Lords Sitting of 12 March 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
Mersey Railway [H.L.].
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
Plymouth, Stonehouse, and Devonport Tramways.
And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with:—
Glasgow District Tramways.
London County Tramways (No. 1.)
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Christchurch, Bournemouth, and Winton Tramways Bill
  ought to be dispensed with, provided that Sections I. and III. of the tramways proposed to be authorised by the Bill be struck out.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Muirkirk, Mauchline, and Dalmellington Railways (Abandonment) Bill [H.L.]
  ought to be dispensed with and the Bill allowed to proceed.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Whitechapel and Bow Railway Bill [H.L.]
  ought to be dispensed with and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that proof be given before the Examiners that the Bill has been submitted to meetings of the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Company and of the Metropolitan District Railway Company, convened in accord-
  546
  ance with Standing Order No. 62, before the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Read, and, agreed to,

  GREAT BERKHAMPSTEAD WATER BILL [H.L.]
  The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 2nd instant and Tuesday last discharged, and Bill committed.
  ASTON MANOR TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 23rd of February and Tuesday last discharged, and Bill committed.
  CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  The Chairman of Committees informed the House, That the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill. Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
  BIRMINGHAM (KING EDWARD THE SIXTH) SCHOOLS BILL [H.L.]
    MUIRKIRK, MAUCHLINE, AND DALMELLINGTON RAILWAYS (ABANDONMENT) BILL [H.L.]
      CORK ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
      Read 2a (according to order).
  UNIVERSAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL [H.L.]
    SCOTTISH WIDOWS' FUND AND LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL [H.L.]
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  ST. DAVID'S RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
  The order of Tuesday last, referring the examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders to the Standing Orders Committee, discharged.

  PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
  Ordered—
  That no Private Bills brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 26th day of June next.
  That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill originating in this House shall be read a first time after Tuesday the 1st day of May next.
  That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 26th day of June next.
  That when a Bill shall have passed with Amendments these orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended.
  That this House will not receive any petition for a Private Bill later than Tuesday the 1st day of May next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the High Court of Justice; nor any petition for a Private Bill approved by the High Court of Justice after Friday the 11th day of May next.
  That this House will not receive any report from the Judges upon petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Friday the 11th day of May next.
  Ordered, That the said orders be printed and published, and affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall. (No. 25.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Return for the month of December, 1899.
  MISCELLANEOUS, No. 1.
  Correspondence respecting the seizure of the British vessels "Springbok" and "Peterhoff" by United States cruisers in 1863.
  AFRICA, No. 1, (1900.)
  Correspondence respecting the action of Her Majesty's Naval Authorities with regard to certain foreign vessels.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2388. Venezuela (Ciudad Bolivar).
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie upon the Table.

  BANKRUPTCY COURTS (IRELAND.)
  Return of the Official Assignees of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland and the
  548
  local courts, Belfast and Cork, for the year 1899; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—TREATMENT OF WOUNDED SOLDIERS FROM THE FRONT.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I should like to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War whether he has been able to make any inquiries into the treatment of certain Reservists, to which I called his attention about ten days ago.*
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of): I have made inquiries into the matter to which my noble friend referred, and I find that the information given to him was incorrect in some important particulars. My noble friend's statement was to the effect that the two soldiers whom he mentioned had arrived at their destination in a state of exhaustion, having been travelling from 7 o'clock in the morning till 5 o'clock in the afternoon, that they had had no food, and had no money in their pockets. I find, however, that these two men left Netley at 11.12 o'clock in the morning and arrived at High Wycombe at 3.58 in the afternoon. They had therefore been not ten hours on the road, but 4¾ hours. The Principal Medical Officer at Netley has written to the War Office follows—
  "Both these men were in good health. It was very doubtful whether it was necessary to send them to a convalescent home, and I cannot understand why either of them should feel the effects of a 4¾ hours journey."
  With regard to the statement that the men had no money in their pockets, soldiers, when they are in hospital, usually accumulate a certain amount of pay; they certainly do so during a voyage on board ship, and men leaving Netley can apply to the paymaster for an advance. Even if no balance is to their credit an advance of pay can be made to them, and it appears that neither of these men made any application to be supplied with funds. Then there is the question of their clothes. My noble friend was informed that they had lost their kits, that they were promised that when they got to Netley their kits would be replaced, and that
  * See The Parliamentary Debates. [FOURTH SERIES.] Vol. lxxix. p. 1057.

  549
  they arrived at High Wycombe in the clothes which they had worn during the voyage. The rule is, I understand, that if a man has lost his kit it is replaced when he rejoins his battalion, and when a man goes into hospital he is given hospital clothes while he is there. These two men went from the hospital, not to rejoin their battalions but to a convalescent home, and I find that they travelled in their greatcoats and serges, those clothes being no doubt the same that they had worn during the voyage. But before they left Netley each of them was given two flannel shirts and a Cardigan jacket. Those articles were supplied, I believe, from the great amount of clothing and necessaries which have been placed at the disposal of invalid soldiers by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and by various benevolent local bodies and organisations. I am bound to say, however, that it does seem to me that articles of this kind, so far as they are indispensable and necessary, should be supplied at the public expense; but the authorities at Netley very naturally say that having received an immense amount of clothing they used it in cases of this sort. I think, as I said in this House the other evening, that it ought to be clearly understood that indispensable articles should be supplied at the public expense, and that if we look to private generosity at all it should be for the supply of things which are not absolutely necessary but rather of the nature of special comforts or luxuries. The result of my inquiries leads me to think that the arrangements for the supply of clothing to invalid soldiers on leaving hospital did require further consideration than they at first received, and I am glad to be able to say that attention had been given to the matter some days before my noble friend asked his question. What has been settled is this. In the month of February—the 7th of February was the exact date—the Principal Medical Officer at Netley was instructed that whenever an invalid soldier is about to leave the hospital, he is to communicate with the depôt of the regiment to which the man belongs, and from that depôt he is to receive clothing, either clothing which the man may have left at the depôt before leaving England, or new clothing which he may be given and which he may wear during his journey from the hospital to the station at which his regiment his quartered. In the case of a
  550
  man going from hospital not to his regiment but to a convalescent home we propose that he should be given, in addition to the usual clothing, hospital clothes which he can wear while he remains in the home. I may, perhaps, be allowed to take this opportunity of expressing our acknowledgment to the many benevolent persons who have offered us houses of all descriptions—I might almost say from cottages to palaces—as convalescent homes for the accommodation of invalid soldiers. My only regret is that I do not see a prospect of filling them all. I am told that the private soldier when he is discharged from hospital very much prefers as a rule going to his own home rather than to a convalescent home, however comfortable or luxurious. We are, none the less, under deep obligation to many persons who at great trouble and inconvenience to themselves have offered accommodation of this kind.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I have heard with great pleasure the concluding words of the noble Marquess, but in reference to the earlier portion of his remarks I think I must be allowed to say a word or two. The noble Marquess stated that instead of being ten hours on the road the men were only 4¾ hours. I saw the men when they arrived, and they both told me they had been marched from Netley Hospital under the charge of the military police, that they had been put into the train at seven o'clock, not eleven o'clock, and that they arrived at their destination at five o'clock. I acknowledge that they were an hour late, but that was due to the fact that at the station for changing trains one of the men was too weak to get across the station in time to catch the train which was waiting at another platform. The noble Marquess said that men accumulated pay on board ship, and that these men ought to have had sufficient money to pay for their necessaries, but neither of the men had had a sixpence paid to him since October and November of last year, and the country was in debt to them £10 each. As to applying to the paymaster at Netley for an advance, it seems to me that in a case where a man has been severely wounded in fighting for his country, and has been discharged as convalescent from hospital, the man should not be required to apply for an advance, but it should be the duty of the authorities at the hospital

  551
  to give him a portion of the money the country owes him, and not send him away, on what I still repeat was a ten hours journey, in a weak state without food or money. The noble Marquess admits that the underclothing was supplied from a benevolent fund, but the country will hardly agree that such men should be clothed by private charity. It seems hard that men, after fighting for their country, should have to rely on out-door relief. In conclusion, all I have to say is that I gratefully acknowledge the further consideration which was given to the treatment of invalid soldiers some days before I called attention to the subject; but I do not regret having done so, because I feel certain this is not an isolated case but an illustration of the condition in which convalescent soldiers were at that time being treated by the country.
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I think your Lordships have something to complain of in the manner in which my noble friend has on both occasions brought this question before the House. On the first occasion there was no intimation whatever on the Paper, and he has again raised the matter without giving notice. It was only by the courtesy of the noble Marquess opposite that I knew it was coming on. When questions of this importance and wide interest are to be brought before your Lordships, notice should be given in order that the Secretary of State himself may be able to make inquiries before being called upon to answer them, and in order that any of your Lordships who are interested in the subject may be able to take part in the discussion. I am not satisfied with the way in which the noble Earl has accepted the reply of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War. The noble Earl made certain charges which appear to me to have substantially broken down, but he has not made any apology for having brought them forward. In its relation to Netley Hospital the statements in the question caused very great distress to Miss Norman, the able lady at the head of the hospital, because they implied that no care was taken to provide soldiers leaving Netley Hospital with proper warm clothing. The explanation of the noble Marquess shows that this was not the fact. The men were supplied with two shirts and a cardigan jacket each
  552
  on leaving the hospital. That has been done since January last.
  EARL CARRINGTON: From private funds.
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: The point whether these articles were provided by private funds or not had nothing to do with the question put the other day by the noble Earl, which practically accused the people concerned of not having taken sufficient care of soldiers leaving hospital. I contend that the noble Earl had no right to put such a question without first ascertaining the facts of the case and placing a notice upon your Lordships' Paper. I am very glad that it is now quite clear that Miss Norman is giving warm underclothing to the soldiers when they leave the hospital, and I heard with pleasure the words of the noble Marquess thanking those ladies who have taken so much pains in providing these articles. Miss More ton, who is at the head of the clothing branch of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association for Hampshire, has been able to collect and distribute large quantities of clothing of this kind to Netley Hospital and Aldershot Hospital, and I believe that up to the present time the supplies have been adequate to meet the demands. At the same time, I quite agree with the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War that the supply of such things should not be left to private liberality and that it is the duty of the War Office to take care that these men when they leave hospital are provided with sufficient clothing to prevent any injury to their health. I understand that the noble Marquess is going to take care that in future that course shall be adopted. This is a matter of considerable consequence. Miss Norman tells me that 200 men left in one week and forty the next, and she expects 200 more men to leave immediately. The funds of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association are not in themselves applicable to soldiers, but to their wives and children. This special fund is now nearly exhausted and there is very little more money out of which such articles can be purchased. We have a county war fund in Hampshire, and we have a considerable balance in hand. We had a meeting of the fund this morning at Winchester, and decided that it was not right that a county fund,

  553
  which is raised for the purpose of helping those men who go from our own county to the front, whether Volunteers, Yeomen, Militiamen, or soldiers belonging to the county regiment, should be used in supplying articles of this kind to a great hospital like Netley, where probably very few of the invalids are Hampshire men. An individual who does not wish his name to be mentioned did provide a number of these articles so that the supply which Miss Norman had might not run out, but after those articles are distributed I do not think there will be any further funds forthcoming from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association for this purpose. Therefore I hope my noble friend's arrangements will be at once made so as to avoid any difficulty. With reference to what the noble Marquess has said of convalescent homes, I hope that the regulations will in no way limit the comforts provided to the men who are to rejoin the colours, but that they will be equally open to men who are discharged from the Army. I was surprised to hear only two days ago that the Principal Medical Officer at Netley Hospital considers that the use of convalescent homes is confined to those who are going to rejoin the colours. I apprehend that no one who has subscribed to these homes would wish that men who have been wounded and are not able to rejoin the colours should be debarred from the use of the convalescent homes if they wish to go to them. I am very glad to hear that attention is being given to the subject of the way in which men leave the military hospitals, for I have reason to believe that the arrangements at Aldershot Hospital are anything but satisfactory, or, at any rate, have been anything but satisfactory.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I feel certain the House will allow me to say one word of personal explanation. I did not think it respectful to interrupt my noble friend while he was speaking, but I think there is really very little between us. The exact words I used in my question a few days ago were—
  "When they arrived at Netley Hospital they were provided with four shirts and four pairs of socks each out of the Daily Mail Absent-minded Beggar Fund."
  I gladly add my tribute of admiration and respect to Miss Norman for the kindness she has shown to all the men at
  554
  Netley Hospital. All there is between myself and the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War is one cardigan jacket. He and I entirely agree that the men should be properly clothed and fed by the country they have so gallantly and so valiantly served, and should not have to rely upon private funds.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I share strongly the feeling which has been expressed by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War and by my noble friend behind me that it is the duty of the Government to supply soldiers who suffer in service with everything necessary to restore them to health. Private charity is a very valuable thing, but it should supply those articles which it is not reasonable to expect the Government to supply. The articles referred to are really necessaries, and the whole nation would desire that they should be provided by the Government.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: With regard to the length of the journey, there is no doubt that these men left Netley at 12 minutes past 11 o'clock. What they could have been doing from 7 o'clock till that hour passes my comprehension. Lord Northbrook raised a point with regard to men discharged from hospital who are not going back to their regiment or to a convalescent home, but who are being invalided out of the Army altogether. Those men under present arrangements are supplied with clothes. As to the other point raised by Lord Northbrook, I will make inquiry. It was with surprise that I heard the suggestion that the use of the convalescent homes so generously offered to us was restricted to men who intended to rejoin their regiments, especially when, as I have said, we find great difficulty in discovering sufficient inmates for the homes offered. While I agree entirely with what has been said by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, I think it must be remembered that in this case a very great quantity of clothing had been sent to Netley, and it was only natural that the authorities there should turn it to the best possible account
  *EARL SPENCER: As I have been connected with a good many of these voluntary associations I should like to say

  555
  that I am exceedingly glad to hear that the Government will deal with soldiers who are discharged from service after being wounded as well as with those who will rejoin.

YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL [H.L.]

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee according to order).
  LORD MONKSWELL: I should like to draw the noble and learned Lord's attention to a provision in the Industrial Schools Act, 1894, which seems to me to need amendment. The Act provides that every child sent to an industrial school shall, from the expiration of the period of his detention, remain up to the age of eighteen under the supervision of the manager of the school; and that in certain cases children may be recalled to the school for three months. This, however, can only be done in the case of children who have been granted licences. If the child is his own master he cannot be recalled, though it would be in such a case that the recall would be most necessary. I hope the noble and learned Lord will consider whether it will not be possible to amend this clause in his Bill.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I will do so with pleasure.
  Clause 1.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I am anxious to call your Lordships' attention to this clause, which you will recollect substitutes the punishment of whipping on a graduated scale for imprisonment in the case of young children. I have been somewhat surprised to find that there have been communications to the press suggesting that this Bill is one of great cruelty and inhumanity, and treating this clause as if it were a flogging clause. I am also told, though I cannot say whether it is the case, that on public platforms statements have been made to the effect that this is an attempt on the part of your Lordships to flog the children of the poor.
  556
  I hope I need not say that nothing is further from the intention of those in charge of the Bill. We do not desire to take any other course than that which would be most humane and free from any cruelty whatever. If we could we would relieve the young child from any punishment for crime, but that is a problem of great difficulty. If the Legislature were to relieve a child up to a certain age from punishment for breaking the law, it would place the legislation of the country in a very peculiar position. Indeed, I do not know whether it would be well for the child himself to feel that up to the age of fourteen or sixteen he could with impunity break the law. A practical difficulty would arise, for if you divested the child of any serious punishment, or of any punishment at all, you would find traders in crime employing children as their agents to pick pockets and other offences, and at the same time have the satisfaction of knowing that the child would not be punished. Therefore, I think it will be agreed that some punishment must be inflicted, but that punishment should be as slight as possible in the case of very young children. It has been said that even the punishment of whipping is one of great degradation, and that when the child returns to his home he will be a source of contamination to those with whom he associates, I hope it will be understood that this clause has nothing whatever to do with flogging in the sense in which it is generally understood. The punishment provided in this clause is not greater than many lads receive at public schools, and it is only the punishment which a child may receive in a village school, and which, so far as I know, has not been objected to on the ground of cruelty. I would ask those who say that whipping will degrade the child to reflect whether the degradation would not be far greater if the child has to pass fourteen or twenty-one days in a prison, and whether he would not be more likely to contaminate those with whom he associated if he had had experience of prison life. The object of those who framed this Bill is to make the punishment as far distant from cruelty as possible. The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition called attention the other evening to the fact that a prejudiced magistrate might inflict eighteen strokes, which he suggested was a somewhat extreme punishment; but I would point

  557
  out that the clause provides a graduated scale of punishment according to ago from six strokes to eighteen. If my noble friend and others think that the graduated scale goes too high in extending the punishment to eighteen strokes I hope full expression will be given to their views. I will confer with Lord Kimberley to see whether any alteration can be made. My object has been to state that nothing is further from the intention of the Government than to allow any cruel act to come into operation under the clauses of this Bill. From first to last the desire has been to keep boys out of prison and prevent them becoming habitual offenders, which is often the result of association with prison life.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I shall be very glad, when my noble and learned friend has given further consideration to the clause, to consult with him on the subject.
  *THE EARL OF ELGIN: I have had an opportunity lately, having been appointed by my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland to act on the Committee whose duty it has been to inquire into certain points connected with the administration of Scottish prisons, of hearing something on the point to which the noble and learned Lord has referred, and I can assure him that there is, in some quarters, a good deal of the feeling which he had described—namely, that the punishment of whipping, even with a birch rod, brings with it a certain amount of degradation to the boy on whom it is inflicted. I do not understand that magistrates who hold that opinion object to the punishment of whipping per se. Indeed, they state that if it could be inflicted by the parental arm they would have no objection, but they object to its being inflicted by the strong arm of a policeman in the police office. The result is that in some places in Scotland we are now face to face with the very difficulty which the noble and learned Lord has referred to—that up to a certain age boys feel themselves practically free from the penalties of the law. The magistrates have the same objection as the noble and learned Lord to sending these children to prison, and my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland feels that objection still more strongly. The magistrates feel that if they inflict a fine with the alternative of im-
  558
  prisonment the child knows perfectly well that he will not be sent to prison, and after a little experience he is apt to laugh in the magistrate's face, and the magistrate being unwilling to order whipping there is no other course open. The alternative which is presented in the fourth clause of this Bill—namely, that there should be some place of confinement which is distinct from a prison to which the youthful offender could be committed—appears to me to be the best suited to meet this difficulty.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS): I should like to remind the House that the punishment of whipping in place of imprisonment has commended itself in many parts of the country, and has been in force ever since the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879, which I had the honour of passing when I was at the Home Office. I have never heard a single complaint as to the working of that Act, and I think myself it is a great matter to keep children out of prison by inflicting some small punishment upon them.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of): I rise to make a slight protest against the idea that flogging these boys inflicts a contamination upon them, and that this House is doing it exceptionally to the poor and not to the rich. My impression is that if you will examine the past record of Members of this House you will find that it has been very frequently inflicted, and that there is no trace of contamination surviving. I cannot understand why the arm of a policeman should be more contaminating than the arm of a parent. I am sure that, in the public schools of this country, it would be thought an odd thing if you had to send for a parent from a distant county in order to perform the operation of flogging a pupil. There is a great deal of silly sentimentality on the subject, which is not shared by the vast mass of the people of this country. It is only shown by a narrow section. I quite admit it is possible to carry whipping to a cruel extent, and all cruelty ought to be scrupulously avoided. On the other hand, you must not judge the effect of a flogging by its effect on the boy himself. The great value of flogging is to the people who are not flogged; the great value is the deterrent, it offers to others,

  559
  who see what evil courses lead to. I can only say I should be as anxious as anyone to make no difference in the punishment of the rich and the poor. I only hope you will flog the evildoer as freely and with as little scruple among the classes of the poor as you have for centuries among the classes of the rich.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I have no doubt there is a great deal of force in what the noble Marquess has said, but he has left out of consideration the fact that in matters of this kind it is essential that the punishment to be inflicted should be one which would meet with the general approval of the class—I do not mean the boys, but the class to which the boys to be punished belong. We both of us know that in order effectively to carry out the law there must be behind it a state of public opinion which supports the administration of the law; otherwise what Lord Elgin has referred to is likely to occur. People feel—I do not say this is a conclusive argument against the Bill, but it is one that deserves careful consideration—and I know there exists a prejudice amongst the class to which we do not belong against this punishment. For some reason they look upon it in a very different light from what we do, and this must be taken into consideration. The problem is, I am aware, an exceedingly difficult one. It is obvious that we must all desire to keep little children out of prison, and that, on the other hand, there must be some punishment. The fourth clause, as I understand, deals only with offenders who are remanded, and I do not think Lord Elgin quite understands it. I desire that the punishment should not be too severe in its nature, particularly with regard to young children. If it is too severe you will not attain your object. With regard to older boys who have committed grave offences, if they are not sent for trial but dealt with summarily a light punishment cannot be inflicted upon them. I cannot help recalling a case which occurred to me personally many years ago in the days when there were no reformatories. In a village near where I resided a child set fire deliberately to a shed, with disastrous results, and the only thing the magistrates, of whom I was one, could do was to commit him for trial for arson. We thought it very undesirable to commit a child of ten, and we accordingly inflicted
  560
  no punishment at all except that of reprimanding him. This Bill would enable magistrates to deal satisfactorily with a case of that kind. I only wish to see that the Bill is not pushed too far, and I would ask those who are in favour of whipping to carefully consider the amount of feeling there is on the subject, and, whilst trying an experiment under this Bill, to do so in such a manner as will not raise prejudice against it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I agree in the general principle laid down by the noble Lord, but I doubt his minor premiss—that this feeling exists extensively or generally. It is largely a local matter. So far as my own knowledge goes I think I may say it does not exist to any great extent. Probably every noble Lord could give you a different account of it.
  THE EARL OF MOUNT-EDGCUMBE: Referring to the incident mentioned by Lord Kimberley, there is one way of getting over the difficulty which I have seen adopted, and which I have adopted myself, in the case of a small boy of ten convicted of arson. The bench of magistrates with which I myself am connected have adopted the course—I do not know whether it is in accordance with the law or not—of adjourning the case until the next petty sessions, informing the parents that if in the meantime the boy was punished by them to the satisfaction of the superintendent, who was to be present, no further step would be taken in the case.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That is a very good plan.
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3:—
  LORD REAY: I understand that on the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill the noble and learned Lord viewed Clause 3 (liability of parent or guardian in case of offence committed by a child or young person) with some misgiving. I regard this clause with the greatest satisfaction, and I wish to give the noble Lord the assurance that he will receive the hearty support of many who know the great value of this principle which is at present wanting in our legislation. The

  561
  School Board for London would like to extend the principle to those parents who neglect to send their children to school; but as I have noticed that my noble and learned friend considers that the clause as it stands is sufficiently stringent, and as I do not wish in any way to imperil the passage of the Bill, I shall not move an Amendment. I would, however, express the hope that the noble and learned Lord will resist any attempt to weaken the clause.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

CAMPAIGN IN SOUTH AFRICA.
Return showing the names of Members of either House of Parliament at present serving, or under orders to serve, Her Majesty in South Africa, the capacity in which they serve, and the dates at which they sailed or are under orders to sail—Address for (The Lord Windsor.)
TRAWLERS' CERTIFICATES SUSPENSION BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to enable courts to suspend the certificates of trawlers convicted of illegal trawling; was presented by the Earl of Camper down; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 26.)

PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL [H.L.]
House to be in Committee on Monday next.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five of the clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.