Lords Sitting of 19 June 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5). ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6). HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES PROVISIONAL ORDER (BORROWSTOUNNESS). LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES).
Also the Certificates that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW).
  And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION MARKETS.
  CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY.
  LONDON IMPROVEMENTS.
  STOCKPORT CORPORATION.
  LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK.
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [Lords.]
  The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  WETHERBY DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
  SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
  SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
    SOUTHPORT AND LYTHAM TRAMROAD BILL. [Lords.]
    Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
    NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY BILL. [Lords.]
    The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendment.
    WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed.
    CALEDONIAN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [Lords.] ABERDEEN JOINT PASSENGER STATION BILL. [Lords.] SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL. [Lords.]
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL.
    RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  LOWESTOFT PROMENADE PIER BILL.
    GODALMING CORPORATION WATER BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
    JONES'S DIVORCE BILL. [Lords.]
    Minutes of evidence and proceedings before this House on the Second Reading together with the documents deposited in the case, returned from the Commons.
    EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [Lords.]
    House to be in Committee on Thursday next.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
    To be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Lord Harris.)
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL
    To be read 2a To-morrow.—(The Earl of Dudley.)

    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [Lords.]
    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [Lords.]
    WEST MIDDLESEX WATER BILL.
    AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL.
    EAST LONDON WATER BILL.
    MILTON CREEK CONSERVANCY BILL.
    GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
    GREAT WESTERN AND GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Earl of Mansfield be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Viscount Falmouth; read, and agreed to.

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL. [Lords.]
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL. [Lords]
    House in Committee (according to order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: the report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS) No. 15) BILL [Lords.]
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No 1) BILL. [Lords.]
    Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to he read 3a To-morrow.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
    Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 15th June 1899, amending the terms of paragraph 5 of the Minute of 27th April 1899, providing for the distribution of the sum available for secondary or technical (including agriculture) education under Section 2, Sub-section (4) of the Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1898.
    ARMY (MILITARY WORKS).
    Approximate estimate of expenditure for the year 1899–1900 under existing loans.
    COLONIES (ANNUAL).
    No. 261. Jamaica. Annual Report for 1897–98 (for report for 1896–97, see No. 225).
    RAILWAYS (CONTINUOUS BRAKES).
    Return by railway companies of the United Kingdom for the six months ending 31st December 1898.

    TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
    No. 2290. Japan (Yokohama and District).
    No. 2291. Persia (Azerbaijan).
    No. 2292. Africa (Congo trade returns).
    Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    PUBLIC RECORDS (TREASURY).
    Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of Treasury documents which have been deposited in the Public Record Office, but which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  PETITION.
    LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
    Petition for amendment of; of the Vestry of the Parish of St. George, Hanover Square, London; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
    ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES BILL.
    House to he in Committee on Thursday next.
    EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL.
    To be read 2a on Friday the 30th instant. (The Viscount Knutsford.)

    PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL. [Lords.]
    LORD WINDSOR: My Lords, I understand that the Local Government Board object to several of the clauses in this Bill, and therefore I ask leave to postpone the Second Reading in the hope that some modification may be made which will remove these objections.
    Order of the Day for Second Reading read, and discharged.

  YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL. [Lords.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I trust that it will be only necessary for me to make a very short statement to your Lordships in order to obtain the acceptance of this Bill. Its object is to keep children and young persons out Of jail, and I assume that to every one of your Lordships that object will appear to be commendable. Amongst the many incidents that have occurred during the present reign probably there are none that can be looked upon with greater satisfaction than the great diminution which has taken place in our criminal classes. Still, a great deal remains to be done. The diminishing power does not progress as quickly as could be wished, principally in consequence of the difficulty experienced at the present time in dealing with the habitual offender. He is a very difficult person to deal with; severity does not appear to affect him, and clemency seems to have but little effect upon him. The result is that if we are to hope for a continued proportionate in crease in the diminution of our criminal classes, we must deal in some way with the class of habitual offenders. The only way probably to deal effectually with that class is to destroy the recruiting power—to deal with the class from which
    1458
    the habitual offender is recruited, and the only way to do that is to seek the fountain head, and to prevent the child or the youth becoming criminal at all, and in this way cut off the supply to the habitual offender class. As you are aware, my Lords, a great deal has been done of late years to diminish the number of youthful offenders, but, as I have said, a great deal yet remains to he done. Much has been accomplished by the increased power of education, the prosperity of the working classes, the greater sympathy that has been shown—progressively shown—towards those who are poor and towards those who are criminal, which have tended to reduce the number of criminal youthful offenders. Also, too, there has been a progression of humane feeling on the part of those who have to administer the law, and there has been a tendency to deal with the youthful offender in the most merciful manner allowed by law. Legislature has done something. In the year 1879 my noble friend Viscount Cross introduced the Summary Jurisdiction Act, which no doubt relieved the child from the heavier penalties then being imposed. Later on my right hon. friend Sir William Harcourt took the matter in hand molten at the Home Office, and insisted that a return should be made of the committal of every child to prison. Again, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has, by two Acts, facilitated the process of admitting persons to bail, and in that way has done much to keep both the young and those more advanced in age oat of prison. But whilst all these causes have reduced the number of youthful offenders who are committed to our jails, still the number stands at a considerably higher rate than could be wished. If it will not weary your Lordships I will quote a few figures to show the rate at which the decrease has been taking place during the years from 1893 to 1897. In the year 1893 2,924 young persons under the age of 16 were committed to prison, and of these 150 were children under the age of 12 years. In 1897 the 2,924 was reduced to 1,630, not much more than half, whilst the number of children under 12 committed to prison, instead of being 150 in number, were only 58. But, my Lords, there is unfortunately a cause which is increasing, and may increase still more, the number of young persons committed to prison. We have been extending the powers of

    1459
    local government, which, of course, give local control, and the control by the local authorities over different localities has to be enforced by means of bye-laws. In order to enforce these bye-laws the magistrates are bound, first, to impose a fine, and, in default of the payment of the fine, to send the person who has been thus summarily dealt with to prison. Your Lordships will well understand that many of the offences which result from a breach of bye-laws do not represent crime as we understand the word. They are venial breaches of regulations rather than acts representing any moral offence. The result is somewhat remarkable, but, before calling your Lordships' attention to those results, I am particularly anxious to make it clear that, specially speaking on behalf of the Home Office for the moment, there is not the slightest desire in anything I say to criticise the action of magistrates in administering the law; it is really the machinery of the law that requires remedying. One's experience shows that what may appear a severe sentence in the first instance is generally capable of some explanation, and when the explanation is given the matter you are considering bears a different aspect; but I have Returns here of the different offences for which children are now sent to prison. Amongst them we find playing football in the high- way, throwing stones in the highway, obstructing the highway, and gambling in the highway. We have to deal here with children varying from 11 to 13 years of age. The child is fined, and, of necessity, not being able to pay is sent to prison with hard labour, and bears the same penalty for the period as the person who has committed positive crime against our moral law. That surely is a state of things which is scarcely to be desired. I have in my mind the case of a child of 12 who was charged with begging and fined 16s. 6d. Of course, that beggar child could not pay the fine, and was sent to prison for seven days with hard labour. What does this punishment mean to a child of 11 or 12? To keep a child in a cell by himself, especially during the night, must create a state of terror which is a cruel and frightful punishment, or if he is callous and cares not, he becomes habituated, and the prison ceases henceforth to have any terror for him. I think, however, the first phase—namely,
    1460
    that of great fear—predominates, and I may mention that some defendants who were confined in a jail near London approached the Home Office when they were released and complained that they had been unable to sleep at night in consequence of the great noise caused by the screaming of children who were locked up. The Home Secretary and those who have control of our prisons felt that an alteration was necessary, and the doors of the cells in which children are now placed are allowed to remain open, and the children may spend the night within sight of the warder instead of in the dark cell. The Home Office have thought that something should be done to prevent as much as possible youthful offenders being sent to prison. Of course, we must not take too high a position; if we do we may defeat the intention of legislation. The punishment of youthful offenders must be fixed with due regard to the age of the child, and the law should be enforced with due regard to the conditions of each case. But, where we are dealing with children so young as 10 years of age, surely in those cases there could be a mitigation of this, to them, terrible punishment of imprisonment. It is under these circumstances that the Government submit this Bill to your Lordships. The object of the Bill is, as I have said, to keep youthful offenders away from prison life, and the course that has been taken has been to invent, within reasonable bounds, Machinery to carry out this object. The first section extends the powers of the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879. By that Act only the offenders by the crimes mentioned in the schedule can be dealt with summarily, but by this section there will be, in respect of young persons, power given to magistrates to deal with all offences, except homicide, summarily, but, of course, by consent in the case of indictable offences. It would be an evil example to the child in future life if you were to say, "Commit whatever offence you will, there will be no punishment." But if the object of this Bill is to be carried into effect the punishment must, be inflicted outside the walls of a prison. The suggestion is that the punishment shall be simply whipping, as distinguished from flogging, and that the whipping shall take place upon a graduated scale, and be of a very mild character. The maximum, where the child is under 12, will be six strokes. The punishment

    1461
    will be administered in the presence of the parent or guardian, and certainly can not be regarded as one of a cruel character. It will be a domestic treatment, and one which will not be looked upon as being associated with prison life. Section 3 makes an alteration in the same direction. As your Lordships know, a child who has been convicted must not be sent to an Industrial School, but in this section it is proposed that the conviction, if it be for an offence so slight that whipping is a proper punishment, shall not be regarded as punishment so heavy as to debar the child from entering an Industrial School. I will pass over Section 4, which is rather controversial, and to which I will allude later on. Clause 5 carries out the object which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had in view when he endeavoured to place all prisoners in a position where they could be bailed instead of being imprisoned. In respect of the young child who cannot obtain any person to become bail for him, the magistrate shall have power of selecting some "outdoor" place of detention—some suitable person, say, a married constable, in whose home there will be suitable protection for the child—and, instead of sending him for the seven days during which he may be under remand, to prison, the child shall be sent to the custody of this person, who will be responsible for his appearance when the time of the remand shall have expired. Although detained in this way out of prison, there will be nearly as much certainty of the child appearing when the case comes on as if he were sent to prison, and the child will have been kept free from contact with prison life. Section 6, in one sense, does not belong to the Government, hut refers to a matter dealt with in a Bill introduced last week by my noble friend Lord Leigh. My noble friend has been the pioneer in this matter, and has worked hard to secure an alteration in the law whereby children shall not necessarily be sent to prison before they are sent to a Reformatory School. The object of my noble friend is to make it possible for a child, if the magistrate thinks proper, to go direct to a Reformatory School without being brought into contamination with prison life. That was rendered permissive in the Act of 1893, but a Departmental Committee in 1896 accepted the view which the noble Lord has all along advocated—namely, that it would be advis-
    1462
    able to make it obligatory upon magistrates to send children who are to go to Reformatory Schools direct to those schools. I am afraid that Clause 4, which throws an obligation upon parents and guardians who had not taken proper care of their children, will be somewhat controversial, and if any strong objection is shown to it I should be unwilling to see the Bill stopped by that clause. At the same time, I must say that I believe it is a most beneficial and useful clause, inasmuch as it endeavours to make parents more careful of their children and take greater care to prevent their committing crime. I have ventured to occupy your Lordships' time by referring to these sections as they have keen framed. I do not labour them, for I am certain that no one in this House or elsewhere can do other than approve of the objects we have in view, and I certainly hope that the manner in which we have endeavoured to carry out those objects will receive the unanimous sanction of your Lordships.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord James of Hereford.)
    *LORD LEIGH: My Lords, having taken for many years a deep interest in the Reformatory School system, may I be permitted to express the very great pleasure I feel at the action of the Government in introducing this Bill, which I believe to be a very useful one indeed. I had the honour, a few days ago, to introduce a Bill into your Lordships' House dealing expressly with the sending of children direct to Reformatory Schools. This is a subject to which I have paid considerable attention for the past 46 years, and whenever I have had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it I have invariably said that, in my judgment, the Legislature had committed a very great mistake in not making it compulsory upon magistrates to send children to Reformatory Schools direct. I now most cordially thank the Government for having taken the subject into their consideration, and for introducing this Bill. I earnestly trust that the present session will not end without the Act of 1893 being amended, so that the children may go direct to Reformatories without coming into contact with the gaol. I have always contended that the sending of children to

    1463
    prisons, preparatory to entering Reformatories, has a most pernicious effect upon them; and I have been informed by superintendents of reformatories, whom I have consulted upon the subject, that the hardest cases they have to deal with are in variably those cases where the children have been confined in gaol. Inasmuch as the Government has in this Bill dealt with the subject I had at heart, I desire to withdraw my Bill in favour of the Bill introduced by Her Majesty's Government.
    *LORD NORTON: My Lords, I do not suppose any of your Lordships have had more to do with reformatories than I have, for I have taken considerable part in the administration of them during the past 50 years, and I beg to tender my thanks to the noble and learned Lord who has introduced this Bill for the very material improvements in the existing law winch he has proposed. The four main improvements introduced by this Bill in the existing law dealing with youthful offenders are—firstly, tile extension of the power of summary treatment of offenders, which I think will be found of very great advantage; secondly, the greater use of moderate corporal punishment for boys, which I regard in every way preferable to shutting them up in a place of detention; thirdly, the increase in the liability of parents for cost of maintenance at reformatories and for neglect of their children, which neglect is the cause of half the child criminality of this country; and, lastly, in providing places for children to be sent to when on remand owing to there being no Reformatory School ready at the moment to receive them. For all these improvements in the existing law I, for one, am very much indebted to the noble and learned Lord, the Chancellor of the Duchy; but there is one clause, which has been especially referred to, to which I should like to call attention. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Leigh) proposes to withdraw his Bill, which is adopted by the clause in this Bill dealing with the admission Of children to Reformatory Schools, but upon this Clause I feel compelled to say a few words. I do not think there is anything more dangerous than the habit which Parliament is getting into of legislating by reference to other Acts, and not explaining exactly what the
    1464
    complete object of a Bill is. This system renders it absolutely impossible for anybody, without assistance of a lawyer, to, understand what such Bills mean. I must say it is utterly impossible for any of your Lordships to know what the 6th clause, of this Bill means as it stands. It proposes, to omit the words "in addition to" out of the Act of 1893. No one can tell whether that would be an advantage or not. I think the noble Lord himself, on reflection, will hardly like to be the author of such a provision, and place upon the Statute Book a clause which says that child-convicts shall, not in addition to, but in lieu of punishment, whatever their crime may be, be sent direct to a Reformatory School. This clause either means entire immunity of children from punishment, or that Reformatory Schools are to be looked upon as penal institutions, and that children sent to them shall be, treated as criminals for the whole of their childhood. Can there be anything more monstrous or cruel to a boy than to stigmatise him as a criminal during the whole of his childhood? If this is allowed, boys will he turned out at the end of their detention without any sense of shame, and with a degrading consciousness that they are criminals. This, of course, will also act as an impediment to their being employed in any industry which they have been trained to in these schools. I cannot conceive anything more dangerous or more cruel than such a provision as this. I can hardly suppose that the noble and learned Lord has himself really seen the drift of the sixth clause of this Bill. What he desires, and what we all desire, is that children should not be punished in prison. We are all agreed upon that point. To shut up a young child in a solitary cell in a prison is gross cruelty, and produces no benefit whatever, but the proposal of the noble and learned Lord goes further, and suggests that for all convicts under sixteen there should be no punishment at all. Under this Bill parents who neglect their children will he punished by having to pay costs and a fine, and to give a security for their future better conduct; but that the children should be sent to school as their only punishment is a proposal which I cannot think the noble Lord opposite (Lord Leigh) would wish himself. What he wants is not to secure that in lieu of any punishment the child shall be sent to school, but that

    1465
    he shall not be sent to prison. All desire to see punishment of a suitable kind adopted, which, in the case of boys, would in almost all instances he corporal punishment. They should afterwards go to a Reformatory, if no other schooling offers itself, and the Reformatory should be treated as a school, and not as a penal institution retaining criminal character throughout education. Indeed, they cannot in practice be treated as penal institutions. They are just the same as other schools, except that they are made so excessively agreeable that there is a danger of a premium being given to bad treatment of children to qualify for Reformatories. I was asked by one woman how she could qualify her child for a Reformatory, and I did not like to tell her by throwing lam into the street to pick pockets. As a matter of fact, our Reformatories are the very best publicly supported schools we have in the country; they are far better than the ordinary National schools, for they give technical as well as intellectual instruction. By treating them as direct modes of punishment more harm must be done than good, both to the chili and to the country, and I trust the clause to which I have called attention, as well as the Bill it adopts, will not be allowed to appear on the Statute Book. I hope the noble and learned Lord will tell your Lordships that he will alter the clause so as to achieve what I am sure is his desire as well as mine that children should have proper punishment not in prison. If he will not do so, I am certain the magistrates will adopt the usual course of refusing to act upon a provision which is absolutely absurd.
    *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: May I say, with regard to what Lord Leigh has stated with reference to his desire to withdraw his Bill in view of the provision in this Bill dealing with the same subject, that I hope he will not withdraw his Bill. I hope my noble friend's measure, which is a one-clause Bill, will receive the assent of both Houses of Parliament, and I see no objection to his Bill as well as this Bill progressing. If the noble Lord's Bill passes, then the 6th clause of this Bill can be struck out. It is a well-known axiom that if you wish to secure your game two guns are better than one. The proposal contained in the 6th clause will he discussed at length in
    1466
    the Standing Committee to-morrow on the Bill of the noble Lord opposite. I will, however, consult the Home Office on the subject, and after hearing, as I have no doubt I shall, the matter discussed in the Standing Committee by my noble friends I will state the view taken by the Home Office.
    *LORD LEIGH: My Lords, if it is the wish of the House and of the noble and learned Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy that my Bill should continue I will do my best to push it forward. My only desire is to see the clause which embodies the object I have at heart passed into law, and I trust that this desire will be realised.
    On Question, agreed to.
    Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 27th instant.

  BILL INTRODUCED.
    LIGHT LOAD LINE BILL. [Lords.]
    A Bill to supplement the law relating to load lines on merchant ships was presented by the Lord Muskerry; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday the 26th instant. (No. 127.)
  QUESTIONS.

    THE ROYAL ACADEMY.
    *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY:I desire to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give effect to the following recommendations of the Select Committee of 1836, and of the Royal Commission of 1863 with respect to the Royal Academy—

    1. That the Academy should rest on a wider and more liberal basis, and be viewed as a national institution, and that it should have a Charter in lieu of the Instrument of 1768. (1836 and 1863):

    2. That an animal report should be published of the proceedings of the Academy, with a statement of its income and expenditure, duly audited. (1863):

    1467

    3. That all voting for Royal Academicians or Associates should he open. (1863):

    4. That the Academicians and Associates now existing should send four works as of right, and never more, and that Associates henceforth elected should send no work as of right, and never more than four. (1863):

    5. That the charge for admission should be one shilling as heretofore, but on Mondays it might be raised to a higher sum, and that the Exhibition should be wholly free on Saturdays. (1836 and 1863):

    6. That the system of teaching hitherto followed is not satisfactory. (1863):

    7. The system of teaching which prevails in France seems well worthy of consideration. (1863):

    8. That the annual balance-sheet of the accounts of the Academy should be printed and submitted along with the annual report to the General Assembly. (1863):

    And to call the attention to the House to the repudiation by the Royal Academy of their responsibility as bailees for damage to works confided to their custody: also to the sixty thousand pounds of the Chantrey Bequest, of which the Chantrey Trustees give no account.
    My Lords, the eight recommendations contained in this notice are all taken from the Reports of the Royal Commission of 1863, and the recommendations which have the date 1836 upon them are those which were also recommended by the Select Committee of the House of Commons. Your Lordships may naturally have wondered why these recommendations were not attended to. I think the probable explanation is that in 1836 Lord Melbourne was Prime Minister, and his maxim was to let things alone, and that in 1863 Lord Palmerston was Prime Minister, and he was then 80 years of age. This explanation is strengthened by the similar neglect of two other Parliamentary recommendations of about the same dates, 1837 and 1862, with respect to first fruits paid by poor benefices. The noble Marquess at the head of the Government may ask me why I expect him to carry out the recommendations of these past and gone Commissions.
    1468
    There are several reasons. In the first place, the subject has been refreshed and revived by the recently published book by Mr. Laidlay, which the Royal Academy has not attempted to answer or contradict in any way; and, in the second place, discontent of the artists and general public has now reached mid-winter. There is also the noble Marquess's own argument of continuity of Government, since there has been nothing to break it since 1863. The first recommendation was that the Academy should rest on a wider and more liberal basis, and be viewed as a national institution, and that it should have a charter in lieu of the instrument of 1768. I will ask your Lordships to observe that this was recommended by the Select Committee in 1836, and by the Royal Commission in 1863. This recommendation does not require any answer from the noble Marquess, because, supposing he is in favour of reform, it would be a matter for negotiation with the Royal Academy as to the conditions under which a new charter should be given. The same observation applies to Recommendation 8. The General Assembly is not a general assembly of Royal artists, but only of members of the Royal Academy. The junior members of the Royal Academy have very little voice. In any new charter it would be necessary that these matters should be remedied, and the present tyranny removed. The second recommendation is that an annual report should be published of the proceedings of the Academy, with a statement of its income and expenditure duly audited. At present the Academy play fast and loose, sometimes claiming to be a public institution, and at other times a private institution, and they also claim a right to deal with their own funds as they like. The result is that nobody knows how the funds are applied, or where they go. The third recommendation is that all voting for Royal Academicians or Associates should be open. That is very necessary, for at the present nobody knows why they are appointed. A great number are appointed chiefly because they have called for reform; it is known that once inside the Academy they cease all their further arguments in favour of improvements in administration. The fourth recommendation is that the Academicians and Associates now existing should send four works as of right, and never more, and that Associates henceforth elected

    1469
    should send no work as of right, and never more than four. I have put in these recommendations exactly as they stand in the report, but the general opinion now is that the Academicians should be limited to still fewer works, but that at any rate they should pass a competent jury and not send in pictures which are really of no value. I remember a picture entitled "The Flight into Egypt," in the centre of which was a picture of the Holy Family. This occupied the whole side of the room, and the chief impression produced upon my mind was the greediness of this Academician in taking up so much space at the expense of others. The great complaint made by the public and the artists is that favouritism is displayed in the admission and rejection of pictures. Even supposing there was no favouritism, the enormous number sent in render it absolutely impossible for any jury to devote the necessary time to them. There are too many pictures sent in, and in this case, as Seneca said of the Alexandrian library bunted by Julius Caesar, excess is everywhere prejudicial. The fifth recommendation is that the charge for admission be raised to a higher sum, and that the exhibition should be wholly free on Saturdays. Your Lordships will observe that this recommendation was made in 1836, at a time when there was no attempt at vote-catching or much care for popular amusement, and that the recommendation was made with the idea that it would benefit the people of this country by instilling a love for art. There would he no loss to the Academy by allowing the exhibition to be wholly free on Saturdays, for they could charge 2s. on Mondays. This particular recommendation has attracted a good deal of attention out of doors, and many newspapers have strongly supported it. The sixth recommendation says that the system of teaching hitherto followed is not satisfactory, and the following recommendation is to the effect that the system of teaching which prevails in France seems well worthy of consideration. The present system of teaching is very bad. The teacher is changed every month, the result being that you have a landscape painter recommending almost exclusive attention to colour one day, and another painter recommending exactly opposite the next day. I agree that the system of teaching which prevails in France is well worthy of consideration. This is evident by the number
    1470
    of British students who go to France. Nearly the whole of the United States market for pictures is lost to this country because Americans who go to Paris find the studios full of English students, and naturally conclude that if the Academy teaching is bad, English art must be bad also. This is a question for the Board of Trade: from accounts of duty on pictures imported into the United States, furnished by the U.S. Consul in Paris, for the years 1889–90, 1890–91, and 1891–92, the average sum of £1,600,000 was spent in each of those years in Paris by United States citizens. I now have to call the attention of the House to the repudiation by the Royal Academy of their responsibility as bailee for damage to works confided to their custody; and also to the £60,000 of the Chantrey Bequest, of which the Chantrey Trustees give no account. The action of the Royal Academy in repudiating responsibility as bailees is against the common law, as is proved by the fact that the Liverpool and Manchester Galleries have both repeatedly paid for damages. At the present time I have been informed of a poor man having been offered £2 10s. by the Academy for damage done to his picture. The Liverpool Academy admits pictures protected by glass, but this the Royal Academy refuses to sanction. Perhaps the bringing of the question before your Lordships' notice may have the effect of shaming the Academy into action. As Mr. Laidlay has said in his book, the Academy can reform itself from within, and do so much better than outsiders can do, but pressure is required if anything is to he done. With regard to the £60,000 of the Chantrey Bequest, Mr. Charles Mains-Jackson has written a letter in the April number of a magazine called The Windmill, quoting from Mr. Cook's Handbook to the Tate Gallery, to say that Chantrey left £150,000 to the Academy subject to a life interest to his wife, and that the Academy devote the interest on £90,000 to buying pictures; but what has become of the remaining £60,000. Mr. Kains-Jackson also points out that the Chantrey Trustees pay more than the market value for the pictures they buy. it would be better if the Charity Commissioners paid some attention to this matter, instead of depriving small parishes of endowments in order to devote the money to secondary education. The

    1471
    noble Marquess at the head of the Government made a speech at the last Academy banquet, and I need not repeat to him his own speech. But I should like to ask him, if I may, whether, when he spoke of Commissions on the right and Commissions on the left, this was merely a reminiscence of Tennyson's "Balaclava Charge," and referred to future Commissions, or whether he was aware that the Royal Academy was already flanked by two Commissions. My first impression of his speech was that he had heard there was to be an attempt to reform the Royal Academy, and his speech was a warning. I am certain the noble Marquess would not wish to imitate Lord Beaconsfield in being a Sphinx and a Mall of mystery, but his speech certainly had a misleading effect. This is shown by the remarks of the Morning Post next day. That journal said:
    "Nobody is more given to telling the truth in the guise of a jest than Lord Salisbury.…Lord Salisbury foreshadowed a time when the Academy might have to be managed by the Government; and, though he confessed that he did not think it would then be managed particularly well, we are not at all certain that he did not foretell the thing which is bound to happen sooner or later. The Royal Academy really is a Government Department in all but name. It cannot make a painter, but it can secure the prosperity of any tradesman who has learned the rules of drawing, and can use a brush to pat colour on canvas. The man who is scorned by this body is scorned by the vast majority of the picture-buying public. …The business of the Academy would probably not be well done if it became a Government Department, but half-a-dozen Civil Service clerks would introduce improvements. Through mere laziness they would put some limit to the number of canvases that may he sent in, and, believing in their ignorance that pictures are exhibited in order that they may be seen, they would arrange the galleries as almost all galleries, save those of the Academy, are arranged."
    I begin to have doubts as to whether the noble Marquess does not wish to shelter himself under the vis inertiœ of Lord Melbourne and Lord Palmerston. If that is not so, there is a very simple way for the noble Marquess to take action. He need not even write a letter to the Royal Academy. It would he quite sufficient if he were now to say that, until the Academy reformed itself, he and his colleagues would not accept the next invitation to the Academy banquet. This would, of course, be a self-denying ordinance, not for the loss of the dinner, but fur the loss on the part of the Government of the opportunity, if I may say so, of blowing its own trumpet. The
    1472
    Members of the Government have two opportunities during the year of doing this—the Lord Mayor's banquet and the Royal Academy banquet. But if the noble Marquess and his colleagues would take the step I have suggested, they would escape the danger they now incur of being charged with insincerity in the matter. In the spring the papers referred to what Lord Beaconsfield said at the Academy. In his speech to the Academicians he praised the paintings he saw about him for their imagination, but immediately afterwards he said to Mr. Browning they showed no imagination whatever. This story shows the danger of the insincerity to which the Academy banquet exposes a Minister. I have nothing more to say, except to, make a formal motion for Papers, in case I wish to reply.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I will try to give some sort of answer to the question which my noble friend has put on the Paper. He has, as usual, surrounded the question with a graceful haze of irrelevant matter upon which it is not necessary for me to touch. I think, if we once attempt an inquiry as to what any newspaper says in this or that leading article, we shall have a great number of subjects for useless debate. I think that the ground fallacy of my noble friend's speech is the impression which he appears to entertain that the Report of a Commission must always be attended to, and that, as a matter of fact, its Report always is attended to. That is not my experience of public life. I have witnessed the appointment of a great number of Commissions, but my impression is that a very small percentage have received any notice from legislators or from Parliament. My noble friend is a man of very great industry, and if he will devote himself to ascertaining how many Commissions during the last 60 years have reported, and how many of those Reports have given grounds for any action, he will furnish a very important contribution to the history of his time. I think I know several Commissions now pending that have not the slightest probability of any action being taken upon them. But my noble friend appears to look forward to a period, which Lord Wemyss glanced at on a previous occasion, when the Government should undertake the management

    1473
    of the Royal Academy. I confess that I think this undertaking is reserved for holder hands than mine. I hope that if there is to be an artistic Party in Parliament, which will prescribe for the various artistic bodies what they ought to do, they will organise themselves in some such way that all their recommendations may have a unanimous tendency. I am afraid my noble friend and Lord Wemyss are still far apart in the remedies they recommend for the consideration of Parliament. But the practical point is—Are the Government going to introduce any measure this session to alter the constitution of the Royal Academy? I have had the privilege to hear the exposition of the state of public business which my right hon. friend the Leader of the House of Commons has to-day made before that body. I think that when my noble friend comes to read it he will agree with me that the task of introducing any such thorny and difficult subject as the reform of our artistic institutions is not likely to be undertaken in the two months which yet remain of the session. There is no subject which produces such a healthy difference of opinion as questions which relate to art, and, consequently, there is no subject which is likely to make so great a demand On the time of Parliament. I certainly should think it very imprudent of any Minister to undertake such a task, unless he were driven by very much greater evils and defects than it is possible to show in the present management of the Royal Academy. On the whole, the results appear to me to be quite as good as they are likely to be by introducing the Civil Service element into the management of the Royal Academy, and I doubt whether any large addition of politicians to the governing body of our great art institution will add much to the value and beauty of its work.
    *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, on the whole I am perfectly satisfied with the answer given by the noble Marquess, because he indicates that at some future time something will be done. I shall find the observations of the noble Marquess with regard to Royal Commissions very useful in dealing with another matter I intend to call your Lordships' attention to, and of which I have given notice.
    House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.