Lords Sitting of 4 August 1898

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Woolsack at a Quarter-past Four of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  FILEY WATER AND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAY AND HARBOURS BILL.
  Read the third time, with Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  WEST HAM 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.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order); further Amendments made: and Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendment considered (according to order), and agreed to.
  METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (EAT SHEEN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  DEVONPORT AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  HEYWOOD CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  TODMORDEN CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  CHELSEA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  ROCHDALE CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  SEAHAM HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  WATH-UPON-DEARNE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  WINDSOR AND ASCOT RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND).
  Forty-second annual Report of the Registrar-General (abstracts of 1896).

  ARMY.
  I. General annual return of the British Army, for the year 1897; with abstracts, etc.
  II. (Military Prisons)—Report on the discipline and management of military prisons, 1897.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
  1. Reports from University Colleges participating in the grant of £25,000 made by Parliament for University Colleges in Great Britain.
  2. Report of the Committee of Council on Education in schools for the blind and deaf; with appendices, 1897–98.
  3. Report of the Committee of Council on Education (England and Wales); with appendix, 1897–98.
  4. Special reports on educational subjects, 1897–98.
  5.

  (i.) Schools in receipt of Parliamentary grants;

  (ii.) Grants paid to school boards under section 97, Elementary Education Act, 1870;

  (iii.) School board accounts, and list of loans.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  I. General report to the Board of Trade upon the accidents that have occurred on the railways of the United Kingdom during the year 1897.
  II. Return of accidents and casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the six months ending 30th June, 1898, in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act (1871), 34th
  6
  and 35th Victoria, chapter 78; together with reports of the inspecting officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into.

  BOARD OF TRADE (LABOUR DEPARTMENT) (WAGES AND HOURS OF LABOUR).
  Report and statistical tables relating to changes in rates of wages and hours of labour in the United Kingdom in 1897, with comparative statistics for 1893–96.
  NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY.
  Report and minutes of evidence, dated 6th July, 1898, of the Committee appointed by the Treasury to consider the desirability of establishing a National Physical Laboratory; together with the minute of appointment of the Committee, dated 3rd August, 1897.
  LIQUOR LICENSING LAWS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Fifth Report of the Royal Commission, and minutes of evidence taken before the Commissioners; with appendices and index: Vol. VII.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
  Twenty-seventh annual report, 1897–98.

  TRADE REPORTS, 1898.
  Annual Series: Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance:

  No. 2,169. Russia (St. Petersburg).

  No. 2,170. Egypt (Port Said and Suez).

  No. 2,171. Russia (Odessa).

  INDIA (ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES, 1898–99).
  Appendices to the explanatory memorandum by the Secretary of State for India.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NATIONAL DEBT (SAVINGS BANKS).
  Balance sheet setting forth the assets and liabilities of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt in respect of trustee savings banks on 20th November, 1897.
  PREVENTION OF CRIME ACT, 1871 (LICENCES WITH SPECIAL CONDITIONS).
  Licences granted by Her Majesty to Mary Ann Sprackland and Mary Jane Stretch, convicts under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting them to be at large on condition that they enter the Royal Victoria Home, Horfield, Bristol.
  POLICE ACT (1890)
  Correspondence relative to the refusal of the certificate of the Secretary of State under section 17 (2) of the Act, to the River Tyne Police Force, for the year ended 29th September, 1897.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
  1. Order of the County Council of the East Riding of Yorkshire, constituting the parish of Withernsea an urban district "to be called the Urban District of Withernsea," as confirmed by the Local Government Board.
  2. Order of the County Council of Essex for transferring an area situate in the urban district of Braintree to the parish of Stisted and rural district of Braintree, as confirmed by the Local Government Board.
  3. Order of the County Council of Leicester for uniting the parishes of
  8
  Appleby Magna South into the parish of Appleby Magna, as confirmed by the Local Government Board.
  4. (County Salop) Order of the Local Government Board, altering their order confirming that of the County Council of Salop, constituting the urban district of Oakengates and the parishes of Lilleshall and Shiffnal.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  WORKHOUSE CHAPLAINS.
  Return respecting: Laid before the House pursuant to order of 10th June last, and to be printed. (No. 202.)
PUBLIC BILLS.

  MILITIA BALLOT BILL.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I wish to ask my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War a question, of which I have given him private notice. When the Militia Ballot Bill was last before your Lordships' House there was a question of the Government taking up the Bill which I had brought in. My noble Friend then said—
  "I make this offer to the noble Earl. I am ready to say that we shall, during the coming autumn, have that machinery very carefully examined and revised. It will be so much, at any rate, gained if we have at the War Office, ready to hand a carefully and thoroughly worked-out scheme for giving effect to the ballot, should the ballot ever become indispensable."
  The question I would ask the noble Marquess is, could this scheme, which he would have worked out during the autumn, be in the least effective without an amending Act?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): In reply to my noble Friend, I have to say that the scheme would not be effective in the absence of an amending Act. In

  9
  the speech from which the noble Earl has quoted I guarded myself upon that point by saying—
  "But I wish to guard myself against being supposed by the noble Earl or by anyone else to undertake that Her Majesty's Government will next year, or at any particular moment, make a Bill for the introduction of the ballot part of their programme of legislation. That is a pledge I am certainly not prepared to give."
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I did not imply that my noble Friend was going to do so, but I hope he will think better of it during the Recess.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with several of the Amendments agreed to; several other Amendments agreed to, with Amendments, and a consequential Amendment to the Bill; and several other Amendments disagreed to, with Reasons for such disagreement: The said Amendments and Reasons to be printed, and to be considered To-morrow. (No. 201.)

  HABITUAL INEBRIATES BILL.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, I beg to move the Third Reading of this Bill.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, there is an Amendment standing in my name on the Paper, to the following effect—
  "To move that the Bill be re-committed, with a view to its operation being restricted to persons who have been convicted of crime."
  Now, my Lords, in moving this, I know I am attempting a very quixotic thing. This Bill was brought in in the House of Commons; it passed there almost without criticism; indeed, the tendency of those who spoke with regard to the Bill was to induce, if possible, the Government, represented by the Home Secretary, to go even further than was originally intended in the Bill. Since the Bill came up to your Lordships' House I do not think there have been any hostile criticisms upon it; and, therefore, as I say, to ask your Lordships to pass this
  10
  Amendment is a most quixotic proceeding on my part. But, my Lords, I feel very strongly with regard to this Bill, and on this ground. No doubt the people who are endeavouring to get legislation to make all the world as good as themselves, are influenced by the very best motives, and I have no doubt the Home Secretary and the Government have the same object in view, but the fact remains that this Bill makes a crime of what is not at present a crime. It creates a crime. You have now the Habitual Drunkards Act, under which a man may, by his own voluntary act, shut himself up for three years in one of the reformatory asylums. But, if this Bill becomes law, what is at the present time voluntary will be made compulsory, and a man for being drunk under certain circumstances, which I will refer to presently, may be compulsorily shut up for three years. That is a very novel principle, and runs counter to the love of liberty which is innate in us all. The Bill also shows what progress in legislation means. A Bill which is one year voluntary, the next year becomes compulsory, and so we go on, and shall go on, until we all become slaves under the shackles of the State, or of some municipal authority, deprived of all liberty. Now, my Lords, what are the "crimes" for which, under this Bill, a man may be shut up? The Bill has two parts. The first part deals with men who are convicted of crime. It is the second clause of the Bill which makes drunkenness a crime, and the First Schedule states what is to be considered as a crime under this new legislation. I begin with the first. It is a crime, or will be a crime, punishable by three years' imprisonment in a reformatory, to be found drunk in a highway or other public place, whether a building or not, or on licensed premises. It will be a crime to be found drunk whilst in charge, on any highway or other public place, of any carriage, horse, cattle, or steam-engine; and it will be a crime to refuse or fail, when drunk, to quit licensed premises when requested. I should have thought those who held these licensed premises could have turned these men out without an Act of this kind, or call in the police. It will be a crime to be found intoxicated while driving a hackney carriage, or

  11
  drunk and persisting, after being refused admission on that account, in attempting to enter a passenger steamer. Good heavens! my Lords, I should have thought those who had charge of passenger steamers could deal with these men. Surely this is carrying legislation too far! Under this Bill, being drunk on board a passenger steamer and refusing to leave such steamer when requested will also be a crime, as also will being found in a state of intoxication and incapable of taking care of one's self, and not under the care or protection of some suitable person, in any street, thoroughfare, or public place, and being found in any shebeen drunk. Now, my Lords, I venture to think this is not the sort of legislation that is desirable. It is not desirable to create lime, and the offences which I have mentioned ought not to be considered as crimes We all know that the noble Marquess the Prime Minister has a great love of liberty. In 1895, or 1896, the noble Marquess, in replying to a temperance body which waited upon him, used most excellent language, which I shall not bother your Lordships by quoting, but the substance was this: the noblest idol that man could adore was the idol of liberty.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I never said that.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: That is what the noble Marquess said. He may shake his head now, because it is unsuited to this Bill. My Lords, I want to ask my noble Friend whether he thinks that by converting persons guilty of the offences which I have referred to into criminals the Home Secretary has offered up a suitable offering to the idol which the Prime Minister so much admires. I do not think my noble Friend could say that this is a suitable offering to the idol of liberty. The great evil of drunkenness is drunkenness in the home, but the men who sit sopping and drinking at home, to the injury of their wives and families, are absolutely untouched by this Bill. But we may expect, when this Bill is passed, that there will be another one brought in for the purpose of preventing drunkenness at home, and then
  12
  you will have inspectors going round to see whether there are any drunkards in people's homes. The Bill is imperfect without that, and depend upon it, when this Bill is passed, there will be people who will do their best to force that upon the Government. As regards myself, no one hates drunkenness more than I do. I loath and detest a drunkard, but I think these offences ought to be made, not crimes, but nuisances. I go this length and say that, if a man comes staggering along the street and knocks against people as he goes along, he ought to be taken up. One of our present Scotch judges told me a story of a man—a Scotchman—who knocked up against a gentleman in the street. The man so butted against said, "Bless you, what do you want?" "Want!" replied the Scotchman, "I dinna want naething; I'm as, fu' as fu' can be." I say that a man of that character is a real nuisance, and he ought to be shut up and dealt with by the police. I am one of those who think that the less legislation we have the better, and that it is by moral influence that men and nations improve and progress. Look at the change in the customs and habits of the upper classes in reference to drunkenness! During this winter, in the West End, I make bold to say that I have only seen one drunken man, and he was lying with his head on the pavement and his feet in the gutter in Berkeley Square. A man of that kind ought to be taken up by the police. I looked for a policeman to do it, but there was not one in sight or hearing. My conscience compels me to make this protest against this evil legislation, and I appeal to my noble Friend the Prime Minister to do something if he can, to protect his idol from the insulting gift which his Home Secretary is laying at its shrine.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: My idol is not the habitual drunkard.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I would further remind the noble Marquess that in the year 1895, when he was in opposition, and when the present Lord Chancellor was in opposition, the then Lord Chancellor brought in a similar Bill, which my noble Friend opposed.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: The noble Earl is entirely in error. The Bill to which he refers enabled persons to be shut up who had never been convicted at all of anything.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Then I am very glad my noble Friend opposed that Bill, and I hope he will go one step better and oppose his own Bill. I have not the slightest hope of carrying my Amendment; it is impossible at this time of the Session that such a subject should be properly discussed, but I shall, if I am alive, bring in a Bill in the next Session of Parliament to do what my Amendment now proposes—namely, to restrict the operation of this Bill to persons who have been convicted of crime.
  LORD BELPER: I regret that my noble Friend was not in his place on the Second Reading of this Bill, when the principle of that Bill should have been discussed. As far as I am able to follow the remarks of the noble Earl, they are all directed against the principle of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Only against the non-criminal part.
  LORD BELPER: It is quite true that the Amendment of my noble Friend does not take the same line as his remarks. He moved that the Bill be re-committed, with a view to its operation being restricted to persons who have been convicted of crime. There is nobody dealt with by this Bill who has not been convicted of crime in some degree. It is true that some are convicted of a less crime than others. The first clause of the Bill deals with indictments for serious offences, and the second with offences of drunkenness.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: You make the latter a crime.
  LORD BELPER: They are criminals whether they are in prison a fortnight or sis months. I understand that my noble Friend wishes to exclude from the operation of the Bill habitual drunkards who have not been convicted of serious crime. That would strike a very great blow at the Bill, because I find from the
  14
  returns of habitual drunkards, which are issued by the police, that out of 23,000 cases classed by the police as habitual drunkards, only 261 of them were convicted on indictment, and therefore his Amendment would have the effect of ruling out the very large proportion of these cases. The Amendment which the noble Earl proposes is really that we should leave the law in its present unsatisfactory state with regard to that class of people. My noble Friend said this was a question which had been brought forward by faddists and people of that sort, but the fact is there have been three Committees lately, and other Committees before, who have come to the same conclusion and made a similar recommendation; and in the last Report of the Committee on Inebriates it is stated that the repeated infliction of short sentences for ordinary drunkenness has been universally condemned as unsuitable as a means of reform and cure. In the first place, the people dealt with by this Bill must be habitual drunkards, and must have been convicted three times before, in the course of the 12 months, of a similar offence. They are, as I ventured to point out in the remarks I made on the Second Reading, many of them people who have been repeatedly convicted of such offences, and who have spent a very large portion of each year in prison. I find that in one London prison alone there were 105 women who had been convicted from 40 to 133 times in the course of a single year. Therefore even on the narrow view that it would be better that these people ought not——
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: The broad view.
  LORD BELPER: It is not a broad view at all, but on that view alone probably these people would be much better off by having to go through some course of retirement, under regulations, by which they could be weaned from the unhappy state into which they have got, and be prevented from undergoing, year after year, repeated bouts of drunkenness and repeated terms of imprisonment. The proposal which the noble Earl has made is that this Bill should be recommitted. I sincerely hope that the House will not

  15
  take this view, but that they will endorse what has been the opinion, not only of the Committees who have sat upon the question, but of the experts with regard to this sort of disease. The most experienced magistrates all agree that it would be better to substitute for the present system some long term of incarceration with such a treatment as is likely to effect a cure. My Lords, I know that this is a new proposal. It is really only following the course of the proposals under which the reformatories were established, where those of tender years have been shut up, in order to wean them from the evil course of life in which they had started. I will go further. Where any class of people are in such a state that they are incapable, and are not likely to be a danger to those about them, such as those who are dealt with under the lunacy laws, treatment is prescribed by Parliament; and I venture to think the difference between some of those who come under this Bill and those who come under the Lunacy Acts is not so great as some noble Lords would suppose. I find that in one union—St. Pancras—there were 230 persons admitted in 1897 to the insane wards who were suffering from alcoholic excesses, and in whose cases alcohol was the sole cause of the mental disturbance. Therefore I venture to think there is some necessity for an amendment of the law in the direction proposed. The noble Earl waxed very eloquent upon the "liberty of the subject." I venture to think that some consideration should be shown for the sober and law-abiding citizen, whose liberty is continually being interfered with by these people, because in each of these oases we have not only drunkenness, but disorder, assaults, and the various other offences which are committed by these people when they are drunk. My Lords, I hope your Lordships' House will take this view of the question and give a Second Reading to the Bill, which, as I have said, is founded upon the recommendations of those most qualified to form an opinion on the subject. It has passed through the other House with very general approval, and not a single objection was raised to it in this House until this stage of the Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I am unwilling that this Bill should pass without saying a word or two in reply to the observations of the noble Earl who moved the Amendment. I am not quite certain that I heard all the objections raised by the noble Earl, but I did hear an allusion to an opposition we offered to a Bill on the same subject which was introduced by the late Government. I took an active part in opposing that Bill. I heartily sympathise with the noble Earl in his desire to protect the liberty of the subject, but I cannot help thinking that he has moved this Amendment under some misapprehension as to what this Bill provides. An essential condition of the Bill is that the persons to whom it applies must have been convicted of something three times within 12 months, and must be convicted upon indictment of being habitual drunkards. This Bill is a very different one to the Bill which was introduced by the late Government. The real provision of the Bill is one to protect the liberty of the subject, and to prevent the persons who are made the objects of the Bill being exposed to other legislation, which I suspect public indignation will ultimately insist upon being passed. This is an effort to meet the growing demand that drunkenness should be properly treated. I daresay the noble Earl remembers the case of Mrs. Jane Cakebread, which was one of considerable importance in respect to this question. I forget the number of hundreds of times she was sent to prison, but it became a perfect scandal. The noble Earl would like that to go on, I suppose. When he asks that the Bill should be recommitted, what does the noble Earl propose to substitute for clause 2?
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Strike it out altogether. Leave things as they are.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not believe the conscience of this country will allow a system to go on under which you can have 350 convictions, which, I believe, was the number of convictions in the case of Jane Cakebread. The object of this Bill is to meet what is felt to be a very great want—namely, that there is no provision for habitual

  17
  drunkards other than sending them to a house of correction. The proposal is to send them to homes where they can be properly looked after, and where that which is more or less a sort of disease may be treated with some hope of a cure being effected. This Bill is a very different one from that which I for one steadily opposed on a former occasion. That Bill did, I think, strike very seriously at the liberty of the subject, but this Bill only strikes at the liberty of those persons who have proved, by their action, that they are incapable of taking care of themselves. I hope your Lordships will reject the Amendment of the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I withdraw my Amendment now, but I shall, as I said, give your Lordships an opportunity of discussing this question next year.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put.
  Bill read a third time.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 2, line 26, leave out '1893,' and insert '1898.'"—(Lord Belper.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 7, line 24, leave out '1893,' and insert '1898.'"—(Lord Belper.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 8. line 24, leave out '1893, and insert '1898.'"—(Lord Helper.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Lord BELPER: I now move that this Bill do pass.
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE) BILL.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, in asking the House to read this Bill a second time, I shall not detain your Lordships longer than I can possibly help, as I know that your Lordships are anxious to pass on to the consideration of more interesting matter. But as this Bill is of some importance, it is necessary for me to say a word or two in explanation of it. Its provisions are based upon the recommendation of a Committee presided over by Mr. L. Courtney, the honourable Member for Bodmin, and are, roughly speaking, to effect a financial rearrangement with respect to certain services hitherto maintained out of a fund called the Mercantile Marine Fund. That fund, my Lords, which was established in 1854, is at present, as your Lordships may know, of a very composite character; its chief revenue is derived from the light dues, but its income is also supplemented by moneys payable from various other services, such as, for instance, the fees payable for the examination of officers, the fees for survey, and so forth. The expenditure of the fund is also equally heterogeneous, for not only is it charged with the lighthouse service, but with many other expenses in connection with various matters, like the local marine boards, the mercantile marine offices, the survey of ships, and various other services of that kind. It is, however, my Lords, to be noticed that of all these services the lighthouse service is the only one which is self-supporting. The light dues, indeed, not merely maintain that service, but afford, generally speaking, a considerable surplus, and under the present system a great portion of that surplus has been put aside to defray the deficiency in the other services. Such, then, my Lords, is, shortly, the present character of the Mercantile Marine Fund and the present system by which its finances are administered. It is obvious, however, that a system of this nature, under which receipts of various kinds are mingled together to meet mixed payments, must entail considerable disadvantages, and there is, I think, little doubt that of those disadvantages one of the chief ones is that it allows of no adequate guarantee for economic administration, nor does it allow for any

19
real or separate Parliamentary control, either over the various sources of income which together make up the fund or upon the different items of expenditure "which it is made responsible for. Although a return is now made to Parliament of the general condition of the Mercantile Marine Fund, it would, I think, under the present system, be extremely difficult for any Member to raise anything like an effective discussion upon any particular item contained in the general statement, and consequently equally difficult to obtain any alteration in the extent or mode of expenditure. My Lords, in order, therefore, to meet this defect, the Committee recommended, and the Bill provides, that the Mercantile Marine Fund should be broken up into its component parts, and that each branch of expenditure should be brought before Parliament in the ordinary course each year. We propose, therefore, to establish a general Lighthouse Fund, which will be maintained solely out of the light dues and charged merely with the expenses of the lighthouse service. All the other expenses hitherto charged to the Mercantile Marine Fund will be transferred to the Treasury, and will be met by moneys provided by Parliament, in so far, of course, as they are not already met by the fees payable in connection with these services. This transfer will naturally entail a considerable additional charge upon the Votes, but that charge will, to a certain extent, be met by the establishment, provided for in the Bill, of a small fee for the registration, transfer, and mortgage of ships, and also by providing that in future shipowners shall bear the cost of repatriating their own shipwrecked seamen, which hitherto has fallen upon the Mercantile Marine Fund. These two easements, if I may use that term, will reduce the additional charge upon the Exchequer to about £35,000 or £40,000 a year. Well, my Lords, so much for the first disadvantage of the present system and the remedy by which we propose to meet it. There are two other disadvantages on which I should like to say one word—disadvantages which are principally apparent when the point of view of those interested in shipping is considered. As the House probably knows, the present method of levying light dues is exceedingly cumbrous and
20
complex. Every merchant ship, foreign or British, loading or discharging cargo or part of cargo in any port in the United Kingdom, pays dues in respect of every lighthouse from which it is assumed to have derived advantage, or to be about to derive advantage, on the voyage, and these dues are very complicated by the fact that variations are introduced according to the nature of the voyage which the vessel undertakes. My Lords, the obvious result of that is that the shipowners complain that they cannot verify the charges that are made, and that they are sometimes called upon to pay dues in respect of a lighthouse 150 miles from the course which their vessel has taken. Moreover, my Lords, it is asserted, and I believe there is good ground for the assertion, that the uncertainty connected with the expenses to which shipowners may be put in the payment of light dues often has the effect of deterring them from undertaking small enterprises where the profit is uncertain, and consequently, therefore, trade and employment are checked. In order to remove this complaint, my Lords, we propose in future that light dues shall be levied at a fixed rate per voyage in accordance with the tonnage of the vessel. The rates that have been decided upon are contained in the Second Schedule of this Bill, and the calculations on which they have been based have been made with the twofold object, firstly, of obtaining a sufficient sum to maintain the lighthouse service and, if possible, to allow of a small annual surplus, and, secondly, with the object of disturbing as little as possible the existing ratios between the dues at present payable by the different classes of vessels. I do not wish to quote unnecessary figures, but I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that the yield of light dues under this new system is estimated at about £450,000 a year, which will be a reduction upon the present amount of about one-fifth, and will be quite sufficient to maintain the lighthouse service. We propose also that there should be a maximum payment for every vessel, and that certain vessels, such, for instance, as fishing vessels, should be exempted altogether from the payment of light dues. But these, my Lords, are matters on which I do not think I need enter

21
to-night. I now come to the second objection which is urged against the present system, an objection which is fully met by the provisions of this Bill. In the early part of my remarks I reminded the House that not one of the services charged on the Mercantile Marine Fund, with the exception of the lighthouse service, was self-supporting, and consequently large sums had been taken from, the amounts collected as light dues to meet the deficiency; but those who pay the light dues do not appreciate the excellence of this arrangement, which, of course, necessitates much larger payments by shipowners than would be the case if the light dues merely went to maintain the lighthouse service. Both Mr. Courtney's Committee and the Board of Trade have had numerous representations from official bodies to the effect that it is not fair that services which are maintained for the good of the general, community should be paid for almost entirely by dues levied from one special class and one particular industry. Whether that contention is sound or not, the point is fully met by the provisions of this Bill, for, by the breaking up of the Mercantile Marine Fund and the establishment of a general Lighthouse Fund, light dues will in future be merely devoted to the maintenance of the lighthouse service, and all the other services wall be transferred to the Treasury. Thai is all I need say with regard to the Bill; so far as it deals with subjects inquired into by Mr. Courtney's Committee, but there is a further clause which has recently been added to it, in which an attempt is made by the Government—an attempt which, I think, will receive the sympathy of the House—to check a considerable and a growing evil. I mean the decrease in the number of British sailors carried in British merchant ships. Tour Lordships may not be aware how great that decrease is; but, in order to give the House some idea, of its extent, I may say that of the total number of seamen carried in British ships on March 25th, 1896, in the rating of petty officers and seamen, nearly 30 per cent, were foreigners. A similar census was taken in 1891, and it appears that between those two dates the number of British boys and sailors carried on English ships had decreased by 6,750. More-
22
over, my Lords, it is to be noticed that the decrease occurs principally among sailors under 25 years of age, whose numbers were less in 1896 by nearly 4,000 than in 1891. This falling off is, of course, a very serious matter—serious not only from the point of view of the mercantile marine, but also from the point of view of national defence. The importance of our naval reserve is, I think, generally appreciated, and it would obviously be a serious disadvantage to us if the area from which that force is selected became considerably curtailed, because such a curtailment would not only imply that there might be a difficulty in obtaining sufficient men for the naval reserve, but it also implies that in time of war the mercantile marine, deprived of its men, might have to be manned to a large extent, and perhaps even to a preponderating extent, by foreign seamen. It has therefore been felt by the Government that if any reasonable means could be found for stimulating the employment of young men and boys upon English ships the opportunity should not he lost. We are assured that the real difficulty in this matter lies rather upon the side of the employers than on the side of the men. There is no apparent lack of boys who are ready to adopt a sea-faring life, but shipowners are increasingly reluctant to take them, for the very simple reason that for the first year a boy is practically useless, and is a source rather of expense than of profit. We therefore propose, my Lords, to try and meet the difficulty by granting an allowance equal to one-fifth of the light dues to any British ship that will carry boys according to a certain scale, and under certain regulations, to be laid down by the Board of Trade; and I may add that one of these conditions is that the boys should have been enrolled in the naval reserve and should bind themselves to come up for service when called upon to do so. My Lords, it may seem at first sight that the allowance which we propose to grant is an inadequate and trivial one, but it must be remembered that it holds good for three years. It is hoped, therefore, that it will have some effect in the direction desired, for, although a boy may be of little use during the first year of his apprenticeship, that

23
is not so during the second or the third year. Of course, my Lords, the proposal is only a tentative one, but I hope the House will agree that it is a step in the right direction. If it is supported by the shipowners, as we hope it will be supported, I for one trust sincerely it may help to check the great and growing evil that I have referred to. I ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Question put.
Bill read a second time.

VAGRANCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
LORD BELPER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Question put.
Motion agreed to.
LORD BELPER: My Lords, I have two small Amendments to this Bill. The first is to leave out subjection 4, which provides that any person charged with an offence under the Act, and the wife of any such person, shall be competent, but not compellable, to give evidence. The omission of that clause is necessary because the point to which it refers is dealt with in the evidence in the Criminal Cases Bill.
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
LORD BELPER: My Lords, the next Amendment I have is to leave out clause 2, which I now move. This clause proposes to repeal so much of section 10 of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, as authorises the punishment, of whipping. The clause was inserted in the House of Commons, but since then the matter has been further considered, and the Government have come to the conclusion that it is not desirable to part with this power under this Bill. I may say that during the last five years there have only been seven cases where whipping has been resorted to under the powers of the Vagrancy Act, and in each of those oases the offences were of such a seriously indecent
24
character that I am sure your Lordships would not wish that the power should be parted with in such cases.
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
LORD BELPER: I now move that the. Bill do pass.
Question put.
Motion agreed to.

BENEFICES (No. 2) BILL.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the two small Commons' consequential Amendments be agreed to.
Question put.
Motion agreed to.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL,
Read the second time (according to order); Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The main object of the Bill is to give trustees the power of investing in loans issued by county councils. The power now exists to invest in the loans which town councils in Scotland may issue, and there seems no good reason why the same power should not be extended to the loans issued by county councils. The reform is one which is generally desired by the county councils in Scotland. The Bill has been approved in another place, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
Question put.
Bill read a second time.

SEED SUPPLY AND POTATO SPRAYING (IRELAND) BILL.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, this Bill, in so far as it relates to the supply of seed potatoes, is similar to an Act which, was passed in the year 1895, under the late Government, and another which was passed in 1890, by the then Conservative Government. The Bill itself is for the purpose of legalising proceedings which have been taken, under the instruction of the Local Government Board in Ireland, by the guardians in purchasing for distribution seed potatoes and seed oats, in those districts where there is great poverty amongst the occupiers; and it also provides for the purchase and the hiring out of machines and material for spraying potatoes, with the object of trying to combat the evils of the potato disease. The guardians are authorised to provide what I have mentioned with the sanction of the Local Government Board and the Board of Works, and with the consent of the Treasury loans can be made to the guardians for the purpose. The guardians are authorised to sell seed and spraying machines to the occupiers, but they are limited to occupiers whose rate able value does not exceed the annual value of £15. Spraying machines are also allowed to be let on hire, and there are limitations concerning the amount of seed sold. There are also regulations with regard to making payments, and the spraying machines are only allowed to be sold for cash on delivery. The amount due for the articles sold by the guardians, and not paid for in cash, can be levied as part of the poor rate, where the occupier is rated to the poor rate, or in other cases by special rate. But where the article is paid for in cash, the guardians have power to allow an abatement of one-fifth, and in the case of spraying machines an abatement of one-tenth from the price, and any loss occasioned by such abatement is to be paid out of the Irish Church Temporalities Fund. Provision is also to be made by the guardians for instructors in the use of the spraying machines, and the Local Government Board is empowered to make general rules and regulations for carrying out the Act. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Beading. It has passed through the
26
other House without opposition, and will, it is hoped, be of material benefit to the people in the poorer parts of Ireland where they are not able to provide these things for themselves without assistance.
Question put.
Bill read a second time.

KINGSTOWN HARBOUR ROADS TRANSFER BILL.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, this is a Bill which has also passed through the other House of Parliament without any opposition. It is proposed by its means to carry into law an agreement for the transfer of certain roads and lands now vested in the Commissioners of Kingstown Harbour to the Commissioners of the township of Kingstown. The Bill also gives, by its Third Schedule, legal force to an agreement which has been made between the township Commissioners and the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company for the transfer to the latter of some portions of the roads in question. It is considered advisable to transfer these roads to the railway company for the purpose of providing station accommodation, which is necessary for the purposes of the Kingstown mail service. This Bill will finally settle some matters which have been the subject of prolonged legal controversy. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Question put.
Bill read a second time.

INDIA OFFICE (STORE DEPOT) BILL.
Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
CIRCUIT CLERKS OF JUSTICIARY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
PRISONS BILL.
Read the third time (according to order), and passed.

VACCINATION BILL.
On the Order for going into Committee on this Bill,
THE MARQUESS OF AILESBURY: My Lords, in pursuance of the Notice which I have placed upon the Paper, I rise to move—
"That this House do resolve itself into the said Committee this day three months;"
and in doing so I should like to apologise for not being in my place on the occasion of the Second Reading, but I can assure your Lordships that that was due to no fault of mine. With all diffidence I venture to urge that a contentious Measure of this description, which has been chopped and changed about at the eleventh hour, should not have been pushed through, as this has been, and brought up at the fag end of the Session. I consider that that is unfair to your Lordships' House, and makes us, in other words, a mere registration society, and leaves us no time whatever to discuss this Bill. The three reforms which are wanted, as regards vaccination, m my opinion, are: (1) lymph hospitals, as in Germany; (2) no impure lymph, but to use the best vaccine matter that is procurable; (3) more latitude as regards age. Under this Bill there is an attempt to deal with this matter, but at the same time the Bill is badly drafted. It does not compel the local authorities to use the best lymph, but leaves them to use any lymph they think fit. Re-vaccination is not touched upon nor alluded to, and it would certainly be a help to this House if we had the opinion of an expert like Lord Lister upon this subject. We, who have always been brought up in the school of compulsory vaccination, do not wish to see the good work which Dr. Jenner accomplished entirely flung away or certainly abrogated. It is not likely that the Imperial Parliament of Dr. Jenner's day would have granted him £10,000 one year and £20,000 five years afterwards if
28
this vaccination were to be as useless and ineffective as its opponents aver. It is not only England, but all the nations of the world, have honoured his name in adopting vaccination, and the monument in Trafalgar Square is a proof of the homage, not of England only, but of the world at large, and it is not likely that we, whose countryman he was, are going to see his good work put on one side when all the other nations of the world have honoured him. Before the days of vaccination, from 10 to 14 per cent, of those attacked with small-pox died, and many the same age as myself will recollect some 20 or 30 years ago, how often we saw people marked on their faces with small-pox; but you do not see that nowadays, and why? Because we have made vaccination compulsory. It has been proved that out of 15,000 cases in the London small-pox hospital, while the un-vaccinated died at the rate of 37 per cent, the vaccinated died only at the rate of 6½ per cent. In 1887 it was estimated that out of 750,000 infants vaccinated, only 50 died of this disease. My Lords, you are well aware that we are still liable to epidemics in this country, as witness Sheffield, Middlesbrough and Gloucester city. The Report presented by the Government investigator as regards Sheffield, is—
"Taking the whole population of Sheffield, only 155 of every 10,000 vaccinated persons were attacked, and only seven died. Out of the same proportion of unvaccinated persons, 970 were attacked, and no less than 480 cases ended fatally. Taking the total of persons living in houses actually invaded by the smallpox, the number of vaccinated children under 10 who were attacked was 78, and only one died. The unvaccinated patients of the same class amounted to no less than 860, with a fatal issue in 381 cases."
Those, my Lords, are striking figures. In 1894 the increase of small-pox in London was distinctly attributed to the anti-vaccinators. In Austria and the United States small-pox is nearly stamped out. Why is that? Because they go in for compulsory vaccination, and I think we might, in that respect, take a leaf out of Uncle Sam's book, and recognise how much they know of the good work accomplished by Dr. Jenner. Perhaps it would not be out of place if I were to inquire of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War why it is that our soldiers

29
are re-vaccinated on going on foreign service? Why is that done? There is only one answer—because it is right. Furthermore, I believe that the schoolmasters in our National schools are obliged to be vaccinated, and if they were to state that they had conscientious scruples against it they would not be allowed to be schoolmasters. And why, my Lords, are Ireland and Scotland left out in the cold? This Bill is to remain in force for five years, and that seems to me to be a very strange thing; but it simply means that the Government will get over the next General Election, and you will not be troubled with faddists. There are other ways of killing a Kilkenny cat without drowning it, and I remember the answer given by a Member of the House of Commons to a deputation of anti-vaccinationists the day before the General Election. He said—
"Gentlemen, if you will only vote for me to-morrow, you can all get the small-pox the day after."
That is the way to treat these people. If this conscience clause becomes law, I ask the Ministry what will become of Lord Beaconsfield's dictum, "Sanitas Sanitatis, omnia Sanitas" You are kicking down the ladder that led you to glory. Do you mean to tell me that Lord Beaconsfield would have proposed a five years' experiment involuntary vaccination? It is enough to turn his dead body in the grave. The slums of London, and of our great cities, would be too horrible to depict if you added to them the scourge of small-pox. It is the poorest of the poor in these congested districts who will suffer—some of those 50,000 families, each family with only one room, and who are rack-rented besides, who will suffer. Where will the conscientious scruples come in when the bread-winners perish? The rich may go abroad, and even if he dies the Chancellor of the Exchequer may point to the increased death duties derived on account of the increased deaths; but if the bread-winner dies nothing is left but the poor-house, or, at best, outdoor relief. If this clause passes there will in future be an "open door policy," as regards small-pox. There are no safeguards in this Bill; they are flung away to "martyrs"; but my contention is that the Government might have let
30
sleeping dogs lie until they had made up their minds one way or the other. The idea of endeavouring to make vaccination popular is absolute rubbish. Sanitary laws will never be popular with a certain section of the community. The Education Act never will be popular; but you have no hesitation about taking money from the parents who will not send their children to school. You cannot tell me that because hanging has not done away with murder, that that is a reason for abolishing hanging. There is no reason whatever why these pains and penalties should be done away with. The day will come, my Lords, when you will regret that you have ever passed this Bill, because you may see a most fearful outbreak of small-pox, of which you will, have been unwittingly the cause.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Although there are many reasons why your Lordships should defer going into Committee, yet I think that the speech of the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading gave one very strong argument in favour of proceeding with the Bill, and that is, that without this Bill being passed, arm to arm vaccination would continue, and that is the chief cause of the discredit into which vaccination has fallen; but no doubt some blame is due to the Royal Commission on Vaccination for not having reported earlier, and the Department responsible for the subject should have brought it before Parliament earlier. No doubt an enormous-number of children have died through vaccination—arm to arm vaccination. According to evidence before the Royal Commission lymph had been taken from the child of a scrofulous mother. Some medical men who gave evidence before the Commission seemed to regard with great unconcern the fact that calf lymph produces sore arms, and that is because they will not take it till the expiration of eight days, when as a matter of fact it ought to be taken at the end of five days, because the calf is a stronger animal than a baby; notwithstanding that, they continue the old formula. The defect of the vaccination law has been that from being compulsory it has been cheap, and, being cheap, it has been nasty. I am forced to say that the noble Lord who promotes this Bill

31
seems to have put too much faith in the calf lymph which has been treated with glycerine. It was only yesterday that I saw a child six months old which had been treated with this new glycerinated lymph, and in five weeks he had not recovered from the effects of that vaccination. Its shoulders were full of marks of a very large size. There were three, but three seemed to be unnecessary. The parent of that child is a commissioned officer in the Guards and able to afford it every medical attention procurable, and yet after rive weeks it has not entirely recovered. In the evidence given before the Commission one doctor stated that he had vaccinated all his children within 24 hours of their birth. The speech of the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading was impressive, but it failed in one point; he gave no explanation of why clause 2 must be retained, the electioneering clause, which led to the loss of the Reading election, to the great satisfaction of both parties.
LORD LISTER: Happily it is not necessary to advocate the cause of vaccination. The great majority of the Members of the House of Commons—and, I trust, every Member of your Lordships' House—are aware of the enormous benefits which vaccination confers. The only question is, what are the best means of promoting vaccination in the country? It is to be observed that if the Amendment to omit the clause is passed, the result will not be the passing of the Bill without the clause objected to. The Bill will inevitably be sent back to us from the Commons with that clause re-introduced, and the consequence will be that the Bill will be thrown out for the Session. Not only so, but I am given to understand that if this Bill, which is framed very much on the lines of the Report of the Royal Commission, is thrown out this year, it is not likely that the Government will introduce another Bill next Session dealing with the subject, and very probably not in the year after, nor perhaps for many years to come. Therefore what we have to consider is whether it is better for us to pass this Bill in the form in which it is sent to us from the Commons, or be content to let the subject of the administration of
32
the vaccination laws remain in the position in which it is. After giving the subject the best consideration in my power, my impression is that it would be better to pass the Bill as it is sent to us than to have no Bill at all. If, after the long labours of the Commission, and the endeavours of the Government, nothing whatever were done by Parliament in regard to vaccination, I think the result would be to cast discredit upon the whole subject. It is not as if the present compulsory system were working well. The appalling fact is that at the present time about one-third of all the infants born in England and Wales are not vaccinated. It is also true that nearly one-quarter of all the guardians throughout the country fail to put the vaccination laws into operation. This is a highly unsatisfactory state of things, and it is undoubtedly the result of the anti-vaccination crusade. The anti-vaccinator has two weapons. One of these is the supposed possible dangers of vaccination, and the other is the martyrdom which it is thought is endured by persons who are subjected to fines and imprisonment for disobeying a law which, rightly or wrongly, they believe subjects their children to danger. Now, as regards the former of these weapons—the supposed dangers of vaccination—the glycerinated calf lymph will remove it. With arm to arm, vaccination the danger does exist, though a very, very remote one, of introducing into a child the terrible contamination of syphilis. Now, this danger is absolutely done away with by the use of calf lymph, since syphilis cannot occur in the calf. Then, the introduction of tubercle by vaccination is equally prevented by the use of the new lymph. Tubercle can, indeed, affect the cow, and, though very rarely, the calf; but it has been found that if tubercle-bacilli are actually mingled with the glycerinated lymph, in the course of a time far short of that at which the lymph would be issued for use the bacilli have lost their vitality. There remains the possible danger of communicating erysipelas. This cannot be done by the lymph as such, for the microbes which are the essence of erysipelas are as effectually disposed of by the glycerine as are the microbes of tubercle. But there

33
is the possibility of the communication of erysipelas to the incisions made in vaccinating, just as there is the possibility of communicating it to any scratch or sore in a human being. That is a possibility, and it would undoubtedly be diminished by having the children vaccinated at home, as is proposed in this Bill, instead of having them crowded together at the vaccination stations. But I trust that before very long any possibility of the communication of erysipelas by subsequent contamination will be done away with. The medical officers of the Local Government Board have now under consideration what would be the best, simplest, and most effectual means of using antiseptic measures for the treatment of the scratches—measures which will be simple and efficacious from the antiseptic point of view, and, on the other hand, not interfering with the efficacy of the lymph. I feel certain that the thing can be done. In the medical journals papers have been published by gentlemen who show that they have used antiseptic measures with perfect success in regard to vaccination. When this is accomplished there will be absolutely no objection to the vaccination of children on the ground of possible danger. But the conviction of the absolute safety of the process will take a long time to establish itself in the country. At the present time there is a deep-rooted idea, derived from the propaganda of the anti-vaccinationists, that serious danger exists; and it will take a long time before that idea is dissipated. The second weapon of the anti-vaccinationist—namely, the martyrdom of the honest objector—would, of course, be struck out of his hand at one stroke by the present Bill. It has been said that this conscience clause introduces a new and dangerous principle into our legislation. It may be so; but when I see that such a conscience clause was unanimously recommended by the eminent men who constituted the Royal Commission, including so distinguished a lawyer as Lord Herschell, I feel that I am free to consider this proposal on its merits otherwise. What is likely to be the effect of the Bill if passed into law? On this point we find the utmost discordance of opinion among medical men themselves. Some feel sure that the result will be an
34
enormous diminution of vaccination throughout the country, and a consequent increase of small-pox. Other men of high position and large experience in sanitary matters are equally confident that the Bill would greatly increase the amount of vaccination. As to which of these opinions is really correct, I confess that I am hardly prepared to give an opinion. Those who hope for good from the passing of the Bill think that when the conscientious objector has been so amply provided for, the guardians who now object to enforce the vaccination law will not hesitate to prosecute persons who, from mere idleness, and without any real objections, neglect to have their children vaccinated. That this hope is not altogether without foundation we have a good illustration in a letter which appeared in the Times the day before yesterday from Sir Walter Foster. I will read to the House an extract from this letter—
"In 1897 the Barton Regis Board of Guardians, in face of difficulties in enforcing the vaccination laws, adopted (of course, without legal sanction) the recommendation of the Royal Commission. They informed the parents who had not submitted their children for vaccination that they (the guardians) would not proceed against them for default if a declaration of conscientious objection was made before a magistrate. In the Barton Regis Union in the last half of 1897 there was a population of over 200,000, and the number of births was 2,944. The defaulting parents were 350, and the actual number of declarations 130. Major Rumsey, the ex-chairman of the board, writes me—
"'The number of declarations, 130, bore about the same proportion to the defaulters as the prosecutions under the Vaccination Acts did prior to the form of statutory declaration being adopted. The Barton Regis Guardians (44) were nearly equally divided in opinion upon the vaccination question, but from the time of the adoption of the declaration the anti-vaccinationists offered no objection to the prosecution of those who did not furnish a declaration, and a most disturbing element to the harmonious working of the board was removed. I may add that, had not the statutory declaration been adopted, a resolution would have been passed refusing to order prosecutions, and so the whole 350 would have escaped vaccination in place of the 130 referred to, the remaining 220 having no objection to vaccination, but being simply negligent or careless, and requiring pressure.'"
In other words, the announcement of the remission of penalties for those who made a declaration of conscientious

35
objection, together with the threat of their enforcement for others, induced nearly two-thirds of the whole number of defaulting parents to submit their children to vaccination. So far as one case can go, this seems to me most encouraging. It is to be observed that this Bill by no means entirely does away with compulsion, though it is commonly spoken of as if it did so. Those parents who refuse to make a declaration of conscientious objection before the magistrate may be fined or imprisoned as under the existing law for not having their children vaccinated; but, beyond that, the fact that the parent is obliged to appear before the justices is a mild form of compulsion. It gives the parent trouble, and it will be a question with him whether it is more trouble to go before the magistrates or to have his child vaccinated under the very much less troublesome form provided under this Bill—namely, having it done by the vaccinator at the man's own house. If it turns out that the results are not so satisfactory, as regards the behaviour of the guardians, as may be hoped, it would be easy by a simple Bill to arrange that the administration of the vaccination laws should be transferred from the guardians to the sanitary authorities, or, at any rate, to arrange that the vaccination officers shall have the expenses of prosecution, which are now refused by the guardians, paid to them either through compulsion of the guardians or by the State. Therefore I must confess that I am disposed to be hopeful as regards the effect the Bill in its present form is likely to have. But there is one serious omission from the Bill, and that is that it neglects to deal with revaccination. It is a matter of bitter disappointment to the medical profession of this country that revaccination is not dealt with by the Bill. The immense value of revaccination has been shown by the splendid results obtained from it in Germany, in the Army, and more recently throughout the population. The value of revaccination is also indicated by the figures quoted by the Commission, as to its effects in diminishing death from small-pox in our Army and Navy and Postal Service. The immunity of nurses in our small-pox hospitals, who are always revaccinated before admission as nurses, is another
36
most striking proof of the efficacy of revaccination. The Royal College of Physicians have lately made the following declaration—
"The Royal College of Physicians, having learnt that certain changes are likely to be made in the laws relating to vaccination, think it their duty to reiterate their conviction that vaccination, properly performed and duly repeated, is the only known preventive of smallpox."
In the Times this morning there is published a declaration of the Royal College of Surgeons, in which the following passage occurs—
"We are, moreover, firmly convinced that revaccination is an additional safeguard, and should be universally practised."
It is true that several members of the Commission considered that compulsory revaccination was so surrounded with difficulties that they were not able to recommend it. But two of the most influential members of the Commission, Sir William. Guyer Hunter and Mr. Jonathan Hutchinson, thought that in spite of those difficulties revaccination ought to be made compulsory. And those Commissioners who were of the opposite opinion made this significant declaration:—
"Again, it is impossible to leave out of sight the effect that such an extension of the present compulsory law might have in intensifying hostility where it at present exists, and even in extending its area, though, if our recommendations, especially that which exempts from penalty those who honestly object to the practice, were adopted, this objection would be much diminished."
In the present temper of the House of Commons and of the country, it would indeed be hopeless to attempt to introduce compulsory revaccination on the lines on which infant vaccination is now compulsory. But the conscience clause of the present Bill opens the door for very valuable legislation on this subject. It could be arranged, with a little assistance from the Education Department, that every master or mistress of a school where children of the age of 10 attend, should keep a list of the names and addresses of those who had reached that age. Then the vaccinator could look in from time to time, at whatever periods it might be thought desirable, to see

37
from the mere inspection of the arms of the children, which of them had not been recently vaccinated, and the parents of these would be dealt with as this Bill proposes to deal with parents who have neglected to have their infants vaccinated, including the offer of doing the operation at home. This would ensure the revaccination of the vast bulk of the population, except the children of the so-called conscientious objectors, who, under the new system, would, I hope, be a rapidly diminishing quantity. Another effect of this arrangement would be that many children who had not been vaccinated in infancy would be dealt with at the age of 10. Personally, I should like if the Bill could be withdrawn this year and brought in again next year with this question of revaccination attended to, and also some other matters which the Commission recommended, but which are not dealt with in this Bill. But I fear that is a hopeless suggestion. However, as regards revaccination, the members of the Government who have been approached on the subject have given us good reason to hope that a Bill dealing with revaccination may be brought in next Session. Such a Bill would, I think, be sure to pass the House of Commons, the great majority of which, however they may differ on other questions, are at one as regards the importance of revaccination. The medical Members of Parliament are certainly at one on this point. The Bill would therefore readily pass, and by introducing it the Government would do untold benefit to the community. The confident hope that the Government will see their way to take this course next Session make me the more readily acquiesce in what I confess is a tremendous experiment.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I only wish to appeal to my noble Friend who has brought forward a Motion this evening which I very much regret. He objected very strongly to the conscientious objector. The Bill contains, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, most valuable provisions, and I would suggest to him whether he could find it consistent with his own views to agree to allow the Bill to go into1 Committee, and then, in Committee, to direct his attention to those
38
clauses which have introduced this totally novel procedure—the conscientious objector. That will expedite the course of the Debate. I do not entirely share the views of the noble Lord who has just spoken, for, rather than have a Bill of this sort with such a provision in it, I would vote against it altogether. If my noble Friend will agree to withdraw his opposition at this stage it will greatly simplify matters, for those of us who could not vote to delay the Bill going into Committee might, in Committee, find some common ground on which we could vote.
LORD HARRIS: I trust that your Lordships will allow the House to go into Committee on this Bill. I need hardly remind your Lordships that you passed the Second Reading unanimously the other day, and in the speech of Lora Lister, who spoke with so much authority on this subject, the noble Lord gave it as his opinion that the Bill was a very great change indeed, and that on that account he would prefer to have it as it was to having none at all. I think it is hardly necessary for me to repeat any of the arguments that I used the other day at considerable length to induce your Lordships to allow the House to go into Committee; but there are one or two points which the noble Lord dealt with as regards revaccination that perhaps I should just allude to. The noble Lord indicated that he had already approached members of the Government, and had been encouraged to hope that the Government would consider the possibility of introducing a Bill next year with the object of encouraging revaccination. If the noble Lord had not indicated that fact I had authority to say so myself. It is, of course, quite impossible to attempt to introduce the principle this year, but the Government are prepared to consider during the recess whether it would not be possible to bring in a Bill next year to encourage revaccination. Under all these circumstances I trust your Lordships will allow the House to go into Committee.
Question put.
Amendment negatived.
House resolved itself into Committee on the Bill.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY) in the Chair.

CLAUSE 1.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 1, leave out from 'repealed,' in line 11, to the end of sub-section (1)."—(Lord Harris.)
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 1, line 28, leave out 'that.'"—(Lord Harris.)
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 1, line 29, after 'vaccinated,' insert * and in that case shall give a certificate, under section eighteen of the Vaccination Act of 1867, of posponement of vaccination, and shall forthwith give notice of any such certificate to the medical officer of health for the district.'"—(Lord Harris.)
Question put.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Instead of the word "that" in the third line of the fourth sub-section, should it not be "if"?
LORD HARRIS: It is in already in the first line.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I only want the noble Lord to satisfy himself.
LORD HARRIS: This is to secure that no interference with the parent shall take place in consequence of the postponement having been granted owing to unhealthy conditions in the child. It is entirely in the parents' advantage.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 2, leave out sub-section (5), and insert as a new sub-section—
"Notwithstanding any regulation of any lying-in hospital or infirmary, or other similar institution, the parent of any child born in any institution shall not be compelled under such regulation or otherwise to cause or permit the child to be vaccinated at any time earlier than the expiration of six months from its birth."—(Lord Harris.)
LORD HARRIS: This is an outcome of the Report of the Royal Commission. It was found that in some cases children were vaccinated at an unduly early age owing to the regulations of institutions or hospitals, and it was recommended that this provision should be included in future legislation.
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 2, line 10, after 'justices,' insert 'or a stipendiary or metropolitan police magistrate.' "—(Lord Harris.)
LORD HARRIS: This Amendment is to make provision for such places where there are no justices or petty sessions.
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 2, line 13, after 'justices,' insert 'or magistrate.'"—(Lord Harris.)
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 2, at the end of the clause, insert as a new sub-section—
"(2) This section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act, but in its application to a child born before the passing of this Act there should be substituted for the period of four months from the birth of the child the period of four months from the passing of this Act."—(Lord Harris.)
LORD HARRIS: If the Act had been passed as introduced there would have been a considerable number of children born either before the passing of the Act or before the 1st January, when the Act comes into force, whose parents would not have had the benefit of the conscience clause, and it is with the object of securing them from the penalties of non-compliance with the law that this sub-section is proposed. It enables the parent of any child born before the passing of the Act or within four months of the 1st January to have the advantage of the conscience clause.
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill called it an experimental Measure, and I must say that if the principle of the experiment is to be applied to the health of the people it is possible that it will be not only experimental, but fatal, and reminds me of what Lord Derby once said—that it is a leap in the dark. We do not know what may be the effect of this Measure, but we do know that we are making a very weighty change in the law, and what has been compulsory up to the present time is to be permissive. The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading made a great deal of the Report of the Royal Commission, but he did not tell us that when that Royal Commission made the recommendations which they did they coupled them with other proposals which are not contained in this Bill, and I believe at the time that the Royal Commission made
42
the Report to which Lord Lister referred us glycerinated calf lymph had not been discovered—at any rate, it had not been much used—and a great deal of the argument which the noble Lord used went to show what wonderful effect glycerinated calf lymph had in destroying the germs of other diseases, and therefore obviating the great danger of arm to arm vaccination; but all that he said in favour of the adoption of the new lymph was very much an argument in support of the views of those objectors who would very likely change their opinions under this new system. I want to know why the conscientious objector—a small minority of the population—is to be placed in opposition to the general well-being of the country. Are not the conscientious objections of the majority to be considered? Why are we to be exposed to the introduction of this dreadful disease of small-pox because there are a few violent and ignorant people who, believing the agitators, are carried away with them? This clause, we know, was no part of the Bill as brought in by the Government. We also know that the opinions of some of the members of the Government with regard to this particular clause are very much against it. Only last Saturday, on the Third Reading of the Bill in the other House, what did my right honourable Friend the President of the Local Government Board say? He said that if he were right in his apprehension, namely, that an increased number of children would not be vaccinated, he was afraid that what would happen would be that there would be a certain number of epidemics in the country. There are a certain number of epidemics in the country already. He meant, no doubt, that the number of epidemics would be greatly increased. What did the learned Solicitor General say upon the subject when the Bill was in Committee?—
"If the conscientious objection is permitted, what will be the result? Those who have worked the agitation against vaccination would make haste to lead an excited people to violent declarations. The Committee must look to the interests of the child, which ought not to be exposed to the terrible disease of small-pox simply because the parents have a conscientious objection to its being vaccinated."

43
The resolutions passed at a meeting of the Council of the Royal College of Surgeons of England on August 2nd, 1898, have not been read to the House. I think it would be advisable that I should read them. They are as follows—
"That in view of the proposed alterations in the laws relating to vaccination now contemplated in the Bill before Parliament, the council do reaffirm the following resolution adopted by them and forwarded to the Royal Commission on Vaccination on 11th May, 1893, namely—
"'We, the Council of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, desire to put on record at the present time our opinion of the value of vaccination as a protection against smallpox.
"'We consider the evidence in favour of its life-saving power to be overwhelming, and we believe, from evidence equally strong, that the dangers incidental to the operation, when properly performed, are infinitesimal.
"'Experience has satisfied us that, even when vaccination fails to afford complete exemption from small-pox, it so modifies the severity of the disease as not only to greatly reduce its mortality, but to lessen the frequency of blindness, disfigurement, and other grave injuries.
"'We should therefore regard as a national calamity any alteration in the law which now makes vaccination compulsory.
"'We are, moreover, firmly convinced that re-vaccination is an additional safeguard, and should be universally practised.
"'We should add that we believe that the instructions of the Local Government Board for public vaccinators are well designed to secure the greatest efficiency in vaccination, and to avoid the liability to risks from the operation.'"
Now, my Lords, that is a remarkable statement from the College of Surgeons, and one that I think will be rather difficult for your Lordships to get over. I should like to ask the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill whether he can quote the opinion of any medical body in this country, or in Ireland or Scotland, who have expressed themselves in favour of making this Measure permissive. I maintain that under this clause, if carried, there is no security that any single child in the country will be vaccinated. Many of your Lordships are engaged during a great part of the year in the administration of local affairs, and, during the last few years, anyone who has taken part in the work of boards of guardians or district councils must know how very im-
44
portant the duties are in regard to sanitation, and the promotion and preservation of the health of the people. Great improvements have been made with regard to drainage, with regard to the supply of pure water, and with regard to the renovation of dwelling-houses, and all with the object of maintaining and promoting the health of the people. Many of these works have been costly, and have been thrown upon the rates. At a time when vast sums of money have been and are being expended on improvements of this kind, and in other directions which tend to promote and preserve the health of the people, is it right that we should have a law passed which shall, from time to time, expose us to the danger of the inroads of this fell disease, and entirely undo all the good we have been trying to do? For these reasons, and for some others with which I will not trouble your Lordships, I beg to move the omission of the clause.
LORD ALDENHAM: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to make a few observations with regard to what has been said in regard to this Bill. I desire to support my noble Friend who has just moved the rejection of the clause. I listened with very great attention, on the Second Reading of this Bill, to the able, and I may say convincing, statement of the noble Lord beneath me [Lord Harris] who has charge of the Bill. I say it was convincing, because it would, I think, convince anybody of the merits of the main features of the first clause of the Bill; but when we come to the clause which we are now discussing, we find that the conscientious objector is himself most objectionable. I cannot but ask, in the first place, why are we to be so careful here of the conscientious objector, when we take no note of him at all in another part of our dominions? There are conscientious objectors in India also, to whom we pay no attention at all, although their objections, dangerous as we feel them to be, are really conscientious—that is to say, they are bound up with the religion of the people who object; but we treat them as we feel bound to treat them—with due regard to the health and security to the people at large. I fear we are not doing that here. Nobody knows

45
better than the noble Lord what those objections are, the difficulty that has been experienced, and how that difficulty has been surmounted; but here we allow the conscientious objector to stand in the way of the passage of this Bill, which contains many valuable and useful provisions. It seems to me that the two clauses—that is to say, the first clause and the second clause—do not hang together at all, because if, as we learn, and are inclined to believe, the use of glycerinated calf lymph and the domiciliary visit, instead of the child being carried to the vaccinator, will really suffice to do away with the real objections, whatever real objections there are to vaccination, why, indeed, should we choose this particular time, when the law is being altered in favour of the children who have to be vaccinated, to bow down before these people, who are in some cases themselves convinced, but who are mainly, I believe, the prey of others who are pressing this upon them, and inducing them to make their objections? We are told, and we are told from several quarters, that if we in this House do not pass the clause the House of Commons will drop the Bill. Now, my Lords, I really cannot, without better certainty—and I know no better certainty than that of sending it to them to see—believe that the House of Commons, who carried the Bill to a certain point without this clause, would do anything of the kind. Seeing that the Commons themselves only inserted the clause at the last moment, I do not think, if it were now omitted, they would decline to proceed with a Measure which they regarded as beneficial. Where do we see the demand for this conscience clause? I do not think anybody has produced any evidence of such a demand. Is the demand outside Parliament, or is the demand in Parliament? We have seen nothing outside Parliament to indicate that the majority of the people, or any large body of people, desire such a permissive clause. The noble Lord spoke of maternal solicitude. I take leave to think that maternal solicitude is very much more employed in desiring the vaccination of the children than in considering the particular quality of the lymph, or how vaccination is performed. We have heard about the medical profession. We have been told by a great
46
authority—the greatest authority—that the medical profession almost universally object to this clause being added. Even the noble Lord beneath me [Lord Harris] says that he cannot speak with any positive certainty as to whether this clause will be productive of good or productive of evil. That being so, I think this is too experimental a clause for your Lordships to accept. If, indeed, the noble Lord had said, "I am satisfied; I believe the advantage of this clause will be so great that it will result in a great decrease in the number of objections to vaccination, and in a very great increase in the number of children vaccinated"—if the noble Lord had been able to say that it might alter my opinion, but I suspect that the real supporters of this clause are not those who desire vaccination at all, but those who object, for fanciful reasons, or for what they consider scientific reasons, to vaccination. If they have their own way, I suppose we shall come to the time that Sidney Smith spoke of as a thing absolutely impossible, when he coupled with many other ludicrous impossibilities the thought "that the world will return again under the influence of the smallpox." I want to know where we are to stop if we once yield to the conscientious objector. We have conscientious objectors on all manner of questions. There are the "Peculiar People," whose objection includes the whole medical profession. They refuse to permit their child to see a doctor if it is ill, or a doctor to see the child. They risk the lives of their children. But here the conscientious objector is risking, not the life of his own child, but the lives of children throughout the whole of the country. There are other conscientious objectors who object to all sanitary reform. Why are we not to listen to their objection? All sanitary laws are objectionable, more or less. I object myself to the influx of barbarians into my house to pull up my drains, to see, not what is the matter, but to see if anything is wrong. I strongly object to that, but I do not propose to come to Parliament for relief. I remember—and I daresay your Lordships will also remember—what Canning said on the subject. He said—
"We do not subscribe to the opinion that a sincere conviction of the truth of no matter what principle is a sufficient defence for no

47
matter what action; and that the only business of moral inquiry with human conduct is to ascertain that in each case the principle and the action agree. We have not yet persuaded ourselves to think it a sound or a safe doctrine that every man who can divest himself of a moral sense in theory has a right to be with impunity and without disguise, a scoundrel in practice. It is not in our creed that Atheism is as good a faith as Christianity, provided it be professed with equal sincerity; nor could we admit it as an excuse for murder, that the murderer was, in his own mind, conscientiously persuaded that the murdered might for many good reasons be better out of the way."
This is not a case of murder, but I fear very much it is a case of promoting disease and death. For murder you must have a particular person to be murdered. This is more general—it proposes to murder us all. Canning speaks of conscientious objection. What is conscientious objection in this case? I could understand conscientious objection to something which goes against one's religion or morality, but it does not go against religion or morality to say that every individual in this country must obey the law which is passed for the safety of the rest. Now, with regard to this conscientious objection, how are we to decide that there is a conscientious objection? We are told that there is a great agitation in the country on this matter, and that the passing of this clause with do away with the agitation. Will it? I very much doubt it, my Lords. There is this conscientious objection to be dealt with. The objection is to be declared before a justice of the peace. Now, let us suppose that in Leicester or Northampton the unhappy justices of the peace, after considering the matter carefully, decide that the objection cannot be sustained; is it not to be believed that there will arise a new and yet more formidable agitation against the justices and against Parliament, too? An old friend of mine said to me the other day—
"Why trouble yourselves about this? We can all protect ourselves, we can all be vaccinated and have our children vaccinated. What signifies it if others do not?"
I do not think it is the duty of Parliament to protect themselves. I think the duty of Parliament is to look after the health, the happiness, and the comfort of
48
all the people in this country, who would,. I think, by the passing of this clause, be imperilled by the possible introduction of this frightful and fearful disease into their homes. Therefore, my Lords, I beg to support the Amendment of my noble Friend.
LORD HARRIS: Perhaps it will be convenient if I reply to the two speeches that have been already delivered. There have been so many subjects touched upon in those two speeches that I would ask your Lordships' leave to deal with them at once. I must be permitted to complain that when the noble Lord [the Earl of Feversham] quoted the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board he did not complete the whole quotation. He quoted one-half of what Mr. Chaplin said in the House of Commons as to possible risk in the future—as to possible outbreak—but he omitted the latter part, which is equally important. As I told your Lordships the other night, the whole of my case rests upon the Report of the Royal Commission. I am no expert to advise, or prophet to foretell, but when my noble Friend asks what is to happen when the whole community will run the risk of small-pox because thousands of children remain unvaccinated, I would say there is the risk now, for thousands of children do go unvaccinated. And to the question whether the risk will be greater in the future, I reply by reference to the Royal Commission. I prefer to accept the opinion of a body of that kind, appointed for a particular purpose, sitting for many years considering this question from every point of view, and, after hearing all available evidence, coming to a deliberate conclusion—I prefer to accept the opinion of that body to running the risk of losing the Bill. There are many noble Lords in the House tonight who were not here when I spoke the other evening, and I must take the liberty of reminding them that the Royal Commission was a body of the most able men, including within its number five or six medical men of the highest possible position, and that, after sitting for seven years, they came to the conclusion that it wais wise, having regard to the circumstances that face us in this country—the circumstances of obstruction, and

49
that there are a number of children not being vaccinated at the present moment—to pass an Amendment of the Vaccination law practically identical with the proposal in the Bill; and I think he would be a bold man who would rely on his own belief in opposition to such a deliberate opinion.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Why is this clause to cease in 1904 if it is of such great importance?
LORD HARRIS: It was a recommendation of the Royal Commission that it should be experimental. I was asked by the noble Earl, the Earl of Feversham, whether I could quote any medical authority in favour of the Bill, and he referred to the Resolution of the Royal College of Surgeons which appeared in the papers this morning. Well, that is a very remarkable Resolution, and I should like to call your Lordships' attention to one or two points in connection with it. This Bill in its present form has been before the country for a considerable time, and somehow or other the College of Surgeons has not thought it necessary until the last moment to advise Parliament, or the country, or the President of the Local Government Board what its opinions were, or what this Resolution was which it passed some seven or eight yeans ago. This Resolution was presented to the Royal Commission in 1893, and will be found on page 778 embedded in the sixth of the 13 bulky volumes of evidence. It, in fact, took a little trouble to find. Curiously enough, the Royal Commission do not appear to have taken much notice of the Resolution. They do not mention it in their Report, and the Resolution practically remained unnoticed until it was re-affirmed on August 2nd. Although this indignity was cast upon the College of Surgeons, they made no protest at the time; and it is only at the very last moment that the attention of Parliament has been called to the opinion of the Royal College of Surgeons expressed years ago. As regards the question of the noble Earl, I have to say that some weeks ago, after the Bill had been before the House of Commons some time, the Royal College of Physicians passed a resolution of a somewhat academic
50
character re-affirming their confidence in vaccination, but saying neither "aye" nor "nay to the Bill itself. That is, I think, a not unfair response to the question of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: That is not an opinion in favour of this clause.
LORD HARRIS: Another question was put to me—where is the demand for this clause? I think I must keep harping on the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission expressed the opinion that, a clause of this kind should be put in, believing that it would have the effect of encouraging people to have their children vaccinated. Let me just say one word about the clause itself. I think I can put it to your Lordships in a fairly practical way. There are three classes of parents. There are, in the first place, the objectors—you may call them conscientious objectors or honest objectors, but they are, at any rate, determined and resolute objectors. The second class are the well-disposed persons who believe in vaccination, and have their children vaccinated. And there is the third class, who may be described as negligent or lazy. Well, my Lords, as regards the resolute objector, it does not matter what you do in the way of legislation, the children of these parents will not be vaccinated. It does not matter what steps you take, whether the boards of guardians do prosecute or, if they do not prosecute, whether you endeavour, which, I imagine, Parliament would scarcely attempt, to force the boards of guardians into carrying out this law. Whatever efforts you made, I am perfectly certain you would find that the resolute objector will remain resolute to the end, and his children will not be vaccinated. Therefore the conscience clause does not touch him. No harm is done, so far as he is concerned, by the introduction of the conscience clause. In the second place, in the case of the well-disposed person, this Bill makes it more easy for him to show his good disposition, because the operator comes to his house and operates on his child there. Therefore the conscience clause need not affect him. I now come to the other class—the large class—of lazy, indifferent parents. Under the present law they are put to a great

51
deal of trouble. They have to go, possibly in inclement weather, and possibly a long distance, to the vaccination station. Under the Bill, as we have introduced it, the lazy person is actually saved trouble, because the doctor comes to his house and vaccinates his child there; whereas, if he wants to become a conscientious objector, he has to walk a greater or less distance in order to convince two magistrates that he is a conscientious objector. I suggest that, without attempting to prophesy, we are justified, upon the Report of the Royal Commission, and upon a practical view of the matter, in hoping that the effect of the Bill will be to induce people to have their children vaccinated rather than, as some of your Lordships seem to fear, to increase the number of unvaccinated children.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I rise only to confirm what has been said by Lord Aldenham with regard to India. Experience has shown us that, where restrictions imposed with a view of securing and safeguarding the public health have been relaxed, there has been a persevering and generally successful insistence on the extension of that relaxation to India and the Colonies, which are still legislated for at home. Now, if that were done in the present case, you will find, in India at all events, a vast body, not of merely nominal, but of really and truly conscientious objectors to vaccination, and the practice of vaccination will be seriously endangered. The Mahomedan subjects of Her Majesty, speaking generally, all entertain a real and conscientious objection to vaccination; and an eminent Moslem gentleman, himself a strong believer in vaccination and fully aware of its benefits, once came to me when I had the honour of governing the great Eastern Colony which I lately served in, and implored me, whatever I did, not to depart from the compulsory element, and for this reason—they knew, he said, the benefits of the practice, and they were willing to accept compulsion, which gave them the excuse that they acted under force, but if it were left optional they would all be obliged to object to it. I myself read to-day, in the Times newspaper, a letter from a gentleman who signed him-
52
self "One of the Commissioners," in which he stated that the clause, as it now stands in the Bill, is not such a clause as was recommended by the Commission. Of course, he does not sign his name, but I have no doubt whatever that he will be very glad to disclose his name if it is necessary.
LORD HARRIS: I saw that letter, but I am bound to say that I have been unable to find, in the Report of the Royal Commission, anything which distinctly suggests that that encouragement of the family doctor should go hand in hand with the other recommendations of the Royal Commission. It is very difficult to find it in the Royal Commission. It is not indexed, and I have not been able to find it. But is it not a little straining of the question to talk about the family doctor in the case of a number of poor people? There may be a doctor of the union, whom they know, but I should hardly call him the family practitioner, and I do not think that the suggestion which is put forward by the writer in the Times this morning is a practical one, or one which really affects the merits of the other recommendations which we have put in the Bill.
LORD LOCH: I will only occupy your Lordships' time for a very few minutes, but I desire to state my reason for supporting the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl. The reason that I do so is that a provision of the Measure which is now under consideration, if it passes, provides for the removal of the great objection which, I believe, prevails in this country to compulsory vaccination. The proposal is to adopt the lymph direct from the calf. That, I believe, will in a great measure remove the great objection which prevails to children being vaccinated, as at present, from lymph taken from other children, or from adults. Speaking from experience in the Cape, the same system was established, of taking vaccine from the calf, and there has not been the slightest objection to the enforcement of the vaccination law; it is equally obeyed both by the Dutch and the English Colonists; and I think I can bring forward no greater proof as to the successful working of the Measure when I mention, on this question at least, there is no dif-

53
ference of opinion between the two races. The noble Lord, who spoke with such great authority, referred to the present compulsory clauses not working well. That is perfectly correct—they are not working well. But this change of practice has not yet been adopted in this country, and if it is once known that the compulsory laws only applied to the vaccination with the calf lymph properly prepared, and not taken from children or from adults, I believe that the objections will be removed, and that it will be found that there is no real objection to the compulsory clauses of the Measure. The noble Lord also stated it was difficult to show whether, if this Measure passed into law, the number of persons submitting their children to vaccination would be increased or diminished. But is not that the strongest reason possible for maintaining the compulsory laws until we see the results of this change of system? I would strongly urge upon noble Lords in this House that they should pass the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl against the omission of the compulsory clause of the Act. As regards the great importance and the great value of vaccination, I may mention a circumstance which came to my own knowledge in former years. The compulsory vaccination law did not extend to the Isle of Man, and small-pox broke out there in a very virulent form. A number of deaths took place. I appointed medical men, and selected certain centres where people could be vaccinated. Many thousands came, and I believe I am correct in stating that not one who was thus vaccinated took the disease, and by this means the violence of the epidemic was checked; while several who had been vaccinated lived in the same house with persons suffering from smallpox did not take it, while those who had been twice vaccinated were regarded as perfectly safe, and nursed with perfect impunity the sick patients suffering from the disease. I strongly urge the House to support this Amendment, for I regard it as a great danger if this Measure passes with the clause standing as it is, leaving the enforcement of the compulsory clauses to the option of persons according to what they consider to be their conscientious scruples.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The speech of the noble Lord contained, as many other speeches have contained, a very earnest vindication of the value of vaccination. I do not think that really was a matter upon which it was necessary for the noble Lord to enlarge. There is no difference of opinion in this House upon the extreme value of vaccination; the only difference is as to the best way in which vaccination shall be worked, and that is the question which we really have to consider. I think that the view which is taken by those who support this clause is very much indicated by the speech of my noble Friend Lord Stanmore, who quoted Indian precedents as guides to our conduct on this occasion. I demur altogether to the idea that the action of the Government or the action of Parliament meets with the same response or can count upon the same obedience in this country as it can in India. We have to deal with the case that there is, in a large part of the country, a profound aversion to the legislation which has already been passed, and to the obligations which have been laid upon the subject. Whether that aversion is justified or not we need not examine more carefully, because in this country we have to consider not only the rise of the well-weighed objections of the people, but if the objections extend largely enough we have taken into consideration those with whose soundness we cannot altogether agree. Some of the speakers seem to me to imagine that we live in an ideal state of things, where it is only necessary for Parliament to enact something, and it will be at once listened to where there are pliant guardians and obedient magistrates, and a submissive peasantry only listening for the word of wisdom to be uttered at Westminster in order to throw themselves down before it and obey. That, I am afraid, has no correspondence to the existing state of things in this country. Under certain circumstances, and in the presence of certain delusions, the action of power does not tend to obedience, but to resistance. It tends to exasperate the feelings which it is its object to overcome. We have to deal with the case of what it is fair to call a great delusion, though not a delusion, unfortunately, altogether unfounded. There is, in places

55
which are well known, a belief that vaccination from arm to arm has carried the diseases of one child to another, and that many deaths are due to the lack of those precautions which are so wisely insisted upon by the College of Surgeons. I do not say how far those suspicions, or those complaints, or those apprehensions may be justified. I believe that they are enormously exaggerated, but you have only to read the Report of the Royal Commission to show that they are not devoid of foundation. There is the fear that the disease of one child will be carried to another. There is the knowledge that children, and a considerable number of children, have succumbed to the operation of this beneficent law, and the feelings which are worked upon are the deepest, the tenderest, the most tenacious, and the most difficult to overcome of any in the whole range of human sentiment. That is the state of facts with which you have to deal. It is idle to tell me that the people are wrong, it is idle to tell me that they are deceived; as long as they have these feelings they will respect them—they are Englishmen—and it is no use to quote to me the precedents of India and Ceylon to show the way in which these objections are to be overcome. Now, my Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has said, with great justice, that the cause of all these apprehensions, and, as far as they have occurred, all these terrible diseases, is now about to be removed under the clauses of this Bill. We have had it explained to us on the greatest possible authority, and with singular clearness and force, the mode in which the new process will protect the child from the dangers to which, under the old process, it was occasionally liable. The noble Lord who has just sat down thinks that that proved his case—that you have nothing to do but to pass your Bill—go on with your coercion. Your process has become safe, the fear of danger has become unreasonable, and therefore the superstitions which prevail will immediately disappear. I think he has been dealing with countries where the executive is a little more powerful than it is here, if he imagines that the action of the Government can, in so short a time, dissipate prejudices which have become deeply rooted, and calm down passions which
56
have been excited to the utmost, get rid of apprehensions which have founded themselves upon the tenderest and most forcible of human feelings, if he thinks that immediately on the adoption of the new process—on the mere assurance that this process is free from the evils of the old—that the resistance with which we have to deal will disappear. My fear is that if you insist upon striking out this clause—that is to say, if you insist on this Bill not passing—the result will be that you will go on with all the exasperation which has been increasing year after year in various parts of the country. Every year there will be a greater and more extended struggle between the apprehensions and delusions to which I have referred, and the obligations of the law, and you will have no power that you have not now in dealing with them. You complain now that the law is not respected. That is perfectly true. But supposing you strike out this clause; supposing the House of Commons, as I presume it will, puts it in again. I presume you will adhere to your opinions, and the Bill will fall. That means that you will continue the present law for the next year, and a good many years afterwards—and what force will the law have? Will it command more respect than it does at present? At present—at least, up to this time—this law has been merely the subject of agitation and discussion; now it will go forth to the country, that you are to demand the confidence of the people, and the laying aside of all those apprehensions with which we have had to struggle, in favour of a law which is condemned by a Commission of unexampled authority, which is condemned by a large majority of the House of Commons, and which is condemned in its substance in this House, and which has only survived because the two Houses of Parliament cannot agree. Do you imagine that a law in that position will command more respect? Do you imagine that the people, who are asked to submit to what they consider great dangers and great hardships, will submit the more readily because it is a law that depends upon sanction such as this? All that you will do will be to exasperate the feelings that already exist, to increase the chaos and the anarchy that prevails in the country, to

57
multiply the number of guardians who decline now in a truly formidable proportion to enforce the law, and to add to the terrible phalanx, already so numerous, of infants on whom the blessing of vaccination has not yet been conferred. The course that we are asking you to take to-night in legislation that is a new departure, is that you have abandoned the dangerous practice of arm to arm vaccination, and that you no longer require it of the people; that you have provided in its place a healthful and safe process on which you can rely, and that you will, for five years, make, as it were, an armistice with this trouble, and say: We will not exasperate feelings; we will not renew so dangerous a contest; we will allow the effects of the new law that we have made, and of the new process that we have authorised, to work their natural course, and if we do not oppose and hinder that healthy and salutary action by renewing the conflicts and the terrors of the past, we hope that we shall, in no long time, arrive at the only helpful solution of this question, and that is, when an overwhelming majority of the people in a body shall recognise the value of vaccination to the community and to themselves. That, my Lords, is the ideal towards which you nave to make your way. I venture to say there is no other way of attaining it excepting by the Bill which we are now considering; and, if you accept the Motion for striking out this clause which has now been presented to you, you condemn us to submit, for an indefinite period, to the anarchy and chaos against which we are now protesting.
The House divided:—Contents 38; Not-Contents 40.

CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor)

Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward)

Devonshire, D. (L. President)

Abingdon, E.

Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal)

Camperdown, E.

Clarendon, E.

Coventry, E.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

de Montalt, E.

Denbigh, E.

Dudley, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Grey, E.

Salisbury, M.

Onslow, E.

58

Stamford, E.

Belper, L.

Selborne, E.

Churchill, L. [Teller]

Waldegrave, E. [Teller]

Dormer, L.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall)

Knutsford, V.

Harris, L.

Templetown, V.

James, L.

Lawrence, L.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

Lister, L.

Rathmore, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Bagot, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington)

Balfour, L.

Bateman, L.

Windsor, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Ailesbury, M.

Forester, L.

Glenesk, L.

Bradford, E.

Hood of Avalon, L.

Carnwath, E.

Howard de Walden, L.

Cawdor, E.

Feversham, E. [Teller]

Lingen, L.

Fortescue, E.

Loch, L.

Haddington, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Raglan, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown)

Portsmouth, E. [Teller]

Saye and Sele, L.

Russell, E.

Sherborne, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde)

Ripon, L. Bp.

Stalbridge, L.

Aldenham, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery)

Stanmore, L.

Cheylesmore, L.

Tennyson, L.

Clinton, L.

Thring, L.

de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci)

Ventry, L.

Welby, L.

Farnham, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Forbes, L.

CLAUSES 3 to 5.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That clauses 3, 4, and 5 stand part of the Bill."
Agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 2, line 30, after 'Act,' insert 'every existing vaccination officer who, by virtue of this Act or anything done in pursuance of or in consequence of this Act, suffers pecuniary loss by diminution or less of fees, shall be entitled to have compensation paid to him for such pecuniary loss by the board of guardians whose officer he is, regard being had to the duration of his service or services under any board of guardians and all the circumstances of the case. All expenses incurred

59
by a board of guardians in pursuance of this action shall be paid out of the poor rate.'"—(The Earl of Hardwicke.)
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I am informed that this Amendment is not in order, but I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give the matter attention and favourable consideration. It is extremely hard on the vaccination officers, for circumstances will arise under the changed condition of this new Act by which they will undoubtedly lose a great many of their fees, and if the Local Government Board can see their way to put the power they have under a previous Act into force and increase their fees it will be doing a great service to a hard-working and energetic body of men, whose good work really deserves the recognition of the public.

CLAUSES 6 TO 9
Motion made, and Question put—
"That clauses 6, 7, 8, and 9 stand part of the Bill."
Agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I have an Amendment down for the exclusion of clause 10, but I wish to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill what the reason is, if this Bill is to be so beneficial to England, why it is not to be extended to Ireland and Scotland. I am told that Ireland and Scotland are very well satisfied with the present law, and that that is the reason why this Bill is not to be extended to Ireland and Scotland; but I must point out that, the general tendency of legislation in this House is the principle of applying the same legislation to, Ireland and Scotland as to England, and I should like to know why it is that this Measure, which is supposed to be so, beneficial, is not to be extended to those two countries.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I was just going to ask the same question, and I would point out to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill there is every reason for extending this to Ireland pad Scotland, if it were only because certain
60
parts of the Bill assimilate the law of England to the law as it at present stands in Scotland. For instance, the period within which a child had to be vaccinated in England used to be three months, whereas in Scotland it was six. This Bill adopts the period of six months for England also. If we go on to clause 3 (of course, we will say nothing of clause 2 at present), that clause makes, for the first time, a difference in the law of the two countries in regard to penalties, and I would ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether it will be possible, supposing the Bill is passed with that clause in it, to enforce cumulative penalties in Scotland? It may be said that there are very few objectors to vaccination in Scotland. I believe that is perfectly true, because in Scotland we are a very sensible people, but, at the same time there are among us persons who, are not thoroughly imbued with sense, and if they are brought up and prosecuted it will be immediately said that you have made a different law for England. The argument which Lord Feversham used appeared to me a somewhat strong one—that the desire of Parliament ought to be to assimilate the laws as much as possible in all parts of the United Kingdom. I ask, on what pretence do you repeal certain penalties so far as England is concerned and leave them standing both with regard to Scotland and Ireland?
LORD HARRIS: The condition of things in Scotland is entirely different. They have none of the difficulties to meet which we have to meet in England.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: They have the same penalties.
LORD HARRIS: They are very few indeed, and repeated penalties are still fewer. The reason why the Act is not extended to Ireland and Scotland is because they have already Acts of their own, and I understand that the offices which deal with legislation in those countries are taking steps to assimilate the Act to the extent which is necessary. That, is practically the reason why it was not extended to Scotland and Ireland—that they have Acts already of their own. The point with regard to penalties will be carefully looked into

61
when amending Acts are brought in with regard to these two countries.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 3, line 13, after 'shall,' insert 'except as by this Act specially provided.'"—(Lord Harris.)
LORD HARRIS: This is a consequential Amendment; it is in consequence of the introduction of the other section, which provides for the case of children born either before the passing of the Act or in the period between the passing of the Act and the 1st of January.
Question put.
Agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported, with Amendments, to the House.

METROPOLITAN COMMON POOR FUND BILL, 1898.
LORD HARRIS: This Bill was carried through the House of Commons by Mr. T. W. Russell on behalf of the Local Government Board. Its object is to make certain Amendments in section 69 of the Metropolitan Poor Act, 1867, which deals with the expenses repayable to boards of guardians and other poor law authorities in the Metropolis, out of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. This fund is raised by contributions from boards of guardians throughout the whole Metropolis according to the rateable value of their unions and parishes. The expenses incurred in the maintenance of London pauper children in district, separate certificated and licensed schools are repayable out of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, but where the children in any such institution are sent to a public elementary school for instruction, and receive no instruction in the building, it is held that the institution ceases to be a school within the meaning of the section, and no repay-
62
ment from the fund in respect of the maintenance of the children can be made. It is desirable that, where practicable, pauper children should attend public elementary schools, where they will mix with other children, and to encourage this it is proposed by sub-clause (1) of clause 1 of the Bill to allow repayment out of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund in respect of children so sent out to school. At present the Local Government Board have no means of enforcing a limit to the number of children who may be maintained in metropolitan district or separate schools, for the purpose of preventing overcrowding, although the Board can enforce such a limit in the case of workhouses. Clause 1 (2) of the Bill will enable the Board to certify the maximum number of children who may be maintained in these schools, and repayment from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund cannot then be made in respect of any children in excess of the number certified by the Board. Where children are sent from more than one union to a school, and the limit fixed by the Board is exceeded, the question will arise to which union the cost of the maintenance of the children in excess is to be charged. The clause will enable the Board to determine the manner in which this charge is to be borne. The Board are desirous that the Bill should pass into law during the present Session.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That the Bill be now read a second time."
Agreed to.

LAND COMMISSION (MARKET v. EARL OF GOSFORD).
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I beg to move for a copy of the official shorthand writer's notes of the proceedings and evidence at the rehearing of the case of Markey v. Earl of Gosford, before the Irish Land Commission, including the judgments or decisions delivered by the Land Commissioners therein; also a copy of the originating notice, and of the schedule and order fixing the fair rent in the same case. I would venture to point out that there is a great difficulty in making use of the Reports, because they

63
are not necessarily accurate or complete, and it is very necessary and very desirable that the grounds of the court's decision shall be made known to the public, and I venture to draw your Lordships' attention to the case of Markey v. Gosford; and it will not take many minutes to put before you the memorandum which has been prepared by authority. This case was decided on 31st May, 1897, by the Chief Land Commission, on a re-hearing or appeal at the instance of the landlord, partly against the actual rent fixed by the Sub-Commissioners and partly on certain important points having reference to
"the principles upon which a fair rent should be fixed for holdings that are subject to the Ulster tenant right custom."
This was the general description of the issue, as stated at the opening of Mr. Justice Bewley's judgment. The judgments, or decisions, of the Commissioners, however, show that they chiefly devoted themselves to endeavouring to define the ambiguous words in sub-section 1 of section 8 of the Land Act of 1881—
"having regard to the interest of the landlord and tenant respectively."
Without attempting any detailed or complete reference to their arguments, it may he said that, inter alia, they were unanimous in holding that in fixing fair rent every kind of competitive value must be excluded, while they also decided by a majority that the well-known "occupation interest" is an element in respect of which no reduction of rent should be made. Now, it is remarkable that, having these decisions before them, the Fry Commissioners unanimously decided—in the definition of fair rent on pages 20 and 21 of their Report—that the Land Commission in fixing a fair rent ought to take into account and estimate
"the annual sum at which, after all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district have been taken into consideration, the holding in the landlord's hands might reasonably be expected to let from year to year to a solvent and prudent tenant who desired to derive a benefit from the occupation of the tenement and not from its sale,"
64
and that this sum should be the fair rent, less by the value, if any, of the tenant's improvements. We have, therefore, now two conflicting interpretations of fair rent, and it is known that they are about to lead to further litigation. We have the views of the Fry Commission fully set out in their Report; and the object of the present Motion is to put Parliament and the public in possession of the views upon which the Land Commission held a contrary opinion.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: I am afraid I cannot go fully into all the matters that the noble Lord has referred to, and that I cannot give him the answer that he would consider entirely satisfactory. The Government are satisfied that the evidence is fully and accurately stated in the judgment, so far as it is necessary for the purpose of the decision, and that therefore there is no necessity to furnish the shorthand writers' notes, which, I would point out to the noble Lord, would be quite unprecedented, and there does not appear to be any necessity to lay upon the Table a copy of the Judgment. A full report will be found in the Irish Law Times Reports, volume 31, page 97, and the original Notices, Orders, and Schedules are filed, and copies can be obtained in the ordinary way by any of the parties interested on application to the Land Commission.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I beg to withdraw the Motion.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether in carrying out the provisions of section 3 of the Registration (Ireland) Act, 1898, the poor law electoral divisions were altered by the Local Government Board for Ireland with a view to the population of each such division being so nearly as conveniently might be equal?
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: With regard to the question, the alterations made by the Local Government Board for Ireland in poor law electoral divisions, under the Registration (Ireland) Act, 1898, which was passed at the commencement of this Session, were confined to the separation of urban portions of electoral divisions from rural portions, and constituting the former separate electoral divisions., I take it that the noble Lord's Motion

65
raises the question of not including the population in the poor law divisions, but I would point out that by the Local Government Act I do not think that the question of varying populations was taken into account, and therefore there was no provision made for altering the boundaries and for including the population among the poor law electoral divisions. Therefore I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord the satisfactory answer he requires.

POOR LAW ELECTORAL DIVISIONS.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I beg to move for a Return, showing for each poor law union in Ireland: (1) The name of every poor law electoral division for which a list of local government electors has been or will be compiled in pursuance of the Registration (Ireland) Act, 1898; (2) the estimated population of each poor law electoral division after any alteration of same has been made for the purposes of said Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This Motion is quite premature. The Bill has only just been passed, and the Irish Local Government Board will have its hands extremely full in working out these things in orders and regulations. They will all be published in due course, and every possible information will be given, but, as I said, it is premature now. The Bill has not yet got the Royal assent, and the Local Government Board have not had time to take up everything. There will not be the slightest desire not to give every atom of information that my noble Friend asks for, and is practicable, although I do not know whether materials exist for giving particulars as to population. I do not think it is fair and reasonable to ask for a Parliamentary Return in reference to a matter which will be dealt with fully and completely, and with no desire on the part of the Local Government Board to avoid their duty.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: Under the reasons stated by the noble and learned Lord, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL AND THE REPEALED ACTS.
LORD FARNHAM: I beg to move for copies of the following Acts mentioned in the sixth schedule of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, 1898, omitting therefrom all portions proposed to be repealed by the said sixth schedule, and inserting therein all new words proposed to be substituted or inserted therein under the Draft Order in Council, under clause 102 of said Bill as first printed by the Lords (Bill No. 164):—The Grand Jury (Ireland) Act, 1836; The County Dublin Grand Jury Act, 1844; The Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act, 1840; The Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854; The Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838; each of said Acts to be printed as above amended, as a separate Paper, and all new words substituted or inserted therein to be underlined. These five Acts are of very great importance, and will be constantly referred to in the future by the members of the county councils, and all others connected with the working of these bodies. In fact, my Lords, they are the Acts which these bodies will be called upon to administer, and it will be of very great convenience to the public in general if your Lordships would grant this Return for which I ask. Of course, it may be said that these Acts can be obtained in another form, but, I submit, they will be in a very much larger, more expensive, and more cumbersome form, inasmuch as they would probably be bound up in one volume, and would be extremely expensive and quite out of the reach of many county councillors and district councillors, who would be very glad to possess themselves of the particular Act which they may happen to want. I beg to move the Motion.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I think it is most important that these things should be available at a cheap rate, and not only confined to members of the legal profession. There is, no doubt, a very great difficulty in arriving at a solution, as we know from the discussions which are going on in your Lordships' House, after the Land Act of 1880; as to the interpretation of the Acts and various references made from one Act to another, there is sufficient doubt to justify the Motion of the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: The Irish Local Government Board fully recognises the convenience that would accrue from having this Act in a more compendious form, whereby may be found out exactly the way in which these various Acts have been amended, and I may say it is intended to publish an edition of the Irish Acts repealed in part by the Local Government Act, with the repealed parts omitted, and with the alterations which will be made by the Orders in Council. This, of course, cannot be done until the Orders in Council have been passed, but no time will be lost in getting it completed as soon as possible; and I think I may also say that I do not think the noble Lord need be afraid of the great expense of this work, for I believe it will be published at a price that will be within the reach of everybody, and in a form which will be acceptable to everybody.
LORD FARNHAM: I am quite satisfied, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read the first time; to be printed; and to be read the second time To-morrow. [No. 199.]—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
NONCONFORMIST MARRIAGES (ATTENDANCE OF REGISTRARS) BILL.
Read the first time; to be printed; and to be read the second time To-morrow. [No. 200.]—(The Earl of Selborne.)

OUTDOOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
Read the first time, to be printed; and to be read the second time on Monday next. [No. 204.]—(The Earl of Denbigh.)
House adjourned at 8.