Lords Sitting of 20 May 1901

NEW PEER.
Edgar, Lord Bishop of Newcastle, was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Several Lords took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the certificates from the examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Burgess Hill Water.
Dublin St. James' Gate Brewery Tramways.
Great Central Railway.
Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding 'Junction Railway and Dock.
London County Council (Spitalfields Market).
Tendring Hundred Water.
Also the certificates that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:—
Metropolitan Common Scheme (Ham) Provisional Order.
Military Lands Provisional Orders.
And also the certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) [H.L.].
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) [H.L.].
Gas Orders Confirmation [H.L.].
Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; the Order made on 'Friday last discharged, and Bill
534
committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HARROGATE WATER BILL [H.L.]
  LEEDS CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee, that the Committee adjourned this day at half-past Eleven o'clock; and pray leave not to sit again till to-morrow, at Two o'clock; read, and leave given accordingly.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.]
ought to be dispensed with, provided that proof be given before the Examiners of the deposit of the statement of the number of houses of the labouring classes proposed to be taken in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and at the office of the Central Authority.
Read, and agreed to.

COLWYN BAY AND COLWYN URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
WISBECH WATER BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
BRISTOL CORPORATION CEMETERY BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
BOLTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
HARPENDEN DISTRICT GAS BILL [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments.
BURY CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
Reported without Amendment.
DEVONPORT CORPORATION (GAS) BILL
Read 2a, and committed.
LYNTON AND BARNSTAPLE RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  TYNESIDE TRAMWAYS AND TRAM-ROADS BILL [H.L.]

    WIGAN CORPORATION TRAMWAYS, ETC. BILL [H.L.]
    PORTMADOC, BEDDGELERT, AND SOUTH SNOWDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    HANDSWORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.].
    LEEDS CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.].
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BIRMINGHAM (CITY) TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  SOUTH ESSEX WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a; an Amendment made; Bills passed, and sent to the Commons.
BEXLEY TRAMWAYS BILL.
  MANSFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
STOCKPORT CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
  FINCHLEY AND HENDON TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]

    GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
    CORK, BLACKROCK, AND PASSAGE RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL [H.L.]. (ROUNDAY ORDER OPPOSED.)
    RUGBY WATER AND IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
    LOWESTOFT CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
    Report from the Committee of Selection, that the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.:—

    D. Wellington,

    E. Graham (D. Montrose),

    E. Manvers,

    L. Digby,

    L. Pirbright (chairman);

    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly; the Committee to meet
    536
    on Tuesday, the 11th of June next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills, to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

ARDROSSAN HARBOUR ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): Before the Third Reading is moved, I should like to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland a question as to the procedure in the case of these Confirmation Bills. Section 9 of the Private Legislation (Scotland) Act, 1899, provides, in respect to an opposed. Order, that, before the expiration of seven days after the introduction of the Confirmation Bill in the House in which it originates, a petition may be presented against the Order, and that it shall be lawful for any Member to give notice that he intends to move that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee. If this is done, the Bill, instead of going in the ordinary course through all its stages, has to be read a second time, and then referred to a Joint Committee. The Bill now before the House, and the other Bill standing in the name of the noble Lord—the Ayr Harbour Order Confirmation. Bill—have passed the House of Commons, and now come up to your Lordships. They were read a first time on Friday last, and the noble Lord proposes to read them a third time to-day. It is quite clear, if it was intended by the Act that anyone should have an opportunity of opposing these Bills in the second House, that an interval of seven days would be required, and, of course, in this case; would not be given. I confess I have some doubt whether there is any intention of allowing opposition in the second House. It would be quite impossible of course to refer a Bill a second time to a Joint Committee. At the end of the clause there are those words—
"When such Confirmation Bill has been read a third time and passed in the first House of Parliament, the like proceedings shall, subject to Standing Orders, be taken in the second House of Parliament."
I admit that I am not quite sure what those words mean, and I should be glad

537
if my noble friend would tell me whether he has taken legal advice as to their interpretation. I apprehend, on the ground that it would be ridiculous to refer a Bill a second time to a second Joint Committee, that Parliament could hardly have meant to give an opportunity for opposition in the second House. The point is important, and I venture to ask this question, because these are the first Bills confirming Scottish Orders that have come before the House, and it is desirable that the question should be clear. I am inclined to think that in any case it would be well to allow an interval of seven days between the first and third readings of the Bill, so as to give any peer, even if there is no opposition, an opportunity, which I do not suppose would be often taken advantage of, of saying anything with regard to the Bill.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): I think the conclusion which the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees has arrived at is the right one, although I should certainly stand here to expound the law with great hesitation in the presence of so many noble Lords learned in legal matters. But, as the noble Lord supposed, I would not act in this matter without having taken advice. I did ask the Lord Advocate what his construction of the Act was, and he assured me that the construction which the noble Earl himself is inclined to put upon it is the right one—that the Act does not require a second interval of seven days in the second House of Parliament. For what it is worth, I have no hesitation in saying that the intention of Parliament when the Bill was passing was that there should be one interval of seven days, and that that should take place in the House in which the confirming Bill originated. I am not prepared to say that the matter is altogether free from doubt, but I think the proper interpretation of the subsection is that the provision for an interval of seven days is to apply only in the House in which the Bill originates. I hope, therefore, on this occasion the Bills will be allowed to proceed. The history of the words "subject to Standing Orders," which are in the last lines of the clause, is this. It was thought not right to regulate the procedure of either House of Parliament by Statute, and
538
these words were inserted to give each House power to regulate by Standing Orders the procedure on this class of Bill. If the noble Earl thinks that by Standing Order the House ought to provide for a longer interval in the second House than is provided by the Statute, I should not be inclined to oppose it, provided the interval is not made too long. But no such Standing Order has been passed, and as the promoters are anxious to get these Bills through their final stages as quickly as possible, I hope under the circumstances they will be allowed to proceed. As the noble Lord said, this is the first occasion on which any of these Bills have come before the House, and I think there is one point in respect to which the procedure might be amended. The Statute provides that seven days shall expire after the introduction of a Confirmation Bill before the next stage is taken. There is nothing, either in the Statute or in the Standing Orders, to provide that those seven days shall not be allowed to expire during a recess. If, therefore, the Scottish Office had chosen to take advantage of that, which, of course, they would not have thought of doing, they might have presented the Bill on the day the House adjourned for the recess, and there would be no power to accept a petition on the reassembling of Parliament. The noble Earl ought to take steps to prevent anything of that kind occurring.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The point which the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has raised is a very important one. The Act of 1899, it is true, only applies to Scotland, but already a proposal is before Parliament to extend this procedure to Ireland. Therefore I think Parliament ought to consider very carefully the procedure which is adopted in this case. I do not propose to attempt to interpret the Act, but your Lordships have heard from the statement of the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland that there is a great deal of doubt regarding it. The question is, quite apart from the Act itself, what was really the intention of Parliament in this matter, and what is the proper procedure to adopt in a case of this sort. The Provisional Order, after being inquired into by the Commissioners, is returned to the Scottish Office. It is then em-

539
bodied in a Bill, and that Bill is laid before Parliament. In this case the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, and lay there for seven days, no petition being presented against it. Then it came to your Lordships' House. It was read a first and second time and passed through Committee on Friday last, and ordered to be printed. It has not been printed because, of course, there has not been time, yet it is proposed to read it a third time to-day. Just see what is the result. In consequence of no opposition having been taken in the first House your Lordships are precluded from discussing the Bill at all. A person wishing to present a petition, if he allows the period of seven days in the first House to elapse, has no chance of presenting a petition in the second House. I admit that if he had petitioned in the first House, and the matter had been considered by a Joint Committee, it would be clearly improper that any proceedings should take place in the second House. The question is, Is it the intention of Parliament that in the first House only shall a petitioner have an opportunity of opposing? That is a matter for Parliament, and more especially, I think, for your Lordships to consider. I must say, having listened very carefully to the Bill as it went through its various stages, that I did not understand that there was to be no opportunity of opposing in the second House. It seems to me that if there has been no opposition in the first House, it is not a very hard thing to say that these Bills should lie for seven sitting days on the Table of the second House after being presented, and that if a petitioner has lost his opportunity in the first instance he should not be too late to take it in the second House.
Bill read 3a (according to order), and passed.

AYR HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  HIGHLAND RAILWAY ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  FALKIRK AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read, and discharged.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BARNES, ETC:) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to order).
  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ACTON) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    TRADE REPORTS—ANNUAL SERIES.
    No. 2602, Brazil (Porto Allegre).
  AFRICA, No. 2 (1901).
  Despatch from His Majesty's Special Commissioner in Uganda relating to travellers in the Protectorate.
  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 322, Bermuda: Report for 1900.
  WELLINGTON COLLEGE.
  Report of the Governors for the year ending the 31st December, 1900; with Accounts.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Return for the month of January, 1901.
  CENSUS (IRELAND), 1901.
  Preliminary Report; with Abstract of the Enumerator's Summaries (presented by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS, 1853 TO 1891 (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Licence granted by His Majesty to Margaret Lynch, a convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting the said Margaret Lynch to be at large on condition that she enter the East End Refuge, Finchley.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE FUND) ACT, 1898.
  Draft Order in Council altering the scale or rules and exemptions, set out in the Second Schedule to the Act, for the purpose of the levying of the light dues with respect to voyages made by the home trade sailing ships and steamers, and for yachts, which are laid up during the whole of any year ending the 31st March; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  PETITIONS.
    SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL [H.L.]
    Petitions in favour of; of persons signing (4); read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PUBLIC BETTING.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, since I drafted the motion standing in my name I have been informed by a high authority that in one respect it is not quite correctly worded. I am told that it is not absolutely true to say that there is an increase of public betting amongst all classes, because there is a decided decrease of it in the class to which your Lordships belong. I am very thankful to hear that this is so, because I cannot but feel that it makes this House a stronger body for taking up the whole question and dealing with the evil in other classes of society. I have ventured to place this motion before the House instead of the Bill which I had the privilege of introducing some little time ago, because I have deferred to the judgment of the right rev. prelates around me and other friends—men whose judgment I am glad to defer to in such a matter. I have done so for two reasons—firstly, because in any case there was very little hope of passing such a Bill during the present session; and, secondly, because I have thereby secured their support for this motion. Still I have to confess to a lingering hope that it may not be long before such a Bill as the one I ventured to introduce may be brought before the House for consideration. I think that the facts are in the main a matter of common knowledge.
  542
  From my observation and experience I entertain a strong feeling that the time has come when we ought to begin to try to do something. I was rather thankful to see that when the Bill was made public it alarmed the betting fraternity. I interpret this alarm as an evidence that they think some such legislation would be practicable, and I accept this alarm as a good omen. I may say, my Lords, that I have even received a threatening letter from a person of some prominence in the betting fraternity, not threatening personal violence, but of a much more important character, for it threatens the whole bench of bishops. The writer begs the Bishop of Hereford to bear in mind that these sporting gentlemen—that is to say, the betting trade—are as a rule very good Conservatives and loyal supporters of the Established Church. He goes on very emphatically to say that they are so "at present," but that if we are so misguided as to make any attack upon their trade we may endanger the Establishment. The writer adds: "Why cannot you as a bishop leave this to the Nonconformist conscience?" We are prepared to run the risk, because we believe the need for action is a very urgent one. The more we see of common life the more we feel that, and we are encouraged—I am greatly encouraged myself—to proceed in dealing with the question by the success of the Select Committee appointed on this subject in 1844, and the beneficent results of the Gambling Act of 1845 and the Betting Act of 1853. I think that the experience of the interval since that legislation was passed has made another such movement very desirable, and your. Lordships will render a great public service, if you take the matter up seriously. I will venture to read a sentence or two from the Report of the Committee of 1844—
  "Your committee think it desirable that the amusement of horseracing should be upheld because it is in accordance with the long-established national taste, because it seems to bring together for a common object vast bodies of people in different parts of the country, and to promote intercourse between different classes of society, and because, without the stimulus which racing affords, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain that purity of blood and standard of excellence which have rendered the breed of English horses superior to that of any other country in the world."

  543
  On the whole, this seems to be a very reasonable defence of horse-racing. But the Committee went on to say—
  "The Committee would further consider these advantages more than problematical if they were to be unavoidably purchased by excessive gambling and by the vice and misery which it entails."
  I cannot but feel that experience has shown that in the interval there has been a great growth and spread of gambling, and of the vice and misery entailed thereby. Therefore, I am quite prepared to take my stand upon the recommendation of the Committee of 1844. The great spread of the betting trade is obviously very much facilitated—and it becomes a much more dangerous trade because it is so facilitated—by cheap printing, a cheap post office, and all the apparatus of the telegraph and telephone. I venture to hope, therefore, that your Lordships will feel that this is a matter of some urgency. Without troubling the House at this stage with evidence, I would venture to quote the opinions of two or three judges. At the Warwick Assizes lately the judge said—
  "I am inclined to regard betting as the greatest curse of the country."
  Mr. Justice Darling the other day stated that—
  "if Parliament was in earnest it would prohibit the publication of betting odds."
  Mr. Justice Grantham expressed the opinion that—
  "gambling with bookmakers is the cause of more crime and misery than anything else in the land."
  And Mr. Justice Wills said—
  "When I first came on the Bench I used to think that drink was the most fruitful cause of crime, but it is now a question whether the unlimited facilities for illegitimate speculation on the part of the people are not a more prevalent cause of mischief and crime even than drink."
  The late Lord Chief Justice, Lord Russell of Killowen, said, in the year 1898, in giving his decision in a well-known case—
  "There is urgent need for legislation on the subject of the ambiguity of our betting laws. Legislation would perhaps be best preceded by a Commission of Inquiry."
  I am glad to notice, in the report which contains these remarks, that they were strongly concurred in by Mr. Justice
  544
  Hawkins, now Lord Brampton, who remarked—
  "I quite agree as to the pressing necessity for legislation."
  I will not detain your Lordships with more quotations, although I have a sheaf of opinions from official receivers and stipendiary magistrates in London and all over the country. There is a large amount of evidence which could be produced to show what an insidious danger the betting trade is. I had evidence only the other day showing that the evil is creeping even into the nurseries of upper class homes. On inquiry your Lordships might find that there are nurses in charge of children who, as a matter of habit, regularly put shillings on horses, and the result frequently is that the children are indoctrinated with the same betting ideas as the nurses or the grooms. Again and again, as an educator of boys and young men, I have found my labours thwarted by the tastes acquired for the degrading sporting literature which is spread broadcast throughout the land. I received a letter a few days ago from a working engineer in one of our northern works. He wrote—
  "I rejoice to see that you have introduced into the House of Lords a Bill to prevent incitement to gambling and betting. I sineerely hope your efforts will meet with success. I can assure you, as a working-man, that during the last twenty-five years of my life I have noticed to what a tremendous extent the gambling spirit prevails in the engineering workshops in this country."
  Then he goes on to describe the state of things in and around his own workshop—
  "The loafing bookmakers," he says, "who are too lazy to earn an honest living by working, have their rendezvous in the beershops of the town, and they hang about our works and employ men to ply their calling, even inside the works. To such an extent has this been carried that my fellow-workmen will even mortgage part of their wages from week to week and borrow at the rate of twopence per shilling per week in order to speculate on a probable winner."
  It is not surprising to find that an honest, serious-minded working man should desire to see this sort of thing stopped if it is possible. This is the kind of evidence which can be produced in abundance, and it is sufficient to show the urgency of the matter. It may be well that we should

  545
  pause for a moment to ask what objections there can be to taking steps for the cure of this great and spreading evil. Moderate legislation on this subject is not open to the same objections as legislation in restriction, say, of the drink traffic or of shop hours. There are many reasonable objections which have to be faced and considered when we are dealing with the mass of trades. But here, what have we? The betting and gambling trade is wholly noxious and parasitic. Even Mr. John Stuart Mill, that great advocate of individual liberty, would, I venture to think, have been with us in our attempts to deal with this evil. I notice, in his most instructive book on "Liberty," that he is careful to give arguments on either side, and we are reminded that society has a right to protect itself against injurious social acts. All the acts of the betting agent as he solicits and induces people to bet are, to the mind of most of us, injurious social acts; and Mr. Mill, discussing this question, says, in effect, that when a man incites to betting and gambling, when he offers inducements for his own personal gain or profit or advantage, he is carrying on a trade which it may fairly be contended is opposed to the public welfare. The Legislature, believing this to be the Case, is justified, Mr. Mill says, in taking care to keep the community as free as possible from the mischievous arts of such persons. I hope this view will commend itself to the House as a plain commonsense one.
  There is one point in regard to such social reform which is not sufficiently dwelt upon, and it is this, that in proportion as the people have a larger voice in the framing of the laws, it is possible to go further than when the Government was less popular in the direction of restrictive social legislation. If the House gives careful consideration to the matter and proposes reasonable legislation, I venture to think that it will be simply carrying out the views of the great mass of the people. Though we constantly feel some hesitation in going one step forward in matters of social reform which may affect some individuals, we never, so far as I have observed, see anyone venturing to stand up and propose the repeal of those social reforms which have made such great changes
  546
  in our life during the last fifty years. There is really nothing to fear from objections which may be brought forward against some legislation in this matter. I have no wish to interfere with any form of legitimate sport. I will go so far as to confess that I have a liking for it; but I desire to fix attention on this noxious and parasitic trade which has gathered round English sport and society, and which I desire to see, if possible, checked and eradicated. I have lately read a good many of the documents issued by the betting agents of the country, and I am surprised to find what a large amount of ability is being diverted to this trade. The amount of shrewd advice given in some of these circulars is very striking. Here is one piece of advice—
  "Do not be deceived by the glowing advertisements which appear in the daily papers from time to time offering to sell information for so many pounds or guineas per week. If the so-called tipsters knew something really good they would invest their own money in it. But that is what they very seldom do."
  When I read that I thought it was a document from the Anti-Gambling League. But I found it was from a well-known sporting agency, and the only weak point about it was that it concluded by inviting readers to deal with that agency. I cannot but feel that if these very able men had taken to some other business or profession they might have done far more good to themselves and to the country. Some of them seem able enough to have become distinguished lawyers or great diplomatists. But this propaganda ought to be stopped, and it is highly desirable to consider what can be done. If there is a place anywhere in England where such consideration can appropriately be given to the subject, surely it is this House, for, though there are persons outside who do not think much of our legislative enthusiasm, yet there is only one opinion, that no other House in the world contains so many sportsmen in the finest sense of the word. Such are just the right persons to deal with this subject. If something can be done to purify English sport a great social reform will have been effected. This noxious betting trade has battened on the amusement and patronage, and sometimes on the vices, of the upper

  547
  classes; and therefore this House, which specially represents the upper classes, will do specially good work in taking it in hand. When I look at the greatness of the evil I am almost surprised that I am standing here to make such a humble and modest request—a request to inquire whether any effective legislation is possible to improve our betting and gambling laws. I feel convinced that if the House takes this matter seriously in hand and brings forward some good legislation it will earn the lasting gratitude of the people of this country. I conclude by moving the resolution standing in my name.
  Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the increase of public betting among all classes, and whether any legislative measures are possible and expedient for checking the abuses occasioned thereby.—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, this subject is unquestionably one of great interest. The right rev. Prelate, in the latter part of his speech, sketched out what he thought might be objections to legislation on this subject, but your Lordships will do well not to mix up the hypothetical question of possible legislation with the actual question before the House, which is simply whether a Committee of Inquiry is desirable. There is a feeling that such an inquiry would involve something like an inquisitorial investigation into the habits and practices of individuals. I for one should object to any inquiry of that kind, but I do not think the words of the motion justify any such apprehension. I am of opinion that, short of the suppression of betting, a good deal may be accomplished by the suggested inquiry, which would be well worth doing. The ambiguity of the law with regard to this subject is now such, for instance, that judges and magistrates do not know exactly how to interpret it. Again, there is a divergence between the law in England and the law in Scotland, newspaper coupons being held to be illegal in Scotland and not illegal in England, at least they have not yet been declared illegal in England. To show the extent to which this coupon system is carried on, I may mention that when
  548
  it was adopted in the case of an obscure sporting newspaper in London the circulation of that paper went up to 100,000 a week, and I believe that if His Majesty's Postmaster General inquired into that particular case he would find that an extra staff had to be told off to carry the sacks of letters that poured in I think also that the inquiry would be useful in helping to form a just public opinion on the subject, and it might be helpful in enabling us to see whether there is reason for the concern which is expressed by many influential persons with regard to this matter. Not very long ago, in one of the great engineering firms at a place not far from London, the time-keeper—a man of long service—was appointed betting agent, and the head of the firm told him he must give up his agency or the firm would have to give him up. The reply of the man was that he could not afford to give up the betting business, and he would give up his situation if the firm liked. Why did the employer object to his timekeeper doing this? Because he considered it was detrimental to the interests of his business, and if it was detrimental to one business we may infer that the practice is detrimental to business as a whole. Last Saturday I happened to meet a gentleman who has made his mark, not only in his profession as a builder, but in municipal government, and I informed him that there was going to be a discussion in the House of Lords to-day on the subject of betting. He replied—
  "In the business it is a worse curse than drink. The practice greatly interferes with work, and the other day, when I went to see how a job was progressing, I found it much behind. I asked the foreman for an explanation, and, while admitting that it ought to have been finished, he said that since the man X had been sent to that job there had Been hindrances. He was always talking about the odds, and the men at dinner-time, instead of settling down quietly to their food, rushed about to find out the latest betting, and in the afternoon it was necessary that one of their number should leave work on some-excuse to get a newspaper to see the winners."
  Sometimes in workshops and factories foremen and forewomen act as betting agents, and encourage the younger people over whom they are supposed to exercise superintendence to make bets. It is well understood, I am informed,

  549
  that they get a commission from the bookmakers. The right rev. Prelate stated that he had good reason to know the harm which betting did in regard to education. I have heard that betting circulars are sent pretty freely to the public schools, but I have not been able to get one. I telegraphed to my boy at one of the public schools asking him if he could send me one, and he telegraphed in reply, "Many received, but none have been kept." I am glad he had the good sense to destroy them; but I know they are sent, as also are little racing calendars excellently bound, and other literature to make it easy for boys to take up betting. A boy, after rejecting ten or a dozen circulars, may decide to give it a trial, and we know what the result is. It is not only by circulars that betting is encouraged, but by advertisements. My attention was drawn the other day to an advertisement in a most respectable paper—a paper such as any person would like to have on his table, and which would give an appearance of decorum to the mass of newspapers there—inserted by a man named James Webster, of Middelburg, Holland. I remember reading a report of some criminal proceedings against an unfortunate bank clerk who had got into trouble through stealing bank notes, all of which were found in the Bank of England, everyone of them endorsed by the name of this very individual to whose advertisement I have referred. Again and again these advertisements are the cause of ruin, and; I contend that Parliament should attempt to reduce the temptations to which the youth of this country are subjected. We have an illustration of the unsatisfactory state of the law in the fact that very often when people are fined they treat the matter with contempt. Recently a man who was fined £5 for bookmaking wrote to the magistrate stating that it would be much better if he could send a cheque, and that it was very inconvenient for him to have to come to the court and pay the money. I concur with the right reverend Prelate as to the appropriateness of an inquiry into such a subject by this House, At any rate, no one could suggest that there was on the part of your Lordships anything like a puritanical desire to interfere with
  550
  amusement and sport. I have no doubt that a great many foolish things have been said from time to time in opposition to betting, but some equally if not more foolish things have been said in support of it. I will quote one sentence from an organ which supports the professional betting system—
  "The modern puritan is every whit as-mischievous and intolerant to-day as he was 250 years ago. He is unfitted for municipal work, and if the public knew his power for mischief under the cloak of hypocrisy he would go out of public life altogether."
  I apologise to your Lordships for reading; such canting rubbish. Turning to that guide, philosopher, and friend of the country, Punch, we find the following—
  "The true spoil of sport is betting,
  Although it suits the baser sort.
  What is sport to them is death to sport."
  It is to be hoped that if this inquiry is granted noble Lords will be willing to serve whose names are household words in connection with the turf. As a sport horse-racing should not be attacked in itself, but, if abuses creep in, it is only right that an attempt should be made to remedy them. The noble Marquess at the head of the Government has often said that he objects to anything which savours of puritanical legislation, but I sincerely hope that he will regard this motion favourably.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, as a very recent member of the House I should not venture to take part in the debate had I not, as a resident for thirteen years in the middle of a great working-class quarter of London, some experience of the evils of betting. Looking out of my window I have frequently seen a man standing in the street for an hour and a half in the middle of the day and receiving slips of paper for betting purposes from forty or fifty persons, including boys and girls. After watching this for some days it occurred to me that it would be well to take action. The result was that he was prosecuted and fined £5, but he merely laughed at the fine. He had £25 on him in shillings when arrested, out of which he paid the £5. But within twenty-four hours he was seen standing at another street corner carrying on the same-tirade. As an example of the victims of

  551
  this system of betting I may say that it is a common thing to have some poor lad come late at night and pale as death to tell how he has been ruined by betting. One lad who came to me told how he had been led to put money on horses, and how, after spending his own money, he had spent nine pounds entrusted to him as treasurer of a shop club. He is only a sample of boys who are ruined in the working class quarters by betting. I know of a respectable working man who appropriated £120 belonging to a thrift club on account of his probity having been broken down by gambling. It may be asked, what good will an inquiry do? An inquiry into this evil will at least do good in strengthening public opinion and the executive. Policemen are only human. They do their very best, but they cannot do as they would unless they are backed up by public opinion. The inquiry will also reveal the true weaknesses of the betting law. One is that the practice of selling tips on Sunday mornings to crowds at street corners is not illegal. No law at present touches that at all. The Act of 1876 says "any three or more persons," which, of course, does not reach the man standing alone in the street and taking bets; but the London County Council by a bye-law have provided for the individual bookmaker, and I think that bye-law should be made a general law. The third blot on the betting law is that the fine is too light. A fine of £5 is just as little as five pence to a book-maker, so enormous are the profits of the trade. I hope the Government will consent to the motion before the House.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I do not desire to lengthen the debate, for I have very little to say. It is a common saying that the vice of betting—for it certainly is a vice when practised by those who cannot afford it—has been going on always, and that you cannot stop it because it is rooted in human nature But the important fact is that betting is increasing, that it is not what it always was, but is a growing mischief. Some may say that it is useless to inquire into the evil, because it is of such a nature that it cannot be eradicated; but inquiry may at least result in some
  552
  way being found for preventing it from still further increasing.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, it is certainly from no want of sympathy with the feelings and views of the right rev. Prelates that I hesitate to follow with any great confidence the recommendations they have made. I do not suppose that any of us will differ from them in admitting the growth of betting, and that most of all it is prevalent among the working classes and young people who are not strong enough to resist the temptation. I do not think that that is a matter which it is necessary to labour, because I do not believe that anyone doubts it. Whether it is actually increasing still I do not know. The most rev. Prelate, if he will inquire into it, will find that the evil is very old indeed. But I cannot admit, without very considerable deduction, the argument that because an evil is a great one, therefore you ought to try to do something, even though you know you cannot succeed. It seems to me the weakness of this policy is that, as the matter now stands, it is likely you will not succeed; and if you do not succeed, such remedies as are proposed will produce great injustice and great social conflicts, and will only bring a hideous evil more before the world, and give encouragement for the imitation of it to those who do not practise it now. I would wish to know precisely what evils it is intended to strike against and what remedies it is intended to apply. I was much struck by an observation of the right rev. Prelate who introduced this question. He told us that one of the horrors of betting was that even nursery-maids put a shilling upon each succeeding race, and that consequently the circumstances and phrases of the betting-ring are inculcated in the children they bring up. Is that the kind of public betting you hope to stop? What machinery have you to enable you to stop nursery-maids from putting a shilling on a horse race? I imagine that if you were to contrive to pass legislation of this kind, every time a servant was dismissed he would pull his master or the other servants into the police-court with the allegation that they had been guilty of the crime of betting, and it would be exceedingly difficult,

  553
  when the crime was merely committed in the course of conversation, to disprove it. If you are going to follow up all conversation of this kind with this kind of control and supervision, does it not come to something very like espionage, and will that not seriously affect the comfort and happiness of vast numbers of members of society? And, remember, the people who will be constantly accused of betting will not be the people who ordinarily do so. This espionage will be encouraged and pushed on by any such legislation as this.
  Let us take another instance which came out in the course of debate. The noble Earl opposite told us of the terrible evils that were creeping into society because foremen and forewomen encouraged people who were sitting in the same room with them to bet. Do you seriously imagine that any legal machinery you could construct will stop that? And if it does not stop it, will it not produce, by the opportunities of annoyance and conspiracy which it will give, evils infinitely greater than those you desire to arrest? I feel that the difficulty is one that you would find, when you come to examine into it, very much more serious than it appears to those who are dealing with it so lightly. We have been told in the course of this debate that on Sunday morning large crowds will assemble round one man in order to give him tips.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: To receive tips.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Am I wrong in my technical terms? Very well, then, to pay him for tips. But if there be such a large popular feeling in favour of such a thing as that, do you think with the means at the disposal of your Executive that you will succeed in putting it down? It has been mentioned that the mere printing of the odds in newspapers sends up the circulation by hundreds of thousands. You must look at the operation of that upon the persons who have the conduct of newspapers. Do you suppose that they will submit quietly while that means of gain is being taken away? You may be quite certain that anything you may do or any Act you may pass will not stop newspapers from
  554
  giving information upon a thing which is a matter of public interest—namely, the state of the odds on various races. I cannot conceive a state of society in which that kind of censorship of the press would be tolerated. My Lords, I do not wish to dwell upon the matter. My sympathies are so entirely with those who wish to stop the general practice of betting that I do not wish to go very far into the arguments on the other side. But what I wish you to consider is that you are undertaking a business of enormous magnitude, that you are going against the feelings and desires of a vast mass of people; and I doubt very much whether the results of this crusade will be satisfactory to the minds of those who undertake it. I have tried to use very moderate language, because I am not prepared, if we go to a division, to vote against the right rev. Prelate, and I do not desire and do not wish to give the appearance of desiring to prevent information being given upon the subject. Therefore, if right rev. prelates think it right to press for the motion, I at all events will not resist them, though I must leave the responsibility entirely with them.
  I have another reason for wishing to leave the responsibility entirely with them. In recent debates I have heard of a suggestion which, I confess, filled me with much alarm. It has been said by two or three men of very considerable position in this House that when a Government appoints a Commission it is bound to carry out the decisions at which that Commission may arrive. As far as I could learn, there was only one exception to that doctrine—namely, that if the Commission should split in two and vote in precisely the opposite way, then liberty is given to the Government to select one of the two Reports. That throws a very different light on a Government's undertaking any parliamentary inquiry. I feel quite certain that, whatever the recommendations of this Committee may be, a very large number of Members of this House will not consider them practicable. I will not accept, therefore, in behalf of the Government, or in behalf of any future Government, any responsibility for this inquiry, or any intention of putting on the Statute-book the enactments which

  555
  it may recommend. But if such great authorities as the Episcopal Bench believe that such facts can be obtained, and that an inquiry into them should be held, I do not feel that I am justified in offering any impediment to the motion which the right rev. prelates have recommended to the House.
  On Question, agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  BISHOPRIC OF SOUTHWARK BILL.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, this is a Bill for dividing the diocese of Rochester on the ground that the diocese is now so large that it is hardly possible for the administration of it to be continued by one bishop. The Bill authorises a bishopric of Southwark, to be founded by Order in Council, when the endowment fund reaches the specified amount. The diocese is to consist of the rural deaneries of Greenwich, Lewisham, Woolwich, Battersea, Camberwell, Clapham, Kennington, Lambeth, Newington, Southwark, Barnes, Beddington, Godstone, Kingston, Reigate, and Streatham, and of such other parishes as may be transferred to the diocese in pursuance of this Act. The diocese of Rochester at present includes a population numbering, according to the last census, upwards of two millions of persons. The new diocese of Rochester will have a special character of its own, extending along the banks of the Thames for a considerable distance, and possessing a certain community of interest. In making the sub-division the machinery of the Act of 1878 is used with such modifications as are applicable to the particular character of the diocese which is to be sub-divided. The amount of the income required for the formation of the diocese of Southwark is to be rather higher than is inserted in the principal Act, and that is a safeguard that neither the new nor the old bishopric will be lowered in character and position. The money is to be obtained most largely from the contributions of those who are interested in the subject. The only change in other respects is that certain
  556
  parishes will be transferred from they diocese of Canterbury to the diocese of Rochester, and to that I have assented.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

  EDUCATION OF SOLDIERS FOR CIVIL LIFE.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, in again venturing to call your Lordships' attention to the education of the soldier for civil life, I have to regret that the subject has not been taken up by some peer of position and influence. I regret it because I consider that this is a question of most vital importance in Army reorganisation, and one which goes absolutely to the root of our Army system. It is perhaps only natural that at the present time a reform of this kind should be overlooked, because it is not a sensational or pretentious reform, and because it no doubt involves a great deal of thought and trouble on the part of those who would have to carry it into execution, and also a certain amount of expense. On the last occasion when I brought this subject before the House, rather more than a year ago, † I stated that in my opinion the education of the soldier for civil life was practically the only alternative to conscription if the desire was to increase the Army. When I stated that, I thought I should be accused on all sides of absurd exaggeration, but I am happy to say that the Weekly Dispatch, one of the three or four papers that circulate among the working classes very largely, entirely agreed with me in that estimate of the importance of this reform. Last year I thought myself obliged to give your Lordships in some detail the evidence upon which I relied in putting forward my proposal. I am happy to say it will not be necessary for me to take that course to-night, because the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was then Secretary of State for War, endorsed in principle my contention. All he said was that it was not practicable. I need only repeat in the merest outline the arguments I used last year. I called attention, in the first place, to a great meeting of
  † See Debates, Fourth Series, Vol. lxxix., page 1043.

  557
  officers which took place at Aldershot in 1899, and which came to the conclusion that it was of the greatest importance that the soldier should be educated for civil life during his time with the colours. At the same time, I drew attention to the Report and the evidence of the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1895, presided over by Sir George Chesney. The reference was to consider the employment of retired sailors and soldiers. That Committee was composed mostly of service Members, and it reported strongly in favour of the principle of giving some sort of training in civil employment to soldiers; particularly, said the Report, was that instruction desirable in the winter months. They made that reservation on the evidence of Sir Charles Wilson, then Director of Military Education, who said that in his opinion it would be quite possible to induce soldiers to avail themselves of this instruction during the winter, but not during the summer. Again, I called attention to a very important matter in connection with this subject, namely, the opinion of the Charity Organisation Society. In the year 1891 that Society appointed a committee to inquire into the question of the homeless poor of London. In the course of that inquiry they found that there were seventy-seven old soldiers, but not a single old sailor, among the homeless poor who had been compelled to seek the shelter of the workhouse or the casual ward; and of these soldiers thirty-six had been discharged with characters marked "very good."
  Your Lordships are aware of the strenuous efforts that have been, and are still being made, without, I am afraid, any conspicuous success, to induce employers to give remunerative employment to old soldiers. I would draw the attention of the House to the answer which was given me by the noble Marquess last year. He said—
  "I have always thought it would be of the utmost value to the Army if, while soldiers are serving with the colours, we could give them instruction in the rudiments of a trade, and thereby render them better fitted for civil employment after they leave the colours."
  The noble Marquess made this important addition—
  "I may add that the views of almost every soldier of experience with whom I have dis-
  558
  cussed this have been such as those which the noble Lord (Lord Monkswell) quoted."
  The noble Marquess said he had made several experiments in a small way, with results that were not favourable. He took the Woolwich experiment as an illustration, because, as he very truly said, the experiment could be tried with the greatest facility at Woolwich. He recounted the failure there, which he attributed to the perversity of the soldier in objecting to attend classes for technical instruction. I asked the noble Marquess when these classes began, whether in the summer or the winter, and to my great surprise he was not able to answer my question, yet the period of the year at which they are held is of vital importance to these classes. If you begin them in the summer it is impossible to get soldiers to attend. This answer from the noble Marquess aroused my suspicion as to the amount of interest which the officials concerned had given to this matter, and I at once communicated with Dr. Garnett, the secretary to the Technical Education Board of the London County Council, who is well acquainted with Woolwich, and asked him to give me his report on the matter. As the report is a very important document I propose to read some quotations from it. Dr. Garnett says—
  "I have had an interview with the superintendent of the artificers' classes at Woolwich Dockyard. I believe these classes have been going on for some time, and they are designed to afford technical instruction to the members of the Royal Artillery in the various trades to which they belong, and which they practise as part of their military duty. The Red Book enclosed herewith gives some account of the special duties of the members of each trade, and a syllabus of the instruction provided in the classes in connection with several of the trades."
  Dr. Garnett goes on to explain the teaching, and then says—
  "It appears that in the early part of last year it was announced to one of the Middlesex regiments on parade that the men might volunteer to receive technical instruction in connection with these classes, and some twenty-eight men offered themselves. I believe that almost without exception these men were entirely ignorant of any trade, but they were nevertheless drafted in March of last year into the artificers' classes referred to in the hand-book. In the course of a month half of them had deserted, and by the end of three months there was only one man left. I believe he was a

  559
  joiner, who had some previous knowledge of his trade, and he kept up his attendances and did excellent work until recently, when he was sent to the front. Thus ended an experiment which appears to me, from an educational point of view, to have been attempted on about as unsound a basis as was possible."
  Now, my Lords, the first objection that Dr. Garnett takes to the scheme is that these men were offered, in consideration of attending these classes, no relaxation of their military duties. I agree with Dr. Garnett that some relaxation might and ought to be granted. As this is a controversial subject I will not press it, but if you have summer classes for technical instruction soldiers will not attend them unless there is some relaxation of their military duties. Therefore, in the first place, these classes were started at a time when it was absurd to hope for success. The second objection which Dr. Garnett takes is this—
  "The work done in the class, judging only by the hand-book, while forming undoubtedly a good foundation for the knowledge of any trade, has undoubtedly an extremely military bias, and one could easily imagine that the theory would be started that the War Department in inviting the men to undertake these classes was to subsequently make use of their knowledge for military purposes, and that the War Department was not influenced by a pure desire to benefit the men after the expiration of their term of service. If the specimens of the work carried out in the classes had been of a more domestic and less military nature, this argument could not be used in the same way."
  He gives a further objection, which is fatal to the whole scheme. He says—
  "Men having absolutely no technical knowledge, and recruited from the ranks of unskilled labour, appear to have been drafted into classes to work by the side of fairly skilled artisans, and although I have not been able to ascertain the details of the instruction provided it seems to me scarcely possible, in conjunction with such an institution as the classes in question, for teaching to have been organised on the extremely elementary lines required by those absolutely untrained soldiers."
  I have given the history of the experiment which was specially selected by the noble Marquess as showing that soldiers will not submit to technical instruction. I would ask the House whether an experiment begun at a time when it was well known that such an experiment ought not to have been made, conducted on lines running totally contrary to the prejudices of the soldier, and having no reference at all to the state of his know-
  560
  ledge and capacity, can be quoted as proof of anything else than an absolute-want of the elements of common-sense on the part of the officials who tried the experiment. I should like to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary whether all the other experiments were conducted on the same lines.
  My Lords, the Government's army reorganisation scheme is, I believe, in the opinion of nearly everybody outside the Government, a pretentious sham, and, for this reason, that you cannot get the men. On this point I would merely quote two things. In 1898 the noble Marquess who was then Secretary of State for War came down to the House and said he was unable to get the 25,000 men that he required for his Army scheme of that day, and on Friday last the present Secretary for War said that the normal number of recruits who would be required for his scheme was 45,000 a year, and that up to 1898—before the war—they had come in at the rate of 35,000 a year. When you are first setting up this scheme you will require more than 45,000 recruits; at any rate, for the first year or two. Nothing helps recruiting more than that recruits should know that when they return to civil life they will have a good prospect of employment. It is conceded that at the present time the prospect of employment for discharged soldiers is very bad indeed. We have a number of recruits from the skilled classes, but what inducement do we offer them to join the Army? On this point I would quote the opinion of the present Commander-in-Chief, who said, in effect, that the mechanic or artisan who goes into the Army does so under a most tremendous penalty—the penalty not only of losing money when he leaves, but of losing cast and of taking that enormous step down in the social scale which separates the skilled from the unskilled labourer. That is a grievous-degradation to subject any man to, and the object of my motion is that no man, if possible, shall be subjected to it. If we do not do something of this kind we shall never improve the class of recruits.
  The Army can never be a popular service under the present conditions to any but the humblest class or the most adventurous. No doubt one induce-

  561
  ment to recruiting is that life with the colours should be made as pleasant as possible; but there is another consideration which is of greater importance than that The popularity of the Army depends to some extent on the opinion which the Reservist, when he returns to his village, may have formed of the Army; it depends to a much greater extent on the opinion which the villagers form of the Reservist, when he comes back from the Army. If he is seen by his friends and neighbours to be a better man than when he joined, if he is more resourceful, more intelligent, more obliging, then his neighbours will think the Army is a good service; but if he returns more ignorant, more helpless, and more stupid than when he went, I do not think you can expect the Army to be very popular. I am well aware that what I am asking the Government to do is no easy task, but I say again, as I said last year, that conscription is the alternative, and that we live under the shadow of conscription. To the military mind the failure of voluntary recruiting is a blessing in disguise. What the Service thinks is that conscription is in itself a good thing, and we have heard it attempted to be said, on behalf of the Government, that although, of course, conscription for foreign service is totally out of the question, still we might have conscription for home service. I do not myself believe that that distinction can hold water. What we want is an Army that can go out of the country—a foreign Army. And, again, supposing you did try to make this distinction between home service and foreign service, I believe it would break down under the first serious strain, and that your conscripts, taken only for home defence, would be sent abroad, either by public opinion or by Act of Parliament. I believe there is no half-way house in conscription. If you have conscription at all it will be bound to be conscription for the Regular Army, and conscription for all purposes. Is it not worth while to try some such instruction as may qualify the soldier for employment on his discharge? Military exigencies are such that foreign service might prevent a man going through the proper course of instruction during his term with the colours, but if this was properly thought out, and a good scheme
  562
  proposed, there would not be many men thus affected. I know the Service as a body is not favourable to this reform, although many distinguished officers support it. The Broad Arrow the other day said that experience had shown the impracticability of carrying such a scheme without affecting the efficiency of the soldier while with the colours. I say that there is nothing to show that any reasonable amount of intelligence has been brought to bear with regard to any practical scheme for teaching the soldier. The one experiment I have mentioned shows what little care and what little forethought was lavished upon it. I know that what the officer says is this: that his duty is fulfilled if he makes the recruit into a good soldier. I think it is not for the soldier but for the State to define what is the duty of an officer, and it is as much the duty of an officer to attract recruits, as to make them into good soldiers when he gets them. Officers enter the Army as a profession, but the rank and file for the most part do not. It is only an episode in their lives, and for them it is of vital importance that they should keep in touch with civil life, and not, on leaving the Army, be compelled to take most ill-paid employment.
  Officers are never tired of telling us civilians that it is our duty to learn to drill, to learn to shoot, and to perform other military exercises that will fit us in case of need to become efficient soldiers. I think there ought to be some reciprocity in that doctrine. I think the officer should try to return his men into civil life as good civilians. I do not doubt for a single instant that the noble Marquess when he was Secretary for War was very sincere in his desire to carry the reform I have advocated into effect, but it does seem to me that he accepted somewhat too readily the official version of the failure of experiments of this kind. After all, officials are very much like other people. If an experiment in which they are concerned fails, they try, just like other people do, to shift the blame on to the shoulders of others, and I think the noble Marquess somewhat imperfectly realises the ingenuity and the persistency with which reform which is unpalatable is opposed. I believe this reform will be carried. I believe there is a great struggle

  563
  between the military element and the civil element. Voluntary recruiting will break down, and the military element will clamour for conscription. I hope the public will ask with equal persistence for education. There is a third course giving an increase of pay—by which you will attract recruits, but that does nothing whatever to diminish the grievous intellectual waste which is going on in our Army. This war has exploded the theory that to drill all intelligence, all initiative, out of a man makes him a good soldier. I object to this Army reform scheme because it is absolutely silent with regard to the one thing needful—the attraction of a better class of recruits. Whatever you think of my motion, I hope your Lordships will give very serious attention to this extremely important matter.
  Moved, That in the opinion of this House, no reorganisation of the Army will be satisfactory which does not, subject to the exigencies of military service, provide such instruction for the soldier as may qualify him for employment on his discharge."—(Lord Monkswell.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN): My Lords, at this late period of the evening I am afraid it would not be wise for me to attempt to cover the whole of the subjects which the noble Lord has brought before the House, but with regard to the particular question of the technical education of the soldier I think I may venture to go somewhat into detail. With regard to the particular experiments conducted in 1899 at Woolwich and elsewhere, I am afraid I am not in a position to give the noble Lord any further information than the fact, which I regret very much, that the experiments were not successful. The question of the technical education of the soldier and of making him better fitted for earning his livelihood when he leaves the colours is one which all interested in the Army must feel deeply. I have always felt very strongly that when a soldier is with the colours your object should be to send him back to civil life a better man in every way than when he joined. But the difficulty
  564
  is to know what is to be done. There is a considerable difference between teaching a man a trade and affording him opportunities of practising a trade which he has already learned in some degree. In the mounted branches of the Army there is ample opportunity for the exercise of technical skill; but the difficulty of teaching a trade to the bulk of recruits, who are generally unskilled labourers, is enormous. Instruction in a trade to be of any use must be continuous and progressive. That is where the difficulty comes in in regard to teaching the soldier. I do not think even the noble Lord would suggest that we should make attendance at these classes compulsory, and I am certain that, so far as recruiting is concerned, you would not make the difficulty any lighter by compelling soldiers to attend these classes. At Woolwich Arsenal, where there is every facility and where there are skilled instructors, the results of the trials are extremely discouraging. One difficulty to which the noble Lord did not allude was with regard to trades unions. I am afraid in connection with this subject a difficulty with the trades unions is inevitable. Then there is the difficulty of giving technical instruction in certain trades to men who have not been apprenticed to those trades. Another difficulty is that of inspection. The noble Lord quoted from a report by Dr. Garnett with regard to the particular experiment at Woolwich. I do not know that Dr. Garnett has any right to impute motives. I do not know why he should assert that the classes were not meant to succeed.
  LORD MONKSWELL: He did not say that.
  LORD RAGLAN: I understood that was what he said. I would remind the House that the regimental officer is not the idler many people are apt to imagine. He has very little time to himself, and that time will be still more seriously curtailed in the future. He has not only to be a soldier and be able, to instruct men in shooting and drill, but he must be a bit of a tailor, baker, butcher, and grocer; and if he is in the mounted branches he has to be a veteri-

  565
  nary surgeon and a farrier, and to know something about saddlery. If the duty is imposed upon him of giving lessons to large classes in all sorts of technical education, I am afraid there will be very little time for him in which to study his real profession—that of a soldier. The noble Lord said this experiment was tried at a very unfavourable time. I acknowledge that the summer does not sound favourable at first blush, but it must be remembered that the furlough season comes in the winter. There is no privilege that the British soldier values more thoroughly than that of furlough, and any attempt at curtailing it would have a most disastrous effect upon recruiting. In mounted corps especially, but even in infantry corps, in many quarters there is even now considerable difficulty in carrying on the duties during the furlough season. Although you have a large number of men away the same amount of work goes on. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware of the very large number of men who are necessarily withdrawn from actual soldiering to do the cooking, cleaning, and so forth, I will give you an instance in point which occurred to myself last year. I was on Salisbury Plain in charge of two companies of engineers. A question arose as to a certain piece of work that was being carried on, and the officer commanding the Royal Engineers came to me and said I was to do so and so. I was unable because I could only provide, out of 170 men, a working party of 80. Therefore, as a regimental officer, I see great difficulties staring me in the face if these classes are started in the furlough season. At present, as your Lordships are aware, the British Army at home is merely engaged in preparing recruits for the Army abroad, but when the end of the war is reached and the whole question comes before the Secretary of State for War and the Commander-in-Chief they will consider most carefully whether anything can be done with regard to imparting technical education to soldiers. I have little doubt that in India much can be done in this way, and that in certain parts of this country, especially where regiments or battalions are quartered by themselves, something can be done. But the
  566
  tendency in the future will, I hope, be to concentrate troops more largely in camps and to give them more actual instruction, more scouting, and more instruction in shooting. In that case I am afraid the time for technical education will be difficult to discover.
  LORD MONKSWELL: I regard the answer of the noble Lord the Under Secretary as fairly sympathetic, and I hope I may take it that he is in favour of this experiment, at all events in principle. [Lord RAGLAN nodded assent.] I was rather astonished to hear the noble Lord say that the Woolwich experiment was discouraging, as it was carried out under conditions which were bound to lead to failure. I beg to withdraw my motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  THE NEW PATTERN SERVICE RIFLE.
  EARL STANHOPEasked the Under Secretary for War whether the War Office would undertake to have the new pattern service rifle ready for trial at the Bisley Rifle Meeting in July, and also whether the present rifle could be altered without great expense. He understood that the Government had appointed a Departmental Committee to suggest certain alterations in the service rifle, and he had seen it stated in the press that the rifle was to be shortened. He had seen several of the German rifles—the Mannlicher, the Mauser, and the new German rifle. He thought the latter was a decided improvement on those we had been using. In the first place, it was loaded by a clip system and not by individual cartridges. There was a great improvement in the back-sight, and also in the fore-sight, and altogether it was a handier and lighter arm. He understood that a full trial would be given to these rifles by experts at the school of musketry. It was most important that they should have a full trial, but if they put them in the hands of the Volunteers they would have them tested by their best shots at the meeting of the National Rifle Association at Bisley next July. From what he had seen of the German rifle, as compared with the Lee

  567
  Metford, he thought the service arm could be altered and the present clumsy magazine removed.
  LORD RAGLAN: No new pattern rifle has been approved, and it is by no means certain to what extent, beyond minor alterations and the possible shortening of the rifle, especially for mounted troops, any new departure will be necessary. Experiments are being made, but I am afraid they will not come to a conclusion in time for the new rifle to be issued for Bisley. It is not desirable in the public interest to state at present the direction which the experiments are taking, and, pending their conclusion it is obviously not possible for the Department to estimate the probable cost of any alterations in the rifle which it may be desirable to make.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH*LORD TWEEDMOUTH said he was most anxious, not only that the troops should have the best rifle which it was possible to put in their hands, but also that they should, by the appliances attached to the rifle, and by training, be placed in the best possible position to use it. He hoped the proposal to shorten the rifle would not be adopted without the most careful consideration. It was extremely likely that by such an experiment more would be lost in the efficiency of the rifle than would be gained in easing the inconvenience of carrying it. It was probable that the new explosive for rifles, as for big guns, would be a nitrocellulose powder, and slower than the nitro-glycerine one now in use, and for a slower explosive a barrel as long as possible would be required. Another objection was the difficulty of obtaining good sighting arrangements for a rifle with a short barrel, on account of the consequent short radius between back and fore-sight. Those who had been accustomed to the successive rifles that had been in use among our troops would remember that the old Snider rifle was an exceedingly easy one to shoot with, not on account of its special accuracy, but because of the long barrel, which was about 36 inches, the radius between the sights being 33½ inches. In the Martini the barrel was 33½ inches, and the radius between the sights 24 inches; in the Lee-Metford the length was 30¼ inches,
  568
  and the radius 23¼ inches; while in the Martini-Enfield cavalry carbine the length was 21 inches, and the radius only 15½ inches. There were several ways of getting over the inconvenience to mounted men of carrying a long rifle. He had seen an ingenious jointed stock invented by Colonel Remington Wilson, which, though it might be supposed to be weak, showed, so far as he could judge, great elements of strength. Now that recoil had been done away with a skeleton stock might perhaps be used for cavalry, and carried detached from the rest of the weapon. The noble Earl had praised both sights of the new German rifle. He admitted the excellence of the fore-sight, but was doubtful about the back-sight. When aiming at a stationary object without wind the German back-sight was a very good one, but there was no possibility of getting any wind allowance on it. To get full value out of our rifle some system of sighting would have to be adopted so as to enable allowance to be made for wind.
  EARL STANHOPE*EARL STANHOPE said the German fore-sight did allow for wind variation.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHwas afraid he could not agree, though the fore-sight was so fitted as to admit of a little lateral shifting, by which defects in the zero of a rifle could easily be corrected. Continuing, the noble Lord said that not only could the magazine be improved, but also the breach action, by adopting something similar to that in the Mauser and the new German rifle. He thought the Mauser magazine and breech action had great advantages over ours. In the first place, it was a clip loader which enabled five cartridges to be loaded at one motion. It had the further advantage over other clip-loading magazine rifles that, being loaded with five cartridges from a clip and one or more having been fired, they could be replaced singly, without, as in the Mannlicher, waiting till the whole five had been fired and the clip ejected from the magazine. The Mauser breech action and magazine were also simpler, stronger, and easier to clean than the Lee-Enfield, and, an important consideration, weighed ten ounces less. He was very much inclined to think that the question of some slight increase in

  569
  the bore was worth consideration, more particularly as by that means the accuracy of the rifle, by rendering the bullet less susceptible to wind, would be improved and its striking effect greatly increased. The new German rifle was enlarged to eight in lieu of seven millimetres. He asked that these points and others should be carefully considered by the Government, and that they should not simply be satisfied with having a good weapon, but try and get a very much better one. They should improve the sights; he believed some form of aperture sight must eventually be adopted, and, by increasing their training, enable the soldier to obtain the full benefit of the good weapon which had been placed in his hands.

  THE ROYAL DECLARATION AGAINST ROMAN CATHOLICISM.
  LORD HERRIES: My Lords, I have to ask the Prime Minister whether, as it is understood the Joint Committee cannot be proceeded with, he is prepared to move for a Committee of the House of Lords to consider the terms of the Royal Declaration. I think it would be a pity if there was any delay in considering this important matter, and it is for that reason that I have ventured to place this question on the paper.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have to-night given notice that I will make a motion to-morrow to the effect indicated in the question. There is no necessity for any alteration of the terms which have already been adopted by the House. The only thing that is altered is that it will be for our House only, and not in conjunction with the House of Commons. The nomination of the Committee cannot take place till the Committee itself has been agreed to, and, of course, there will be some little delay in getting together the requisite consents to the nominations. As we rise tomorrow, there will be no chance of doing any work before the recess, but when we come back on the 10th of June I hope we shall be able to despatch this business without any further delay.

  INDIAN LIQUOR AND OPIUM SHOPS.
  LORD KINNAIRDasked the Under Secretary of State for India if the atten-
  570
  tion of the Secretary of State had been called to the repeated complaints of tea planters in Assam, Darjeeling, and other parts of Northern India with regard to the location of liquor shops and opium shops in the coolie villages attached to the plantations; if he had observed the statement of the Excise Commissioner of Assam in his report for the year 1899–1900 to the effect that the consumption of country spirit naturally tended to increase with the foreign population of tea garden and other coolies, which induced keen competition for shops on the part of rival liquor sellers; if he was aware that the planters themselves were now entering into competition with the liquor sellers, and that in Sylhet six licences had been taken up by tea planters last year; and, if so, would he put a stop to a practice which could only result in increased consumption of spirits, in contradiction to the policy of the Government of India as declared in their despatch to the Secretary of State, No. 29, 4th February, 1890. The question was, he said, one of considerable importance. Coolies were brought from long distances at great expense to the planters, and often from parts of the country where they had not been accustomed to take strong drink, and it had been found in many cases that their health largely suffered owing to the facilities of obtaining liquor. He did not approach the question so much from the temperance standpoint as from that of the injustice of the Government, who were all powerful as to opening or closing grog shops, increasing the number of centres of danger to the coolies simply for the purpose of raising additional revenue.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of HARDWICKE): My Lords, I will say just one or two words as to the coolies who come to these tea plantations to work. The noble Lord has implied that they come from parts of India where drink is unknown to them. I think the noble Lord's statement is incorrect. They are aboriginal tribes who come from the north-eastern frontier, and are addicted to a certain kind of drink which they themselves manufacture out of a herb. Indeed, long before British rule was known to

  571
  India they were drinking this production to a considerable extent. I may mention that in Assam and Darjeeling the local inhabitants hardly drink at all. In fact nearly the whole of the excise revenue is derived from the drinking habits of coolies. The noble Lord seems to be under the impression that the policy of selling shops to the tea planters or their managers is contrary to the policy that has been adopted under the despatch of the Government of India of 4th February, 1890. The system that exists at present is to fix in each locality the number of shops that are necessary to supply a certain quantity of spirits to the coolies. Whether the shops are sold to the planters or in the open market does not increase the number of them. The number is at a fixed limit, but the excise commissioners have sold in Assam during the past year eleven shops to the tea planters, who bought them with only one object, namely, to be able to control the coolies whom they employ, and prevent them from indulging excessively in drink. That, so far from being in contradiction to the policy of the Government of India, is directly in accordance with their policy. The noble Lord asks whether the Secretary for State has observed the statement of the Excise Commissioner of Assam in his report for the year 1899–1900, to the effect that the consumption of country spirit naturally tends to increase with the foreign population of tea garden and other coolies. I think that is a self-evident proposition. Of course, as more coolie emigrants arrive in any district more liquor will be consumed. At the same time, it does not follow that the individual coolie has greater opportunities for drinking. That this increase induces keen competition for shops on the part of rival liquor sellers is, I think, also evident. The more coolies there are employed, the more liquor is sold, and consequently the more valuable each of these shops become. But, as I have said, the number of shops does not increase. With regard to the latter part of the question, I have only to state that it is not the opinion of the Government of India or of my noble friend the Secretary of State that the policy adopted will result in an increased consumption of spirits; and in the opinion of the Secretary of State
  572
  the policy that is now enforced is in every way consistent with the policy laid down in the despatch referred to.

  MARRIAGES LEGALISATION BILL [H.L.]
    ALKALI, ETC., WORKS REGULATION BILL [H.L.]
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  TOOK THE OATH.
  The Lord Bishop of Chester took the Oath.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven of the clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past Four of the clock.