Lords Sitting of 5 March 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Donegal Railway [H.L.].
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
Barnsley Corporation Bill [H.L.]
ought to be dispensed with and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Clauses 17 to 47 relating to tramways be struck out of the Bill.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for additional provisions in the
Caledonian Railway Bill [H.L.]
ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the additional provision.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
Newry, Keady, and Tynan Light Railway Bill
ought to be dispensed with, provided that the words in Clause 21 of the Bill "or the Urban Council may, if they so think fit, include the amount to be raised by such rate in the sums to be raised by means of the Newry Town Rate, and such amount shall accordingly be raised as part of the Newry Town Rate, and in such case any statutory or other limit of the Newry Town Rate shall not apply in respect of the amount so to be raised" be struck out of the Bill.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
Aberdeen Corporation Tramways Bill
ought to be dispensed with, provided that the powers to construct Tramway No. 6 be struck out of the Bill.
That the Committee have considered the special report from the examiner in respect of the
Great Grimsby Street Tramways Bill [H.L.],
and are of opinion that the further Standing Orders applicable to the Bill have been complied with.
Read, and agreed to.

BRISTOL WATER BILL [H.L.]
BARRY RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL [H.L.]
  BEXHILL AND ROTHERFIELD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]

    DORKING WATER BILL [H.L.]
    LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    SOUTH ESSEX WATER BILL [H.L.].
    GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    GLASGOW AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY OF IRELAND BILL [H.L.].
    Committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON ACT, 1898.
  Report to accompany Statutes and Regulations made by the Commissioners appointed under the University of London Act, 1898: together with an appendix of correspondence.
  TREATY SERIES, No. 5 (1900).
  Procès-verbal recording the accession of the Russian Empire to the Cape Spartel International Lighthouse Convention of 31st March, 1865; signed at Tangier, 31st May, 1899.

  TRADE REPORTS.
  Annual Series: No. 2386. Finances of the Netherlands, for the year 1899–1900.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
  The Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899. No. XIX.
  The Electoral Act, 1899. No. XX.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.] (No 18.)
  A Bill to amend and consolidate the law relating to literary copyright: And

  COPYRIGHT (ARTISTIC) BILL [H.L.] (No. 19.)
  A Bill to amend and consolidate the law relating to artistic copyright.
  Were presented by the Lord Monkswell: read 1ªand to be printed.

  YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL [H.L.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I have some confidence that this Bill will receive not only your unanimous but your cordial support. The object of the measure as proposed now for Second Reading is to keep young children out of prison, and thereby not only to relieve them from a punishment oftentimes of a most severe and injurious character, but also, it is hoped, to diminish the numbers, of the criminal class. It is gratifying, of course, to know how great has been the diminution of crime of late years. If we take the twenty years from 1878 to 1898, the number of persons convicted for indictable offences at assizes and quarter sessions fell from 16,000 to 11,000, whilst from 1880 to 1898 the number of summary convictions fell by as many as 10,000. Various causes have contributed to bring about this result—the prosperity of the country, full employment, increased wages, the lower price of provisions, education, and greater sympathy between the classes. All these have tended to diminish the number of the criminal class. But still there is opportunity for doing much more to check the supply of habitual offenders, and it is for that purpose that this Bill is designed. The habitual offender is a difficult person to deal with. It is most difficult to effect a complete change in his habit of life, but if we can stop the supply to this class, if we accept the old Latin saying that: "It is better to seek the fountain than intercept the rivulets," we shall thereby diminish the recruiting power of the criminal class, and gradually prevent the habitual offender coming into

    5
    existence at all. The object of this Bill is to substitute a punishment other than that of imprisonment upon young persons under sixteen years of age. A great deal has been done in this direction of late years, but still something remains to be done. During 1899 177 children under fourteen years of age, many of them under twelve years of age, were committed to prison, and they have remained in prison for seven and fourteen days, and even six weeks, for offences which I do not think could be judged to represent crime at all. In 1879 my noble friend Lord Cross, who was then Home Secretary, passed through the Legislature a valuable measure called the Summary Jurisdiction Act. By that Act magistrates have the power to substitute for imprisonment the punishment of whipping upon children in respect of certain offences—only some three or four are mentioned in the schedule of that Act. In the Bill which was introduced last year by the Government it was proposed to extend that power, not only to the offences mentioned in the Act of 1879, but to all indictable offences except murder and manslaughter. That Bill received your Lordships' approval, but did not pass through the House of Commons. It is somewhat remarkable that, whilst that Bill was proceeding through your Lordships' House, a Bill came up from the House of Commons, introduced by Mr. Bryn Roberts, in which it was proposed that certain indictable offences should be dealt with summarily by the magistrates. The power was extended to cases of larceny, embezzlement, and false pretences. I took advantage, on behalf of the Home Office, of that Bill, but I was only able to deal, in that Bill, with indictable offences, and a clause was inserted and approved by this House by which the power of whipping young persons under fourteen years of age was given in respect of all indictable offences. That is how the law stands under the Act of last year, the two exceptions being the offences of murder and manslaughter. As the measure dealt with indictable offences only, I felt that there was no power to deal in that Bill with summary offences. Therefore the law is in the anomalous position that, while a magistrate can inflict the punishment of whipping in lieu of imprisonment on young offenders convicted of the most serious indictable offences, he has not the power of so dealing with summary
    6
    convictions. What is the result? The Legislature has of recent years extended the power of local authorities to make bye-laws to regulate the different localities over which those bodies have control. These bye-laws refer to the proper control of traffic, etc., and some of them deal with such venial offences as playing football in the streets. Infringements of these bye-laws by children cannot be called crimes; yet, in default of payment of fines, children brought before the magistrate for offences of this kind have to be sent to prison for days and even weeks. The magistrate has no power to inflict the punishment of whipping upon a child who commits an offence of this kind, whereas he can do so in the case of a boy convicted of burglary and other indictable offences. To send a child of timid disposition to prison is a terrible punishment. I may mention to your Lordships, as I did in introducing this Bill last year, that the Home Office have received complaints from time to time that the screams of the children throughout the night have prevented the other prisoners from getting any sleep. A complaint on the matter was made by certain defendants who were sent to Holloway in respect of affairs in South Africa, and the Home Office have ordered that the cells in which children are confined shall have doors so constructed that they shall be able to see into the corridor and so get rid of the alarm caused by being placed from six o'clock in the evening till six o'clock in the morning in a dark cell without being able to see anything. If the child is not timid and frightened, if he is disposed to resist the cruelty of his punishment, he becomes hardened and accustomed to prison life, and it ceases to have any terror for him. It is from such that the class to whom I have referred, the habitual offenders, is recruited, and thus it is that the ranks of our criminals are filled up and still continue to be far more numerous than they ought to be. I have explained to your Lordships the particular object of this Bill. There may be some who object to the infliction of the punishment of flogging. There are men who think that flogging is not a wise punishment, and that it amounts to cruelty; but the punishment suggested in this Bill is of a kind which cannot cause any suggestion to be made that it represents cruelty. It is a punishment of the mildest character, regulated

    7
    according to the age of the child, and it must be inflicted in the presence of the child's parent or guardian. Such will be the main result of the Bill, but other matters have to be dealt with too. Great difficulty is experienced in the case of remands. Take the case of a young child of 11 or 12 years of age. The magistrate has to deal with him, but as witnesses are not present a remand is necessary. What is to be done? At once you get the infliction of the punishment of imprisonment if you remand the child to prison, and all the evils which are sought to be guarded against in this Bill come into play. What this Bill proposes is that the magistrate shall have the power, if it is necessary to remand a youthful offender in order to determine whether he shall be committed for trial or punished or not, of placing him in the custody of a married constable or any fit person willing to receive him. It is a sort of criminal out-door relief. The person to whom the child is entrusted will be answerable for his re-appearance when the period of remand expires. This proposal necessitates a little expenditure, for which the parent may be made answerable, but, failing that, I am glad to say that on this occasion the Treasury have not interfered in the exercise of the powers of the Constitution, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed to the payment of 6s. a week in respect of each child so treated. This proposal will not only prove of great advantage to the child, but also to the prison authorities, for nothing can interfere more with the good government of our prisons than the sending to them of these young children. There is one other important clause which will probably require some consideration. I refer to Clause 3, which provides that if a child commits any offence, and it is proved that his parent or guardian has conduced thereto by neglect, without sufficient excuse, to exercise due control over him, the parent or guardian shall be deemed to be guilty of having contributed to the commission of the offence. It may be almost metaphysical to determine what has conduced to a child's crime, but there can, I think, be no doubt that this provision will cause parents to discharge their duty more effectually, and by restraint or example endeavour to prevent their children entering into a course of crime. There are several minor provisions in the Bill which
    8
    I think will be useful. For instance, in Clause 5 a court of assize or quarter sessions is given the like power of committing a child to an industrial school as may be exercised by two justices under Section 15 of the Industrial Schools Act, 1866. There are other provisions which will meet with the approval of your Lordships, and need not be discussed in detail. When a child is convicted of an offence so slight that the magistrate sees no need to send him to prison, and inflicts the slight corporal punishment provided in this Bill, that shall not be regarded as a conviction of felony at all, and the child will not have the disqualification throughout his life of having been convicted for felony whilst very young. I hope your Lordships will regard this as a valuable portion of that class of legislation which is effecting much good by so amending our criminal procedure that in the end we may derive the benefit of seeing the criminal classes in this country greatly diminished.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord James of Hereford.)
    EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think the House will agree with all the noble Lord has said as to the cruelty of sending a little child to prison; but there was one expression which fell from him to which some of us demur. I allude to the statement in which he referred to the mildness of the punishment of whipping. I am glad to find, by Clause 1 of the Bill, that a child under twelve is not to receive more than twelve strokes with the birch rod; but would it not be more humane to say that no child under eight or nine years of age should be whipped at all? Eighteen strokes is the maximum number which can be inflicted on a boy of any age, but I regard that number as rather too high. Noble Lords who were at Eton will remember that no one had more than twelve. I remember that twelve well. I would ask the noble and learned Lord whether the maximum number in the Bill might not be reduced.
    *LORD NORTON: This is one of the most important Bills that has been before your Lordships' House for some time. It deals with a subject upon which I can speak with some knowledge, and I desire to express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for having intro-

    9
    duced it. I have taken an interest for over half a century in the treatment of youthful offenders, since the first legislation about it, and I am informed by the police that the reformatory I established in the neighbourhood of Birmingham, the second after that of Red Hill, has "broken up," to use their own expression, the nursery of crime in the city of Birmingham. My noble friend has in this Bill hit two or three important points on which the law is at present defective, and if he is able to get it through Parliament this session he will have done a very great service to the country. I can hardly conceive anyone objecting to the corporal punishment of children instead of sending them to prison. Sending children to prison is cruel and mischievous. Corporal punishment is suitable, and has a much more deterrent effect. Children will not come again for it if they can help it. It is the right mode of treating them. The Bill most importantly recognises the fact that in ninety-nine cases out of every 100 the parents are the chiefly guilty persons, and I welcome Clause 3 of the Bill, which makes the parent or guardian liable for offences committed by the child. Although children must be punished if they commit an offence, you can hardly say that they are solely guilty. I think there are very few of your Lordships, if in infancy you had been turned out into the streets to earn your livelihood by picking pockets, who would not have gone as far astray as the children who get into our reformatories and industrial schools. This Bill seems to take a bold but wise step in making the parent, unless he can give sufficient excuse, liable for having contributed to the commission of the offence. In recent years the State has placed itself far too much in loco parentis towards children, thus relieving parents of their proper responsibility. I therefore rejoice that the Bill makes parents, to some extent, answerable for the offences of their children. I think it is also wise that power is to be given to the magistrate to order that fines imposed on the parent may be applied towards compensating the person injured by the child's offence. This Bill goes a step further, and compels the parent not only to pay the cost of proceedings against the child, but to give security for the better conduct of the child in future. That was strongly recommended by the Royal Commission. The
    10
    fourth clause provides that a court of Summary Jurisdiction, on remanding or committing for trial any child, may, instead of sending him during the interval to prison, make an order that he be placed in the custody of any fit person who is willing to receive him. It has always been a great puzzle to know what to do with children while on remand. At present they are sent to prison. This Bill will put an end to that practice. I think the noble and learned Lord has hit upon an excellent course in leaving it to the discretion of the magistrate to select fit persons who will take charge of the child during the short interval while waiting for trial, or finding a reformatory, or while the circumstances of the parent are being investigated. The noble and learned Lord has not referred to what, in my opinion, is one of the most important points in the Bill. I refer to Clause 6, which provides for the recovery of the expense of maintenance of a child in custody from the parent or guardian. It is important that a parent should not be able to save the expense of a child by leading it into crime; he should be made to pay as much for the maintenance of the child in a reformatory as the child would cost at home. I have even had a mother ask me how she could qualify her child to get into a reformatory and so save the expense of keeping him. At present the method of recovering the cost from the parent is rather roundabout. When the magistrate convicts a child and directs that he shall go to a reformatory, he sends to the Officer of Reformatories in London. That officer then puts himself in communication with the police on the spot, who finds out the circumstances of the parent. They then report to the Reformatory Officer in London, who decides upon the payment which shall be made, and his order goes back to the local police, and for final sanction to the magistrate. This Bill makes the process direct instead of indirect, and leaves it to the magistrates on the spot, when they convict a child and wish to send him to a reformatory, to find out through their own local police the circumstances of the parents and what they should contribute. It throws the onus on the parent of proving that he is not able to pay, instead of on the officer to show that the parent is able to pay. The mode of recovery of payment is simplified, it being made

    11
    recoverable as an order of affiliation. For the first time we shall get this most important provision by this Bill. I can hardly conceive any objection being offered to the measure, and I trust that it will become law this session.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, my noble friend who has just spoken has always had such an extraordinary belief in the efficacy of whipping that I am not surprised that he views this Bill with unqualified satisfaction. I do not view it with unqualified satisfaction, nor do I view it with unqualified dissatisfaction. There is a good deal to be said both ways. There is very strong argument in favour of a Bill of this kind from the desire, which my noble friend referred to, that children should not be sent to prison. I entirely sympathise with that desire; but we must not shut our eyes to the disadvantage of and objections to a system of whipping. My noble friend has told us that once whipped twice shy, and that it will be seldom that a boy who has been whipped once will come back again. I am told on excellent authority that, at the school already referred to, where I was, a boy not altogether unconnected with this assembly, though not a member of it, came back eighteen times. I am not at all surprised at that, because I have known boys personally who did not care in the least degree how often they were whipped, and I could mention a very distinguished person, who is not present, whom I have often heard say he didn't care a fig about it. You must not suppose, therefore, that whipping is a perfectly efficacious remedy, and we should very carefully consider how far we go in this direction. I have not had personally the experience my noble friend behind me (Earl Carrington) has had, but I confess I somewhat question—I do not say that I shall oppose it—the wisdom of a maximum of eighteen strokes, because you are going to entrust the administration of this Bill to every justice throughout the country sitting in petty sessions, and any offence, however small, may be punished by whipping. I have not the least desire to decry my brother justices, who, I believe, administer the law in a manner far better than is generally ascribed to them, but in so large a body there are men of not very
    12
    good judgment who take a wrong view of punishment. It is possible, for instance, that a boy poacher would be severely whipped, or that there would be some very indignant magistrate who thought that apple stealing was a very terrible crime and ordered the boy a severe whipping. If that were done, I am sure there would be an outcry against whipping. Within certain limits, however, I entirely agree that everything possible should be done to prevent children being sent to prison, and I do think that for smaller boys whipping is the appropriate punishment, if not too severe. I welcome the provision by which boys who are going to reformatories will not be sent to prison. I shall abstain from going into the different clauses now, because the Bill will no doubt go to the Standing Committee, where it will be reasonably judged and brought into a form in which it will work well.
    *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I should like to add a further word of thanks to the noble and learned Lord for introducing this Bill. The recognition which both sides of the House have given to his action must naturally cause him to feel that he is right in believing that this Bill, though a small one, may be far-reaching in its consequences. The noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, seems to me to have overlooked, in his criticisms, a most important point. The remarks of the noble Earl as to the danger of unwise or over-severe justices whipping a boy who perhaps did not deserve so severe a chastisement may possibly be deserved. But what is the alternative? It is only in the case of boys who might otherwise be sent to prison that this clause operates. Does the noble Earl mean to say that it is better that a little boy should be sent to prison for six months? To my mind, if in after life a boy be any the worse for a mistaken whipping, ten thousand times more will he be the worse for having gone to prison for six months, which is the alternative. I cannot express too strongly my approval of the provision that a boy or a girl should no longer have to be sent to prison on the way to a reformatory. Nothing can be more mischievous in after life than that stamp, even apart from its direct and immediate danger, and the provision in this Bill seems, so far as one can judge, exactly calculated to meet

    13
    that particular difficulty, and to take away what has hitherto been a heart-breaking cause of sorrow to not a few of those who are interested in young offenders. I believe that if the Bill becomes law, which I hope will be the case very shortly, it will effect an untold amount of good.
    On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2ªaccordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

  MONEY LENDING BILL [H.L.]

    COMMITTEE.
    House in Committee (according to Order).
    LORD MONKSWELL: I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord who has charge of this Bill a question as to Clause 1. I do not understand exactly what it means as at present drafted. In Clause 1 these words occur—
    "If the Court has reason to believe that the interest charged in respect of the sum actually lent exceeds the rate of interest mentioned in the schedule to this Act, or that the amounts charged for expenses, inquiries, fines, bonus, premium, renewals, or any other charges, are excessive, and that the transaction is harsh and unconscionable."
    I want to know how the noble and learned Lord reads that. Does he mean that the Court would have discretion to say that, although the interest was excessive, still the contract was not harsh and unconscionable?
    LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: Yes. We thought it should not be a mere arbitrary deduction that because a certain percentage was charged the bargain was harsh and unconscionable.
    LORD MONKSWELL: As the clause at present stands it may be read disjunctively, and I think the wording could be improved.
    LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: It is strange that my noble friend should mention this matter. Lord Davey and myself had a discussion as to the best mode of dealing with it, and we left it to the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, who is an expert, and he agreed that it should be as in this clause. But the matter is one worthy of reconsideration.
    Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  LUNACY BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3ªon Thursday next.

  INDIAN FAMINE—RELIEF WORKS.
  *LORD REAY: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he can give any information as to the number of people engaged on relief works, receiving support in other ways; as to the estimated expenditure and the expenditure hitherto incurred; as to the expediency of increased outlay on irrigation works; and as to the terms on which advances will be made to agriculturists for restocking their holdings, taking into account the mortality among cattle. My questions are prompted by feelings of sympathy which are widespread in this country for those who are stricken by the great calamity which, after such a short interval, has again fallen upon India, and also by the admiration all must feel for the way in which the Administration are meeting this renewed strain on their energies. There are some points upon which I daresay my noble friend will be able to give us information. In the first place, I should be glad if he would state what amount of relief is supplied by public works under the supervision of officers of the Public Works Department, and what amount of relief is given in so-called village works under the supervision of Civil officers, and whether a sufficient number of works had been planned before the famine broke out to fully meet the demand which on this occasion must have been very considerable indeed. The last Famine Commission, presided over by Sir James Lyall, very properly laid great stress on the preparation of plans of works beforehand, so that in case of an outbreak of famine all should be ready, and also on the utilisation of the staff of the Public Works Department in superintending these relief operations. I wish to ask next whether the classification prescribed by Sir James Lyall's Commission—namely, two broad classes of diggers of earth and carriers—has been adopted and worked satisfactorily, and whether the task allotted to the former class, which is composed of able-bodied men, and the task imposed upon the latter, which is composed of women, of children above twelve years of age, and of men who are not able-bodied, answered its purpose. A

  15
  very important suggestion made by Sir James Lyall's Commission was that the wage should be unified throughout India. To that recommendation objections are urged on account of the different local conditions prevailing in various parts of India. I believe, for instance, that in Madras they are in favour of a higher wage than that considered adequate in the North-West Provinces, and perhaps the noble Lord could tell us whether the objections have proved insuperable. During the last famine in the Central Provinces great difficulties were experienced in applying the labour test to the hill tribes, and information may, perhaps, be given whether small works were opened in the hill tracts, as suggested by the Commission. The Central Provinces are obviously the part of India more afflicted than any other on account of the severe stress of repeated bad seasons, and I think that any exceptional assistance given to the Central Provinces would be entirely justified. As regards gratuitous relief, perhaps the noble Lord will be able to give us some indication of its extent. I am fully prepared to hear that the number of those on gratuitous relief has increased. It is the natural result of a more accurate system of inspection and greater local knowledge, and also of utilising village officials who, of course, must be well acquainted with those who are in need of gratuitous relief, which, in many instances, may act as a rate-in-aid and prevent the point of absolute destitution from being reached. That undoubtedly is an argument in favour of giving gratuitous relief on rather generous lines. With regard to irrigation, Sir James Lyall's Commission urged the construction of remunerative canals in the Punjab, in Scinde, and in Upper Burma, and minor works elsewhere. I should be inclined to press for a further expenditure on wells and tanks, and also on canals in those parts of India where the tillage of the soil is not in ordinary seasons entirely dependent on irrigation, which could not yield a profit, but which would materially prevent failure of crops in a bad season. As regards advances to agriculturists, I suppose the Government will have to allow for a larger expenditure, on account of the fact that the funds which, on previous occasions, were so largely supplied by the charitable public in this country must, from the nature of the case,
  16
  be less this year than formerly, although I am very glad to see that the figure which the Mansion House Fund has already reached will convince our Indian fellow subjects that, even under the present circumstances, we are not neglectful of their needs. Those advances will, I suppose, be given in many instances for the purchase of cattle, and I trust that where that is the case great care will be taken that the money shall be used for that purpose. I think we need not grudge any outlay on famine relief when we take into consideration the fact that India is without a Poor Law and that in this country about three per cent. of the population are permanently on poor relief.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of Onslow): My Lords, I desire to entirely associate myself with the opening remarks of the noble Lord in deploring the great extent and unusual severity of the famine in India, which has followed so closely on the famine of 1897–98. The fact that it has followed so closely upon its predecessor makes it somewhat difficult for me to reply as fully as I could wish to the inquiries of the noble Lord, because the Government of India having made careful inquiry through the Commission presided over by Sir James Lyall, had referred the report of that Commission to the different local governments with a view to obtaining their opinion on the many points raised, and naturally they had not had the advantage of learning what their views were before this famine was upon them. Nevertheless, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government of India very highly appreciate the work done by the Commission, and that the Secretary of State has communicated to the Government of India his appreciation of their labours with an expression of the hope that they will proceed with the least delay possible to do all that they can to carry into effect the recommendations of the Commission. During the week ending 3rd March, which is the last return we have, there were 4,374,000 persons receiving relief, and, according to the latest detailed reports, for the week ending 10th February, out of that total 84½ per cent. were employed on relief works and 15½ per cent. were receiving relief in other ways. Therefore, something like 584,000 people were receiving gratuitous relief. I am not able to tell the noble Lord how far the Govern-

  17
  ment of India have been also to make a programme of public works and of village works separately for the next famine. No doubt the matter has been under consideration, but the famine came upon them so quickly that they were obliged to make use of the material they had in hand, and to complete a detailed plan was not possible. The noble Lord no doubt knows that before Sir James Lyall's Commission reported, the practice of the Famine Codes was to divide those receiving relief into four classes—namely, professional labourers who were called upon to do a full task, labourers who were not professional and who were called upon to do 75 per cent. of the full task, able-bodied men who were not labourers and who were called upon to do 50 per cent. of the full task, and, lastly, those who were able to do some work, but, being weakly, were placed in the hands of the officers in charge of the relief works, who had to decide upon the task which should be imposed. The plan of classifying those who receive relief has been altered on the recommendation of the Commission, and they are now generally divided into the following classes:—There is a special class of men who are expert labourers and who are expected to perform a task superior to that of any other class. The two other main classes consist of the diggers—the men who are able to do harder work, and the carriers—those who are able to carry materials in baskets. In addition to these there are two other classes—children who are able to carry small baskets, and, lastly, those who are dependent on the other labourers and who are not able to do anything for themselves and are receiving gratuitous relief. With regard to the question as to what has been done and the cost of the famine, the latest information we have was about the end of January, and at that time the Viceroy anticipated that the cost would be something like three or possibly four crores of rupees. Between the time of the commencement of the famine and March 31 I am sorry to say that that expenditure is likely to be considerably increased. Although we have no official estimates we are led to believe that the expenditure during the financial years of 1899 and 1900 is likely to amount to as much as, and possibly more than, five crores of rupees. Your Lordships, of course, are aware that the officers entrusted with the relief works do not discriminate
  18
  between any of those who present themselves. They are prepared to put any man on who declares that he is in need of support and sustenance, and the reluctance to take advantage of the relief works is diminishing very much in its intensity, and persons are offering their services on the relief works in much larger numbers than was the case in former famines. The noble Lord asked whether any scheme had been devised for affording relief to the hill tribes. It is extremely difficult to get at the hill tribes, who cling to their forests and jungles, and endeavour to support themselves on their own fruits and wild roots; but at any rate in the Presidency of Bombay something has been done in the direction of employing the starving hill tribes to procure and cut fodder for the cattle which in other parts of Bombay are starving for the want of fodder. A very large sum of money indeed has been expended on irrigation, and there has been a very good return for the capital so invested. There are some very extensive works in the Punjab and Scinde, which are estimated to cost something like Rx.9,750,000. Those projects have not, of course, been put into operation in the short time that has elapsed between the last and the present famine; but at any rate something has been done in the direction of carrying out the recommendations of the Commissioners in that respect. As to the terms on which advances will be made to agriculturists for restocking their holdings, there are already in existence, as the noble Lord knows, Acts enabling the Government to make advances to agriculturists for the purchase of plough cattle and seed grains, and for the improvement of agricultural property. That, of course, is receiving the attention of the Government of India, and when the proper season arrives steps will no doubt be taken for facilitating such advances where needed. Something like a surplus of Rx.50,000 was left over from the funds subscribed for the former famine, which will, of course, be applied to the needs of the Present famine. The noble Lord and those who so liberally contributed to those funds will be glad to know that something like 71 per cent. of the whole was spent in giving a fresh start in life to those who had either eaten their seed grains or sold or lost by death their plough cattle. In addition to that the Government advanced over Rx.1,000,000 in 1896

  19
  and 1897 for the sinking of wells, the purchase of seed and plough cattle, and other purposes, whilst the Forest Department has done all in its power to throw open the forests for the grazing of cattle. I regret to say that the present famine is without a parallel in the history of India. When the last one occurred it was believed to be the greatest that had ever been experienced, but this one has left it far behind, and I fear will stand as a record. Fortunately, however, we were forearmed to meet these calamities. The extension of the railway system throughout India has enabled us to reach all parts of the affected area; but the natural consequence of the existence of the railway, of course, is that the price of grain food in different parts of the country is assimilated, and therefore, although there is not the same danger of acute suffering in particular localities, there is a general raising of the price of food throughout all parts of India. The Government of India are fully alive to the need for increased vigilance, and there is no danger that discrimination in granting relief will not be exercised. I think I have answered all the questions put to me. If there is any other information he may desire the Secretary of State will be only too glad to afford it to the noble Lord, who takes so great an interest in India, in which country he occupied so distinguished a position some years ago.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—CUSTODY OF PRISONERS.
  *LORD LOCH: I have been asked by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War to postpone the question of which I had given notice—namely: "To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can give any assurance that the Boer prisoners, now amounting to several thousands, will not be interned in places in proximity to the Dutch districts of the Cape Colony or in any considerable numbers in the Cape peninsula." I propose to again place the question upon the Notice Paper at a very early date, as I think it is desirable that we should have without delay some information on the subject to which the question refers. I may observe that the question affects political as well as military considerations, and I trust, and presume, that Sir Alfred Milner will be consulted on the subject.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six of the Clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten of the Clock.