be made public—that is to say, the number of cases heard by the Sub-Commissioners in which applications for rehearings were lodged and proceeded with, the amount of rent fixed by them, and the subsequent dealing
  836
  with those cases by the court of rehearing. But, besides that, there is an important matter—a link between the two—to which I wish to direct attention, and which is not in the same way made public, and that is to the reports of the court valuers as to the fair rent and the letting value of the farms. I believe that this Motion of mine is inaccurately worded, and I should like the permission of the House to amend it. Paragraph 3 (b) should run—
  "The number of cases in which the court valuers reported the fair rent, or fair letting value, to be in excess of the rent fixed by the Assistant Commissioners,"
  and so on. Owing to a change lately introduced the county court valuers do not now recommend the fair rent to be increased. What they do is to report on the fair letting value of the farm. This question of court valuers attracted the attention of the Fry Commission to a considerable extent, as is shown by the large space they allot to it in their Report. I mention this more especially, as one of their recommendations with reference to the court valuers was brought before the House on Thursday last—namely, that they should not be furnished with the pink Schedule, so that it should be clear that they formed a perfectly free and unbiassed opinion, and were not guided by the previous opinion of the Sub-Commissioners. This was brought before the House by my noble Friend the Duke of Abercorn; but, if my recollection serves me right, neither the noble Marquess who spoke from the Front Bench, nor the noble and learned Lord, alluded to it in their replies. I think it would be of great importance, not only to the landlords but to all interested in the administration of the law in Ireland, to know how far the valuers had formed an unbiassed opinion, and how far they varied in their estimates from the estimates of the Assessment Commissioners. I, therefore, hope that the noble Earl will assist us by giving us this Return. The noble Marquess at the head of the Government gave exceedingly sound advice to a deputation of Irish landlords whom he did the honour of receiving last year. He told them that those who did not complain went to the wall, and that if they thought

  837
  they were suffering injustice, they ought to take care that the injustice was not done in the corner. Well, my Lords, we have gone to the wall, there is no doubt of that, but it must be remembered that for a considerable time when the question of the integrity of the Empire was before the country we refrained from doing anything that would in any way embarrass the Government. We thought that to do otherwise would amount to an act of treason to our cause, and the party to winch we owed allegiance. We therefore forebore from pressing our claims, and the reward for our forbearance was the Act of 1896. We are most anxious to follow the sound advice given by the noble Marquess; we wish to lay our case before the public, but we wish to do so in the most open and straightforward manner, and to be very sure of the ground on which we stand. Now it seems to me to be far better that we should be able to rest our case on official, and, therefore, authentic figures, rather than on a gleaning and piecing together of isolated Reports and figures which might not give a fair estimate of the matter. I earnestly hope that the Government will see their way to grant this Return, and if I have not quite correctly expressed my object, that they will accept the spirit of it, and give it in some more accurate and convenient form, so that the reports of these court valuers may be made public, and also that we should not be made to wait until the next Report of the Land Commission, but be furnished with the information at an earlier date by means of the Return for which I beg now formally to move.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, the noble Lord has told us that he wishes to alter the terms of the Question which he has put down upon the Paper, but I hope he will excuse me for saying that I am afraid I cannot on the spur of the moment consent to his doing that. I can only give him an answer to the Question which he has put down. The information which appears to be sought in the first and second paragraphs of the suggested Return will be found on
  838
  reference to Tables 42 to 51 of the Appendix to the Annual Report of the Irish Land Commission for the year ended 31st March, 1898, which was presented to Parliament on Saturday last. I am afraid it has not been circulated to the noble Lords, but I have an office copy which I shall be glad to hand to the noble Lord if he would like to see it. In that Report figures are given which, for the period mentioned, show the number of applications for the rehearing of cases heard by the Sub-Commissioners; the number heard as well as the number withdrawn; and whether such cases were for a first or for a second statutory term. The returns also show the total amount of rent fixed by the Sub-Commissions, as well as the total amount of rent fixed by the Chief Commissioners after rehearing; and it, therefore, would appear unnecessary to prepare and embody in a separate Return the information asked for in these paragraphs. Then the remarks which I made at the beginning of what I said with regard to the noble Lord's request had more reference to the third and fourth paragraphs, and I was going to tell him that I am afraid it is impossible to give the very full and extensive Return mentioned for this reason, that until recently the court valuers did not purport to return the fair rent of the holding, but merely the fair letting value as it stood, on certain assumptions. Deductions, depending on many circumstances, may have had to be made from this sum in order to ascertain the fair rent. I am sure sure, therefore, that the noble Lord will see that it is impossible to give the Return in the exact terms in which he has asked for it. If, however, the noble Lord still wants further information, and will put down a Question on the Paper in the exact terms in which he would like it answered, I will make inquiries and see whether the information which he asks for can be provided.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at 6.30.