Lords Sitting of 16 July 1903

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Frinton-on-Sea Sea Defences Bill [H.L.]. Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [H.L.]. Committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Great Western Railway Bill. The King's consent and the consent of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, in right of his Duchy of Cornwall, signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
London United Tramways Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (Various Powers) Bill. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
Harrow Road and Paddington Tram ways Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the Committee having found that the petitioners had no locus standi before them; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 26th of June and Thursday last discharged; and Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill; Ebbw Vale Water and Improvement Bill: Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill, Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee adjourned yesterday over this day.
Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill; Ebbw Vale Water and Improvement Bill; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Marquess of Bath and the Lord Congleton be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Haddington and the Lord Lamington; read, and agreed to.
Ulster and Connaught Light Railways Bill. Moved, That the Order made on the 16th of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.
Wigan Corporation Tramways Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Middlesbrough Corporation Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Alexandra Park and Palace Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Scottish American Mortgage Company, Limited, Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Cardiff Railway Bill [H.L.]; Aston Manor Improvement Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 16) Bill; Grindleford, Baslow, and Bakewell Railway Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
Glasgow Corporation (Police) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Irvine and District Water Board Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS—ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3031. Zanzibar (Pemba).
  No. 3032. Persia (Kernan).
  No. 3033. China (Pakhoi).

  AFRICA, No 8 (1903).
  Report on slavery and free labour in the British East Africa Protectorate.
  COMMERCIAL, No. 6 (1903).
  Findings of the Permanent Commission established under Article VII. of the Sugar Convention of 5th March, 1902, and Report of the British delegate.
  Ninth Report of the Royal Commission on Horse Breeding.

  ARMY.
  Memorandum by the Director-General, Army Medical Service, on the physical unfitness of men offering themselves for enlistment in the Army.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 11th July, 1903, granting a retired allowance to Louis Charles Lepts, sorting clerk and telegraphist, Liverpool Post-office, under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1887.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1890.
  Regulations made by the Local Government Board for Ireland as to issue of stock by urban authorities.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: MEAL HOURS, IRON AND STEEL FOUNDRIES IN SCOTLAND).
  Order, dated 11th July, 1903, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of Section 40
  820
  (4) of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, extending the special exceptions as to meal hours to male young persons employed in iron and steel foundries in Scotland.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887.
  Proclamation, dated 14th July, 1903, revoking the several proclamations mentioned in the schedule thereto.
  Laid before the House [pursuant to Act], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND).
  Return respecting. Laid before the House [pursuant to Order of the 3rd instant], and to be printed. (No. 165.)

  INCEST BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I do not wish to enter into any detailed explanation of this Bill, which has come up to your Lordships' House after passing through all its stages in another place, including a most exhaustive threshing out in Standing Committee. The Bill deals with rather an unpleasant subject, but at the same time it is one the seriousness of which cannot be questioned. There is one point in the Bill which I should like to mention at once. In Clause 1, line 7, the word "step-daughter" occurs, but if your Lordships think fit to read the Bill a second time to-day I shall ask leave, in Committee, to delete this word and thereby to confine the operation of the Bill to blood relations. The object is to punish as a misdemeanour what is one of the most horrible and unnatural crimes conceivable, but which at present is no crime at all according to English law.
  Since the Restoration the punishment of this crime has been left to what has been described as the "feeble coercion of the ecclesiastical Courts." Incest is, at present, only a crime by ecclesiastical law; it is not a crime under the criminal law. I am sure I am not saying too much when I assert that their most strenuous

  821
  advocates will not claim that the ecclesiastical Courts are a proper tribunal to deal with such cases. It is an undoubted fact that this offence is committed. I have made careful enquiries in many directions and have ascertained from many people who have had experience both in large towns and rural districts that cases do very often occur. I was talking only this afternoon to a minister of the Roman Catholic Church who has had very great experience on the other side of the river, in Southwark. He tells me that cases are frequently coming to his notice. I have also had a conversation with a magistrate in the County of Essex, and he says he has known of three undoubted cases of incest. There are many others which must occur, and yet there is absolutely no power of dealing with them criminally. In Scotland, ever since 1857, a punishment has been provided for this offence, and, indeed, until 1887 the punishment by law was death. I believe that in practice the punishment was generally penal servitude, and I have ascertained, in the course of the few researches I have made, that last century there was one case of penal servitude for life. I might mention, further, that many States in the United States of America also recognise incest as a criminal offence, but it is to the Scottish example that I appeal chiefly. If it is a crime in Scotland it should be so in England. We do already indirectly recognise it as a crime in this country, for incest is one of the aggravations which enable a wife to divorce her husband. This Bill is only really a logical and practical extension of this partial recognition, and I trust that it will commend itself on its merits to your Lordships. The passing of this measure into law would act as a most salutary preventive, and I do not believe that as a result of its passing, the halfpenny newspapers would endeavour to make fortunes by spreading detailed reports of criminal cases under this Bill. There are countless laws on the Statute-book whose whole operation is indirect, and whose very existence acts as a deterrent. It is because I believe that this Bill, if; passed, would have a similar effect, that I ask your Lordships to read it a second time.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I regret very much that the nature of this Bill is one which renders it repulsive to everybody to discuss it. I confess that I think that if the law which has prevailed for some centuries on the subject is to be altered some greater case ought to have been presented to your Lordships for so doing. The noble Earl says, I have no doubt quite accurately, that he has made private inquiry. But surely that is not the mode by which a complete alteration of the criminal law is to be justified. I believe that legislation of this character is calculated to do an infinite amount of mischief. The noble Earl says he is confident that certain newspapers will not make capital out of these cases. I do not know where his confidence comes from. It strikes me that anything of this sort would be eagerly grasped by some portion of the Press, who make these things more public than they otherwise would be. I wish to do every credit to the noble Earl and those who are acting with him, but I cannot help thinking that it is zeal without knowledge. Everyone who is familiar with the administration of the criminal law is well aware that the publicity given to an offence at one Assize Court produces a crop of similar offences at other Assizes; and these are cases which it is inadvisable to drag into the light of day. I do think that it is a reflection on the beginning of the twentieth century that it should be thought necessary to deal with this matter at all. I cannot help thinking that it has not been sufficiently discussed, or the other House would not have rashly passed such a Bill without some evidence as to the necessity for it. I confess that I am very much impressed by the wisdom of the view on these subjects which Tacitus ascribed to the Germans—Diversitas supplicii illuc respicit, tanquam scelera ostendi oporteat, dum puniuntur, flagitia abscondi. That is, I believe, the truer view of what ought to be done in this matter, and it is with reluctance, because I believe I shall be running counter to the opinions of some whose views are worthy of con sideration, but with a strong sense of

  823
  duty, that I move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  Amendment moved—
  "To omit the word 'now' in order to insert the words. 'this day six months.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD DAVEY: My Lords, nobody can deny that an offence not only against morality and decency but against every instinct of human nature is one which is fit to be dealt with by the criminal law if such a course were expedient; but I confess that I share the doubts which have been expressed by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack whether it is expedient at the present time, or at any time, except in peculiar circumstances, to pass this Bill. There is no one in this House who has had a larger experience of the administration of the criminal law than my noble and learned friend, and, so far as my much more limited knowledge and information go, I should agree with him that to ventilate a subject of this kind by means of prosecutions is likely to do a great deal more harm than good. I do not understand that there is any evidence that this offence is becoming more common, or that it has become necessary for any reason to deal with it in a different manner from that in which it has been dealt with up to the present time. If any such case were made out, of course your Lordships would have to consider it, but in the absence of any evidence of that kind I do not think the existing law should be altered.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Recognising the force of the objections which have been urged against the Bill by the two noble and learned Lords, who, of course, are the best judges in this matter, I shall not trouble your Lordships to divide upon the Bill.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I desire to say a single word, not on the merits of the Bill, but on the position in which the House has been placed by the action of the Government with regard to this Bill. The Bill has not been initiated by the noble Earl. It was brought forward in the other House and was sent to the Grand
  824
  Committee, where it was carefully considered, and the Law Officers of the Crown and the Home Office must have had opinions upon it. It is hardly fair to your Lordships' House for the Government to have allowed the Bill to go so far if there are such strong objections against it as have been urged by the two noble and learned Lords who have spoken.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  *LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, the object of the Bill which I now have the honour to submit to your Lordships is to extend the ordinary jurisdiction of County Courts from £50 to £100. The modern system of County Courts was created in the year 1846. At first these new Courts had jurisdiction only in Common Law cases in which the amount in dispute did not exceed £20. In the year 1850 the limit was raised to £50, and in 1856 these Courts were enabled to try almost any question by consent of both parties. In 1857 their jurisdiction was extended to actions relating to wills or intestacy where the property in dispute did not exceed £200 if personal and £300 if real. In 1865 they were empowered to deal with equitable claims of every kind so long as the amount involved did not exceed £500. At the present time the County Courts have original jurisdiction in numerous matters of which the principal are the following:—(1) Personal actions in which the debt, demand or damage claimed is not more than £50; (2) ejectment actions in which neither the annual value nor rent exceeds £50—this may represent a capital value of £1,000 or more; (3) equity actions and matters such as trusts, partnerships, foreclosure and redemption of mortgages, if the amount involved does not exceed £500; (4) claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act; (5) Admiralty matters

  825
  (limited to forty-four Courts only) including salvage up to £1,000; towage and necessaries up to £150; damage to cargo and ship up to £300; (6) companies winding up (limited to 146 Courts) when the company's capital does not exceed £10,000; and (7) bankruptcy (limited to 146 Courts.)
  It will be seen, therefore, that in several cases these Courts are already empowered to deal with sums far exceeding £50. In the year 1901, the last year for which statistics are available, there were 30,040 proceedings commenced in the County Courts other than proceedings for the recovery of sums not exceeding £20. It is thus evident that the County Courts have ceased to be Courts merely for the recovery of small debts. Moreover, Section 65 of the County Courts Act, 1888, provides that where in any action of contract brought in the High Court the claim endorsed on the writ does not exceed £100 it shall be lawful for either party to apply to a Judge of the High Court to order such action to be tried in the County Court, and on the hearing of the application the Judge shall, unless there is good cause to the contrary, order such action to be tried accordingly. In the year 1901, 1,351 actions were remitted from the High Court to the County Court and the five years average is 1,329.
  There are numerous cases over £50 entered in the County Court by agreement of the parties; that is to say, cases in which both parties wish the trial to take place in the County Court. These cases averaged 403 in 1876–1880; and 1604 in 1897–1901. In the year 1901 they numbered 1949. It will be seen, therefore, that in considering the effect of the Bill the following proceedings must be left out of account inasmuch as they are already in the County Court—viz.,(taking the figures for 1901)—Remitted from High Court—actions of contract from £50 to £100, 1,351; actions for damages, 111; and actions from £50 to £100 entered by agreement, 1949; making a total of 3,411. It is evident that if, as a result of this Bill, there is an increase of work thrown on County Courts it will tend to relieve the Judges of the High Court from some of the work they now have to do, and this will be an advantage, provided it can be
  826
  secured without, at the same time overburdening the Judges of the County Courts. Moreover, the County Court Judges sit on an average fewer days in the year than High Court Judges and cannot reasonably complain if their work is slightly increased.
  It has been shown that the County Court has ceased to be a Court merely for the recovery of small debts. The County Court Judges have for many years dealt with cases involving large amounts; their work may be increased, but that will not interfere with the recovery of small debts, for the really small cases are heard by the Registrar and not by the Judge. In the year 1901 the Registrars heard 392,898 cases and the Judges heard 48,023. The House of Commons received 144 petitions in favour of the Bill, including 104 from Municipal Corporations, and twenty-four from Law Societies. The Chambers of Commerce are, with one exception, unanimous in desiring this Bill to pass. Liverpool is, I believe, the only Chamber of Commerce which does not support the Bill. But Liverpool has the Court of Passage and special facilities. With that particular exception the commercial community strongly support the measure. I may say that within the last few days I have had an opportunity of conferring with the representatives of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce on the Association of Chambers of Commerce, and they have authorised me to say that, subject to satisfactory arrangements as to working, they would not desire to offer any opposition to the passage of the Bill. I beg to move the Second Reading.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Avebury.)
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think the Bill furnishes an example—to which I would direct the attention of my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth—of how very ineffectual are warnings given by the Government in the other House as to the difficulties of particular legislation. Both the Law Officers repeatedly declared in the other House that this Bill in its present form is quite unworkable; and no one acquainted with the administration of the County Courts can entertain the smallest doubt

  827
  that that is the fact. The effect of passing the Bill as it stands—if it could be worked at all—would be gradually to take away from the poor man's Court the whole of its present jurisdiction, because it would be squeezed out, in order to substitute another which does not concern the poor man. The number of Judges and Registrars, and the number of places in which the administration of the law is to go on, is fixed by statute, and this Bill makes no provision for their increase. This question of adding to the jurisdiction is intimately connected with the fixed amount of the Judges' salaries; and I say at once that the amount of jurisdiction which has already been added and which it is proposed to increase still further by this Bill, will undoubtedly make it impossible for many of the Judges in many districts to do their duty. And if you cannot increase the number of Judges or Registrars a state of confusion will be produced which is highly undesirable.
  On the other hand, the Government do not wish to place any impediment in the way of increased jurisdiction, if it is desired. I think it would have been much better to leave it to the Government themselves to bring forward a Bill, as has been in contemplation, to deal with the jurisdiction of the County Courts. To say, as has been said in another place, that all the provisions necessary to make the present Bill workable can be added in this House, exhibits a marvellous ignorance of what your Lordships can do and what the Treasury can do. It seems to be supposed that the Treasury is possessed of some uncounted store which it can distribute at pleasure. I should have thought that members of the House of Commons might have ascertained the fact that neither the Treasury nor any one else can deal with public money without the sanction of Parliament, and that your Lordships have certainly no jurisdiction to initiate financial proposals. The Bill now comes before your Lordships on July 16th, and it is impossible to send it back again so that the questions of the supply of money or of making the Bill capable of being worked may be dealt with. We are therefore placed in this dilemma—either your Lordships must let an unworkable Bill pass or reject it, thereby showing great indifference to the wish expressed by a large majority in the
  828
  other House. I am in some difficulty as to what to do in the matter, but what has occurred to me is this. If the Bill is allowed to pass now, the only way I can suggest to make it workable is to postpone the date of its operation until the House of Commons can do next session what it ought to have done this session—namely, supply funds and administration by which the measure can be made workable. If the Bill passes I shall move, in Committee, that the operation of it be postponed till such a time as will enable that to be done by the House of Commons.
  *LORD THRING: As the Lord Chancellor has drawn attention to the form in which this Bill has been introduced, I desire to say a few words on that subject. I express no opinion on the merits of the Bill itself, but the Bill, in its present form, is absolutely unintelligible, and the Amendment which the noble Lord has put on the Paper is also unintelligible unless one can bear in mind at one time the County Courts Act, which consist of 200 clauses, and several other Acts of Parliament. If this were a solitary instance of a Bill being drafted in this way I should say nothing on the subject, but I do not think there has been a single Bill brought forward during the past session which has not had the drafting defects of this Bill. Many of the Bills brought forward are nothing more than a series of conundrums, with copious references to other Acts, which have to be worked out at great expense to the public. It is sometimes necessary—and I would refer to the Cruelty to Children Bill and the Motor-Cars Bill as instances of what I mean—to know a large part of the Statute book before being enabled to comprehend the meaning of a particular Bill. I believe I have had more experience than any man living in drawing Acts of Parliament, and I altogether deny that to make Bills unintelligible is the best way to pass them. I have found throughout my long experience that the most likely way to carry an Act is to arrange it well and to make its provisions quite plain. I daresay my observations will be imputed to the pedantry of an old man. I admit it may be so. The noble Lord very clearly explained the measure, and I think that if two sentences had been extracted from his speech and put into the Bill, probably

  829
  we should have understood the measure. As it is, I complain that this system of drafting unintelligible Bills is unjust to the subject and unjust to your Lordships, who are carrying measures day after day which I defy you to understand without reference to documents which are not before the House.
  *THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE (Lord ALVERSTONE E.): I will not follow the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken in his interesting historical reminiscences, beyond saying this, that I think I could call attention to some Acts drawn by himself which offend against the canon he has laid down. This Bill relates to a subject which I have had often to consider, both as Law Officer and whilst practising at the Bar, and I must say that I think His Majesty's Government have acted with great indulgence to the promoters of the Bill, inasmuch as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has not moved its rejection. I am perfectly certain that nothing could be worse than that this Bill should pass in its present form. It has already been said—it is no exaggeration—and I wish to repeat the statement, that as the Bill is now framed it would be absolutely unworkable, would make things infinitely worse than they are at present, and would not achieve the result the promoters wish. But that is not the only ground on which I protest against the measure in its present shape. If you are going to interfere to a large extent with the jurisdiction of County Courts and extend it, you must do so upon some principle which will have regard to the exigencies of the Courts and the circumstances under which the work is done. The mere increase of the amount from £50 to £100 is no real guarantee that you will only have cases going to the County Court which will not occupy a large amount of time. There are numbers of cases in which the amount at issue is comparatively small, and yet the inquiry into them, and the examination involve a considerable amount of time. I think it would be far better to send to the County Court certain classes of cases in which it is plain, from the way the questions are raised, that there is not likely to be any
  830
  serious amount of time involved, rather than simply to raise the pecuniary limit to £100.
  It is correct to say that jurisdiction has already been conferred on County Courts in respect of even larger amounts, but the result has been to strain the present system to the utmost, and to restrict the time of Courts to deal with small cases. Therefore I venture to protest against the consideration of this subject from the point of view only of increasing the amount involved to £100.
  If this Bill is going to pass, it is absolutely necessary that the matters referred to by the Lord Chancellor should be considered. The position of the Judges, the work of their Courts, their salaries, their Registrars, and other matters must be taken into consideration if you are going to send to the County Courts anything like a considerable proportion of the cases now heard in the High Courts. There is an extraordinary provision in this Bill, that in cases which are sent to the County Courts under the Bill—that is, between £50 and £100—there should be a jury of nine, whereas, in ordinary cases, there is only a jury of five. How that provision is to be worked I have not the smallest idea. The provision was not in the Bill originally, and I rather gather that it was inserted for some of those political reasons which do occur in another place. There are many Judges and counsel who hold the opinion that a jury of five is the worst possible tribunal on questions of fact. But if we are going to consider the question of an alteration in the number of the jury, I hope it will be looked at from a broader point of view.
  Again, the last clause would result in cases being tried at Courts distant from where the parties reside, which would be a direct contravention of the system on which we have always proceeded, that the County Courts should be brought to the doors of the parties. The Bill contains a departure altogether from the system upon which the County Courts have been organised for the past thirty or forty years, and introduces changes which I am perfectly satisfied will be found to defeat the very object which the promoters have in view. I hope, if

  831
  the Bill is to pass, that it will not be allowed to come into operation until January 1st, 1905, in order that the financial aspect, the convenience of suitors, and the real effect of the large transfer of cases to the County Court may be considered by persons practically acquainted with the matter. I am strongly in favour of an extension of the jurisdiction of County Courts. I have seen enough to know that there are considerable classes of cases which might with advantage be tried in the County Courts, but a money limit is no test as to the time a case will last or the questions that will be raised. I trust that the Government will look at the matter from a practical point of view, and that legislation for the extension of the jurisdiction of County Courts will not be left to a private Member.
  LORD DAVEY: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that my noble and learned friends who have addressed your Lordships have somewhat exaggerated the difficulties of this Bill. It is as well to state over again the sole object of the Bill. The only change it makes is that whereas only actions of contract in which £50 is claimed can now be tried in the County Court, it is proposed that actions of the same kind should be tried in the County Court up to a limit of £100. I suppose my noble and learned friends who have placed before your Lordships objections to this Bill are in possession of some estimate of the increase of work it is likely to bring about.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I may say that I have those figures, and had I thought it right to move the rejection of the Bill I should have called your Lordships' attention to them.
  LORD DAVEY: So far as I am able to form an opinion I do not believe the increase of work will be so large as is thought. I will tell your Lordships why. Lender the present law, actions up to £100 which are entered in the High Court can be, and are every day, sent to the County Court at the will of either of the parties, unless there be strong reason shown to the contrary; therefore, as a rule, actions up to the £100 limit, although they have to be commenced in the High Court, are, at the instance of
  832
  either party, sent to the County Court. A number of such actions are sent annually in that way. I think the number last year was nearly 2,000.
  LORD ALVERSTONE: The number was 1,400.
  LORD DAVEY: And, in addition to those cases, the High Court has power to remit to the County Court actions of contract which are unlimited, and a large number of those actions are also remitted. I do not, therefore, believe that the increase of work would be so large as it is supposed; but, of course, I bow to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, who has sources of in formation which are not accessible to myself. Why is it that this Bill is said to be altogether unworkable and impracticable? Only, so far as I can understand, because it is contended that the increase of work will demand a large increase in the number of County Court Judges and Registrars. I confess that I should have thought the better course would be to pass the Bill and then ascertain by experience what the increase of work is. It would be possible then to make the provision required to meet any difficulty, if any difficulty arose. There is also the question of the remuneration of County Court Judges. This is not a new question. It has been the habit of Parliament to put new jurisdiction on to County Court Judges; that has been done recently with regard to the Workmen's Compensation Act and other Acts, and I must say that I think County Court Judges have a very good claim to some increase of remuneration. But I cannot believe that this Bill will constitute the "last straw on the camel's back," which will render the Judges unwilling to do the work which is assigned to them. I wish to add—and this is really my excuse for troubling your Lordships on the matter—that I have been entrusted with an official letter from the Incorporated Law Society of London, which, as your Lordships know, includes all the most eminent solicitors both in London and in the Provinces, asking me to support the Second Reading of this Bill, and I think the opinion of a body of men of that character, who are engaged in the practical work of litigation in all

  833
  our Courts, is worthy of consideration. It is not suggested by them that the Bill is unworkable, or that it cannot be carried into effect, and I think their opinion, as well as that of the commercial classes whom my noble friend represents, is entitled to a great deal of weight. I am glad the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack does not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but I must say I regret that the date at which it will come into effect will be postponed for so long a period as is suggested.
  *LORD AVEBURY: My noble friend Lord Thring has been very severe in his remarks with regard to the drafting of this Bill, which he said nobody could understand. As a matter of fact, I did not see the Bill till it came to your Lordships' house from the House of Commons, but when I read it I was certainly under the impression that it was a comparatively simple Bill, and one the meaning of which could be very easily grasped. The essential provision is that the words "fifty pounds" shall be repealed, and that in lieu thereof there shall be inserted the words "one hundred pounds." I confess that that does not appear to me to be difficult to follow, nor can I see how such a provision can be described as unworkable. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said he himself wished to extend the jurisdiction of County Courts. The commercial community wish it extended in the simple mode in which it is extended by this Bill. It has been said that this is a matter which ought not to have been left to a private Member. The Chambers of Commerce have for many years past been pressing the Government to take this matter up, and, as they could not get the Government to move, they had no alternative but to do it themselves. The Bill was opposed in the other House by the Attorney-General, but when he came to take a division only nine other Members voted with him against the Bill. That, I think, shows how strong the feeling of the commercial community is in this matter. I am speaking for the whole of the Chambers of Commerce, and my noble and learned friend Lord Davey spoke on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society. At the same time, I cannot but feel that the proposal made by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack may be reasonable, and one which I cannot resist. I hope, however,
  834
  that the operation of the Bill will not be postponed beyond a fixed date, and certainly not later than another year.
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

  OUTDOOR RELIEF (PENSIONERS) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  *THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I would point out that it consists of only one operative clause, and that clause simply provides that a board of guardians, in granting outdoor relief to any pensioner of the Army or Navy otherwise entitled to such relief, shall not take into consideration the amount of his pension except in so far as it exceeds 5s. a week. I am aware that this Bill in its provisions follows somewhat closely another Bill which met with an unfortunate reception at your Lordships' hands recently, but I would point out that this measure affects another class of the community altogether. This Bill touches a class who have done good service for their country, and have very possibly been wounded in that service, and it is designed with the object primarily of enabling those men to keep out of the workhouse. There is nothing which acts more prejudicially against recruiting than the fact that a man who has served in His Majesty's Army or Navy should be forced, through no fault of his own, to go into the workhouse. It has been said in another place that one man in a workhouse prevents ten men enlisting. I will not go so far as that, but there is no doubt that the knowledge that an old soldier or sailor is in the workhouse does prejudicially affect recruiting in the district in which that workhouse is. There is nothing, so far as I know, that these men dislike more than the idea of having to go into the workhouse, yet undoubtedly the smaller pensions which are granted by the Government are not sufficient to enable them in some instances to keep out of it. I should like to learn that His Majesty's Government had in contemplation a

  835
  measure which would enable a sufficiently large minimum pension to be granted to those who have suffered in the service of the country to enable them at any rate to keep out of the workhouse, I am of opinion that this burden should fall on the Imperial Exchequer rather than on local rates, but if no Government measure is forthcoming, I think it is necessary that a minor measure of this kind should be introduced. I beg to move the Second Reading, and I trust your Lordships may be favourably disposed towards it.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Granby.)
  LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I rise for the purpose of moving the rejection of this Bill I happened to be out of the House when the noble Marquess began his remarks, but I imagine that he referred to the fact that your Lordships had already disposed of a Bill this session dealing with the same object In the first place, I protest against the Poor Law system of the country being attacked by nibbles. Thai is quite the wrong principle to go upon. If the Poor Law system is unsatisfactory, let the Government have an inquiry by a Royal Commission or some other body, but it should not be altered in this way by small Bills introduced from time to time. The noble Marquess expressed his admiration for those who had fought and suffered for their country. I am sure we are all agreed in thinking that the defenders of our country deserve the best treatment that can possibly be given to them, but I do not see why soldiers and sailors should be selected for favours above other classes of the community. If they suffer for their country, it is the duty of the War Office to see that they are properly rewarded; and, as a matter of fact, a wounded soldier receives a pension in proportion to his disablement. The Government are not at all backward in the endeavour to prevent such a man becoming a pauper. The hon. Member who introduced this Bill in the other House said it contained exactly the same principle as the Friendly Societies Bill. But there is the vital distinction, that the arguments in that case in favour of the Bill were founded on the fact that the Bill would encourage people who had
  836
  observed habits of thrift on their own account. In this case, however, it is the Government who have exercised, thrift for the men. Colonel Blundell said in the House of Commons that the Bill was brought forward with the general intention that a pensioner should receive the benefit of the thrift which was exercised for him, and at his expense, by the State during his service. Therefore a pensioner is in the same position as a member of a friendly society, with this distinction, that in his case the thrift was practised by the Government on his behalf, and not by the man himself. I have another supporter of my Amendment for the rejection of the Bill in Lord James of Hereford, who said, in moving the Second Reading of the Friendly Societies Bill—
  "I think this Bill (Friendly Societies Bill) has greater claims on your Lordships' consideration than any Bill which may be introduced for the exemption of Army and Navy pensioners, for that which is sought to be exempted in the Bill I now move is the result of a man's own voluntary savings."
  The Poor Law system of this country is founded on the principle that every one is entitled to relief in distress, quite apart from his merits. A certain amount of disparagement was thrown on boards of guardians in the recent debate, but I think they are just as likely to show a kindly consideration to their fellow men as any of us in this House. I think, therefore, that we ought to adhere to the present principle, unless some more powerful arguments are brought forward. Not a single instance has been advanced that the present Poor Law regulations impose any hardships on soldiers; and certainly, if the proposal of the Bill is accepted the cost should fall upon the Exchequer rather than upon the rates, as it is entirely a matter of Imperial concern.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out 'now' and to add at the end of the Motion 'this day three months.'"—(Lord Lamington.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I rise to support the rejection of this Bill. The one thing that your Lordships and Parliament should be careful about is how you in any way tamper with the Poor Law and its administration. If your Lordships will look back some seventy years to the state of England at the time when the Poor Law Commission was

  837
  appointed you will find that through the lax administration of outdoor relief a state of demoralisation existed throughout the whole agricultural population which was really shocking. We read in the evidence that men said—
  "Damn work, curse work, blast work: why should I work when I can get 10s. from the rates and do nothing?"
  That was the state of things which existed seventy years ago. We still have sentimental complaints of the harsh administration of the Poor Law, but I believe in the polity of being cruel to be kind, and that if the law, especially with regard to outdoor relief, is firmly administered poverty will decrease. If there is one man in England more than another who knows all about this question it is the able Secretary of the Charity Organisation Society, Mr. Loch. I wrote to him asking him if he would kindly send me his opinion with regard to this Bill so that I could it read to the House. I received an answer from the Assistant Secretary stating that Mr. Loch is out of town, and that practically this Bill is the same in principle as the other Bill which was introduced by my noble and learned friend Lord James. In a paper on the latter Bill Mr. Loch wrote—
  "There is no clause in the Bill repealing or amending the Act of Queen Elizabeth; yet in fact it is a partial repeal of that Act."
  And he went on to say—
  "It may be desirable to reform the Poor Law, but it is hardly desirable to reform it in such a way as to extend materially the incidence of pauperism, and to create a large new class of privileged paupers. To create what is practically a new Poor Law by casual Amendments, based on side issues, cannot be other than injurious and unjust."
  We hear of people objecting to go into the workhouse. About ten years ago I visited the workhouse of my own county. I found it charmingly situated on the banks of the river, and overlooking some beautiful woods. The only articles wanting were armchairs. We provided the inmates, who had been compelled hitherto to sit on benches in rows, with cheap armchairs, and then there was nothing whatever to complain of. A workhouse is by no means a penitentiary, as some people imagine. If the Poor Law is wrongly administered, if there is any serious complaint against it, let it be inquired into. We live in an inquiring age, and it may be desirable that a small Commission
  838
  similar to the one which inquired into the state of the Poor Law seventy years ago, should be appointed to impure into the whole question of the administration of the Poor Law and outdoor relief. Then we shall know whether a general measure for simplifying, and what is called making more humane, that administration is necessary.
  On Question, whether "now" shall stand part of the Motion, resolved in the negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day three months.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and, passed.
  LUNACY ACTS (AMENDMENT) LONDON BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order): Amendments (Privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  PISTOLS BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

  PUBLIC OFFICES (DUBLIN) BILL.
  Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off till tomorrow.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock, till tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.