Lords Sitting of 25 April 1912

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for a Bill by the

Great Central Railway Company

dealing with the Fish Dock at Grimsby ought to be dispensed with and leave given to introduce the Bill:
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for additional provision in the

National Electric Construction Company Bill

ought to be dispensed with and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the additional Provision:
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the

Swansea Corporation Bill

ought to be dispensed with, provided that, failing the consent of the Glamorgan County Council and Swansea Rural District Council, so much of Tramway No. 5 as is situate outside the Borough of Swansea be struck out of the Bill:
And that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for additional Provision in the

London County Council (General Powers) Bill

ought not to be dispensed with.
Read, and agreed to.

STEPNEY BOROUGH COUNCIL (SPITAL FIELDS MARKET) BILL. [H.L.]
Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
NOTTINGHAM MECHANICS INSTITUTION BILL. [H.L.]
Supplemental Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received and ordered to lie on the Table.
FLEETWOOD GAS BILL.
  METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.

    PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY BILL.
    EDGWARE AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL.
    LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

ANNFIELD PLAIN AND DISTRICT GAS BILL.
  CHURCH STRETTON URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL.

    DUNSTABLE GAS AND WATER BILL.
    EGREMONT URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL.
    RAMSBOTTOM URBAN DISTRICT RAILLESS TRACTION BILL.
    WINDERMERE DISTRICT GAS AND WATER BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed.

WESTON-SUPER-MARE GRAND PIER BILL.
  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.

    NEWRY, KEADY AND TYNAN RAILWAY BILL.
    COLLOONEY, BALLINA AND BELMULLET RAILWAYS AND PIERS BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed for Tuesday next.

CENTRAL ARGENTINE RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
CANVEY DEEP WATER WHARF AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  BRIGHTON AND HOVE GENERAL GAS COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Verulam and the Lord Willingdon be proposed to the House as Members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Camper-down and the Lord Pontypridd, and that the Marquess of Bath be Chairman of the said Committee; read, and agreed to.
ANCIENT MONUMENTS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Ancient Monuments Protection Acts, 1882 to 1900, and further to protect ancient monuments—Was presented by the Lord Eversley; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next. (No. 38.)

ASYLUM CHAPELS.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD*THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD rose to call attention to the failure of the West Riding County Council to carry out its undertaking to build chapels (to be used by all denominations) in connection with two lunatic asylums in their district, which in one case at least was admitted by the chairman of the West Riding Asylums Committee to be "a breach of faith"; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether any steps are proposed to be taken to compel the council to fulfil its obligation; and to move for Papers.
The right rev. Prelate said: My Lords, the Question which I have put on the Notice Paper for this afternoon need not, I think, detain your Lordships at any great length of time, but it raises some issues of very wide and grave importance, first of all with regard to the fidelity of public bodies in keeping their pledged obligations, and, secondly, the traditions of treatment regarding the mentally afflicted in pauper asylums, and incidentally, also, it raises the question of decent provision for the public presentation of religion in the way of public worship. I will put the facts as shortly as I can before your Lordships and then give my reasons for bringing this matter before the House. There are two large pauper asylums in the West Riding County Council district of Yorkshire which have no chapels attached to them, no special provision in the way of any building for the conduct of public worship. In an answer given in the House of Commons last week the Home Secretary said—
"Out of the ninety-four lunatic asylums in England and Wales all except seven have chapels. The Commissioners in Lunacy have always considered a chapel to be an essential part of every properly-equipped asylum. Of the seven asylums not provided with chapels two are at present incomplete and two are old and small asylums. The remaining three are the Menston, Storthes Hall, and Scalebor Park Asylums, all in the West Riding of Yorkshire. The erection of these asylums was sanctioned on the understanding that chapels would be provided."
I think there is a slight mistake in that answer, as Scalebor Park Asylum is not a pauper asylum.
The first of the two asylums to which I am asking your Lordships' attention is the Menston Asylum, a large asylum built in 1888 and containing about 1,700 or more pauper patients, with a large staff of
826
attendants—close upon 2,000 souls altogether. When the plans for Menston Asylum were submitted to the Home Secretary a chapel was shown, and it was on the understanding that such a chapel would be built that the plans were sanctioned. This is now, as your Lordships will observe, many years since, but there is no chapel there to-day. The Lunacy Commissioners have frequently in their reports expostulated with the Visiting Committee of the West Riding County Council, but all their efforts have been met with a denial; and I understand, though I have no absolute proof, that a definite refusal has been given by the West Riding County Council to carry out any part of that obligation. The chairman of the West Riding County Council was one of the witnesses examined before the Commission on the Feeble-Minded, and in his examination he admitted that in the case of Menston Asylum this was a breach of faith. Therefore the case presents features which I feel sure your Lordships will not consider to be those which ought to be passed over in silence in regard to any public body.
The second case—that of the Storthes Hall Asylum—is a still stronger case. This is a new asylum, also a large pauper asylum, built in 1904, and it is going to be a larger asylum even than Menston, as it is ultimately contemplated, I believe, to have something like 2,250 patients there. At present they have 1,634, with 210 attendants-a total of 1,844 persons in these large buildings. In the case of Storthes Hall, when the plans were presented in 1900 the Lunacy Commission insisted upon a chapel being shown, as is the invariable custom. The County Council demurred to this, but were told distinctly that as there had been a breach of faith in regard to the Menston Asylum the Lunacy Commission could not undertake to recommend the plans to the Home Office unless they received a definite undertaking that such a chapel would be built. That definite undertaking was given by an explicit resolution of the West Riding County Council on January 11, 1900. The plans were therefore sanctioned, not on the implied but on the express condition that a chapel would certainly be built; and not only was that resolution passed, but in 1904 plans were sanctioned for a chapel. These were ultimately modified and reduced in cost by about£3,000, and a contract was actually sanctioned by the

827
Home Office for the building. Yet from that day to this nothing has been done to provide this chapel for the Storthes Hall Asylum. The ground was actually staked out before the greater part of the main buildings, and it was always understood that it was the intention of the Council to keep its word.
The attention of the County Council has been frequently drawn to the matter, as in the former case, by the Lunacy Commission, but their representations have been just as steadily ignored. In spite of these remonstrances and the fact that it is twelve years since the plans were first submitted, there is no sign of a chapel at Storthes Hall Asylum. And not only have the County Council failed to provide this chapel, but in January of this year the matter was brought forward by one of the councillors, who moved to instruct the Asylums Committee to proceed forthwith to build a chapel in accordance with their pledged word and in accordance with the condition on which the plans had been sanctioned. This motion was practically refused by the majority of the County Council and was closured and defeated. Those are the facts, my Lords, which I believe no one will venture to question. I have not exaggerated them, but have simply stated them as a plain and not a very creditable tale. I am not lawyer enough to know whether under the Lunacy Act of 1890, which I believe is the authority for the administration of asylums, it is an absolute legal obligation to build a chapel as a necessary part of a large asylum, but the practice has been universal from the beginning, with the few exceptions named by the Home Secretary.
Your Lordships will notice that of the seven exceptions given by the Home Secretary in his answer in the House of Commons which I have quoted, two are incomplete asylums and two are old and small asylums. All the remaining three, including the one private asylum I have mentioned, are in the district of the West Riding County Council. So this looks as if it were the decided and definite policy of the West Riding County Council not to provide proper and decent accommodation by way of a separate building for public worship in connection with their pauper asylums. And here, my Lords, I might remind you that it has never been the custom to
828
consecrate these chapels, nor are they in any sense Church of England buildings. They are open to all denominations, and as a matter of fact are so used. Therefore I am not here to-day to plead for any particular favour to my own denomination. I am here, so to speak, in the general interest of religion and of reverent worship, to ask that steps may be taken, if possible, to make proper provision for the poor unfortunate people in these pauper asylums who are labouring under mental incapacity. The practice apparently has, as I say, been almost universal. Not only have the West Riding County Council ignored this general practice, but they have so far failed to carry out their own undertaking—and this is a very serious aspect of the matter-an undertaking, remember, by which they actually obtained the consent of the Home Secretary to their plans for this second asylum. They knew the plans would not be sanctioned unless such an undertaking were given. Therefore they passed a resolution promising to do their duty, but, having got their plans, they allow twelve years to pass without taking any step whatever, and now apparently intend, so far as I can gather, to evade these responsibilities altogether. It is only right to say that I have no absolute evidence that a definite refusal has been given, as was apparently given in the case of Menston, but it is, so to speak, an open secret that they have no intention of proceeding with the chapel at Storthes Hall.
What has made this question immediately urgent is the fact that the West Riding County Council is at this moment promoting a Bill for a Joint Asylums Board by which the administration of these large asylums should be shared by the county boroughs and the expenses apportioned, I believe, in accordance with the number of pauper lunatics sent from each district. I am told that there is reason to think that if this Bill passes its Third Reading—and it will shortly, I believe, be reported to this House for Third Reading—they will finally wash their hands of all responsibility with regard to these chapels; and therefore it might even be a question for your Lordships' House to decide whether the Bill should be read a third time unless some satisfactory and definite assurance is given that the West Riding authority will carry out its undertaking. On this ground alone—on the ground of what I might call the purity of public bodies—I hope the House

829
will think that I am justified in calling attention to the Failure of the West Riding County Council to keep, so to speak, its Parliamentary faith. In the public interest and, I think, on the broadest ground it is not right that such action should be passed over without full and satisfactory explanation, and I am hoping that His Majesty's Government may be able to give us some explanation.
But it may be urged, in reply, that the provision made for public worship and for the religious care of the inmates is adequate and satisfactory in these two asylums. I believe that is the attitude taken up by the Committee of the West Riding County Council. But unfortunately, as I shall show directly, the overwhelming experience of all experts in the treatment of the insane is exactly contrary. Services are, as a matter of fact, held in these asylums every Sunday, some of them Church of England services, some of them services conducted by Nonconformist bodies, but these services are held, in the case of the Storthes Hall Asylum, in a recreation room. A movable desk is put out into this large recreation room and placed just in front of the stage, upon which concerts and plays and variety entertainments have been frequently held immediately beforehand during the week. The same room is used for dancing, which, as your Lordships are aware, is a very pleasant and necessary part of the cure of the insane by way of brightening their lives and giving them some change. The whole surroundings, therefore, of this room are quite alien to the calm and dignified and solemn associations which ought to cling to public worship. I might urge these points upon your Lordships on the highest ground of all—namely, the reverence and respect due to the corporate presentation of religion in public worship.
These gentlemen who guide the policy of the Asylums Committee presumably have their own place of worship. They do not use theatres and music-halls and chance rooms to meet in for their regular worship on a Sunday, nor would they consider such buildings as these to be a "convenient place" even within the terms of the Act. For I believe the Act says that Divine Service must be held either in a chapel or in some other convenient place, and it is rather difficult to understand how
830
they, who value a reverent and decent public worship in churches or chapels of their own, after assembling these large numbers of patients in a place where they have no opportunity of attending either a consecrated or unconsecrated place of worship, should deprive them, I will not say of all the means of religion—for individual religion is, after all, not so fully dependent upon its surroundings—but should deprive them of those solemn exercises and hallowed associations by which religion is very powerfully supported in all of us; and if that is so in the case of persons in full control of their mental faculties, how much more is such a boon as this due to those who for a time at least are suffering from a weak mental condition. As Bishop who is responsible for the parish in which the great Storthes Hall Asylum is situated, I am bound to confess that I consider the arrangements for public worship in the recreation room of that asylum lamentably deficient.
I pass on for a moment to another aspect of the case which I think will meet with your Lordships' appreciation. Quite apart from the interests of religion, it is, I think, universally admitted that reverent public worship is of quite marked importance and value in the curative treatment of the insane, to say nothing of their consolation and comfort. There is no doubt that the effect of the ministrations of religion, decently conducted in a dignified way, has a great deal to do with, and is an important factor in contributing to, the cure of these unfortunate people. The opinion of the Lunacy Commission is well known on this point. I could quote if there were time, but I shall not weary your Lordships with them, extracts from the visiting reports of the Lunacy Commission in which again and again they express the opinion that the absence of a separate place of worship deprives a large pauper lunatic asylum of what is almost essential to its complete equipment, and every medical superintendent to whom I have spoken or written assures me that there can be only one opinion on the subject.
With your Lordships' permission I would like to quote the opinion of two gentlemen whose names will at once carry conviction. The first is Sir James Crichton Browne, who, I suppose, is one of our foremost authorities upon the whole subject. He

831
writes to me from Crindau, Dumfries, under date April 19 last, as follows—
"MY DEAR LORD BISHOP,—I have just received your letter of the 16th instant, and have no hesitation in saying, in reply, that a suitable and separate place of worship is front the medical point of view an invaluable adjunct to an asylum for the insane. A building exclusively set apart for religious purposes keeps alive in the patients, in a way that no room or ball occasionally reserved for them but commonly appropriated to secular uses can do, a sense of sanctity and solemnity that is wholesome and contributory to the restoration of mental equilibrium. While Medical Director of the West Riding Asylum I regarded the beautiful chapel there, built from plans kindly gifted by the late Sir Gilbert Scott, as part of my pharmacopœia, and found that attendance at the services held in it was soothing, consolatory, and a premium on self-control alike in Church people and Dissenters. An asylum chapel should, in my opinion, be placed in the grounds at a little distance front the main building, so that the homely associations of church-going may be maintained, and should be not only decent but beautiful so that pleasing and harmonious impressions may be borne in upon the mind. Among the means employed in that moral treatment of the insane which has now in large measure superseded mere drugging I know of none more potent and salutary than those that appeal soberly and chastely to man's spiritual nature. Many recovered lunatics have told me that the dawn of returning reason came to them when kneeling in the asylum chapel. The directors of the great asylum here, the Crichton Royal Institution—an institution for the insane of the upper and middle as well as for the poorer class—acting under medical advice, built a number of years ago an asylum chapel of an exquisite architectural design which cost £30,000. They have never regretted the expenditure."
I will also read to your Lordships a letter from Sir Thomas Clouston, the well-known Edinburgh physician for the mentally afflicted. He writes, under date April 18 last—
"I have the strongest views as to the advantages of a place of worship for the patients in mental hospitals from a medical point of view. Those patients are there not of their own free will; therefore there is a strong moral obligation resting on the committees of such hospitals to do everything that will be likely to cure them and make their lives happy. Such hospitals would be distinctly wanting in one means of cure and successful treatment were places of worship not available in them. A separate church is far better for the purpose than a room inside a hospital. 'Going to church' is to many patients a soothing thing to their mental state. Sacred music is well known to be helpful for the cure of some forms of mental disease, and the full effect of this is best obtained in church. The association of patients in church helps to revive dormant social instincts which is a common and painful symptom of their mental malady. I can speak on this subject as the result of forty-eight years' experience in the treatment of the insane in two mental hospitals in England and Scotland, in both
832
of which I got my committee to erect churches in the grounds, where before the religious services had been conducted in special rooms within the building. The results were marked and good."
I will not trouble your Lordships with them, but I have two or three more letters of a similar kind. The almost universal opinion of those who have to deal with the insane is that a separate chapel is almost a necessary part of the equipment of every asylum.
I am not actuated in this matter by any hostility to the West Riding County Council, still less to the Asylums Committee of that body, and I gladly pay my tribute to the zeal, the energy, the business capacity, and the very real and genuine interest which they bring to bear on every other part of their work. But this fact only brings into stronger relief the position in which they choose to place the public ministration of religion. It is a pity that they should give the impression to so many people that they deliberately ignore the need for suitable provision for public worship. It is still more deplorable that they should set aside the deliberate judgment of those who have had most to do with the treatment of the insane. Most of all it is disastrous that they should even appear to wish, if they do wish, to evade a moral obligation which their chairman acknowledged to be an actual breach of faith. On these grounds, therefore, I venture to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can give us any information with regard to this matter. I hope they may be able to tell us that it is the intention of the County Council to remedy this defect, and, I think I really must say, to vindicate their honour. But, if not, I think the House has a right to ask whether His Majesty's Government intend to take any- steps in the matter with regard to putting pressure upon the West Riding County Council, and whether they will lay on the Table any correspondence between the County Council and the Home Office or the Lunacy Commissioners which would throw light upon this question. I have detained your Lordships at greater length than I intended, but I am quite sure you will feel with me that this is not a mere local question, and that if it becomes the practice, either from material considerations of economy or from any other motive which I cannot myself understand or analyse, to deprive these poor unfortunate paupers of what is acknowledged to be an almost necessary part of their treatment

833
and of something which ought to be to them among the happiest associations of their unfortunate detention, it would be a disaster, and, more than a disaster, it would be a disgrace to the humanity of English people in connection with perhaps the most helpless class with whom we have to deal.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the failure of the West Riding County Council to carry out its undertaking to build chapels (to be used by all denominations) in connection with two lunatic asylums in their district.—(The Lord Bishop of Wakefield.)
LORD FABER: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the remarks which have fallen from the right rev. Prelate. I do not desire to traverse his statements in any way; I believe they are correct. In regard to the Menston Asylum, a very large asylum that was built in 1888, no doubt a pledge was given that a chapel should be built; and again with regard to the Storthes Hall Asylum, which was built in 1904, there was also a pledge that a chapel should be built. The gentleman who was chairman of the West Riding County Council for many years and who gave up the chairmanship last year is a man of well-known position and very well liked and respected in the West Riding of Yorkshire. This gentleman is now chairman of the committee which deals with these asylums, and that is a point to be remembered. I do not presume for a moment to say whether or not chapels are a valuable addition to an asylum. Probably they are. Still, there is something to be said as regards that on the other side; and I do say without fear of contradiction that especially in the West Riding of Yorkshire asylums are very necessary indeed, whether chapels are necessary or not. More than that, an Asylum Board such as is proposed in the Bill shortly to be brought before your Lordships' House and to which the right rev. Prelate referred is also very necessary, as it will lead to great economies in the conduct of those asylums. The West Riding of Yorkshire has to deal with a great amount of lunacy, and it is, therefore, an important matter to see that the finance in regard to these asylums is sufficiently looked after. But there remains above everything the promises given on both occasions that chapels should be built. I
834
do not desire to argue against the fulfilment of those promises, and I think I may say that if the Lord Bishop will be good enough to have a little conversation with the chairman of the Asylums Board it is possible, nay I think it is probable, he will arrive at a solution of this vexed question. I hope that will be so, because I feel that there is a very big question behind this, and that nothing should be allowed to interfere with the proper development of asylums such as these great institutions in the West Riding of Yorkshire.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS): My Lords, I confess that the attitude of the West Riding lunacy authorities, which has been so clearly and so forcibly described by the right rev. Prelate, is inexplicable, more especially as o it stands practically alone and there is no reason for supposing that it represents the general public opinion in the West Riding. I may say, my Lords, that the Lunacy Commissioners and the Secretary of State are as much impressed as the right rev. Prelate with the desirability of asylums being provided with proper chapels. That has always been their attitude and they have always held it. For some time the Lunacy Commissioners and the Secretary of State have been aware of the attitude taken up by the West Riding County Council on this question, and they have from time to time, as the right rev. Prelate said, urged upon the Visiting Committees and the General Asylums Committee the desirability of providing these chapels.
In 1910 the Home Office, at the instigation of the Lunacy Commissioners, wrote to the Storthes Hall Visiting Committee and drew their attention to the fact that they had neither provided the chapel, the plan for which was included in the plans approved by the Secretary of State, nor appointed a paid chaplain, which they are obliged to do by the Lunacy Act of 1890. A chaplain has since been appointed but so far no steps have been taken towards providing a chapel. In November, 1910, the Secretary of State wrote a letter to the West Riding General Asylums Committee urging again that these chapels should be provided at Menston, Scalebor Park, and. Storthes Hall. The only definite reply received was a letter of March 27, 1911, to the effect that adequate arrangements had been made for holding services for all denominations at the three asylums,

835
and that the committees of the three asylums did not see their way to erect chapels. On receiving that reply, which practically amounts to a refusal to comply with the request, the Secretary of State consulted the Law Officers of the Crown as to what his powers were. The Law Officers advised that it is a requirement of the Lunacy Act of 1890 that the local authority shall provide asylum accommodation of the kind approved by the Secretary of State, and therefore if the Secretary of State requires a chapel to be erected as part of the asylum accommodation the local authority must build a chapel. That being the view of the Law Officers of the Crown as to the powers of the Secretary of State, my right hon. friend has now taken the step of issuing a requisition to the General Asylums Committee of the County Council calling upon them to fulfil this obligation. It may interest your Lordships to hear the terms of the requisition. It is as follows—
"To the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire: Whereas you, the Council of the administrative county of the West Riding of Yorkshire, are a local authority within the meaning of the Lunacy Act, 1890. And whereas the Commissioners in Lunacy have, pursuant to Section 247 of the said Act, reported to me as Secretary of State that you the said Council have failed to satisfy the requirements of the said Act as regards asylum accommodation in that you have not provided suitable chapels for the celebration of Divine service at Menston, Storthes Hall, and Scalebor Park asylums being asylums maintained by you under the said Act. Now I, the said Secretary of State, do hereby, pursuant to the section, require you the said Council as such local authority to provide such chapels, in the case of the said Storthes Hall Asylum in accordance with the plans and contracts approved by the Secretary of State in the month of May, 1905, pursuant to the said Act, and in the case of the said Menston and Scalebor Park Asylums in accordance with plans and contracts to be submitted by you to the said Commissioners and to a Secretary of State and to be approved by the said Secretary of State pursuant to the said Act. And I do further hereby require you pursuant to the said section in the case of the said last two mentioned asylums to submit plans and contracts accordingly."
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD: What is the date of that requisition?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: It was sent out on April 23. It is to be hoped that this requisition will have the desired effect. I can hardly conceive that the County Council can persist in its refusal after such a definite document, and in view of that I think it would be undesirable for the House to confuse two issues by refusing a
836
Third Reading to the Bill referred to by the right rev. Prelate for setting up a new Asylums Board. I think it is pretty certain that this requisition will obtain the desired end.
LORD FABER: My Lords, I should like to correct a statement I made just now. I stated that the ex-chairman of the West Riding County Council was now chairman of the Asylums Committee. I was wrong. He is chairman of quite as important a committee in this matter—the Law and Parliamentary Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not like to allow this conversation to close without offering our congratulations to the right rev. Prelate upon the complete success which has attended his effort to bring this matter before your Lordships' House. There has been virtually no defence for the conduct of the West Riding County Council in this matter. Their conduct was admitted just now by the noble Lord who spoke for the Home Office to be inexplicable, and he did not deny that they had evaded what evidently in his opinion and in the opinion of the Department was a legal obligation which rested with them. The right rev. Prelate established his case so thoroughly that I am certainly not going to follow him over the history of the matter, but it is perfectly clear that the general practice has been to provide chapels at these great asylums, and that the only failure to do so has taken place in regard to these two asylums in which the local authority was plainly and deliberately recalcitrant. The pledges given that the chapel accommodation should be provided were distinct. They were embodied in resolutions which are on record, and it seems to me that the refusal of the County Council amounted to a very cynical disregard of their obligations. May I be permitted to say how entirely I agree with what was said by the right rev. Prelate as to the impropriety of using recreation rooms for this purpose. I am no lawyer, but I will take upon myself confidently to say that when an Act of Parliament says that a chapel "or some other convenient place" is to be provided for Divine worship, that does not mean merely a place in which there is a certain amount of standing or sitting room. It means a place appropriate for Divine worship—a place, if I may use the right rev. Prelate's own expression, proper and decent for use

837
as a place of worship; and nobody, I venture to say, will be found to contend that a room which is ordinarily used for the purpose of dances or variety entertainments can by any stretch of language be described as a convenient place in which to celebrate public worship. There is another matter upon which I do not think the right rev. Prelate touched, but obviously in a large institution of this kind you would have to take into account, not only the unfortunate inmates, but also the very large staff who have to attend upon them, and these people also seem to me entitled to proper recognition. We heard with great satisfaction that the Secretary of State has determined, rather late in the day, to put pressure upon the County Council. I think the date of the ultimatum was very recent.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: It was issued the day before yesterday, after the Notice had been placed on the Paper.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: And therefore we may be pardoned if we connect the action of the Secretary of State with the Notice which the right rev. Prelate very properly placed on the Paper. From what fell from Lord Faber I think it is clear that the West Riding County Council have by this time found out that they must comply with the provisions of the Act. But I should like to ask the noble Lord who speaks for His Majesty's Government whether the Secretary of State is prepared, in the event of any failure on the part of the County Council in this respect, to follow up his ultimatum by other measures, and what shape those other measures are likely to take.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, in reply to the noble Marquess I would say that the requisition sent by the Secretary of State is not a sham requisition but is intended to have effect. It is quite impossible to say what steps it may be necessary to take in the event of the County Council refusing to comply with it. But I can assure the noble Marquess that there is every intention to take adequate steps to effect the purpose indicated in the requisition.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD: With the leave of the House I withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

IRISH JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the position of certain magistrates in Ireland, namely, Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan, Justice of the Peace for the County of Kerry, and Mr. John Sweeny, Justice of the Peace for the County of Donegal—

1. The relation to the conviction of these magistrates in a Court of Law.

2. Their still retaining the office of Justice of the Peace; and to move for Papers.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, on March 14 last I drew the attention of the House to the conviction of certain magistrates in Ireland and to their still retaining the office of Justice of the Peace. On that occasion I placed the names of four magistrates on the Paper, and in respect of two of them the noble Lord (Lord Ashby St. Ledgers) who spoke on behalf of the Irish Office said that sufficient notice of the Question had not been given, and therefore he could not make any statement then in regard to those two magistrates. I think there has now been sufficient notice given, and therefore I will proceed to deal with the two cases mentioned in my Notice to-day.
The first case is that of Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan. He was returned as Member of Parliament for East Kerry, but this election was followed by an election petition, there being charges of corrupt and illegal practices said to have been committed at that election. The Judges who tried the case found that corrupt practices were proved to have been committed with the knowledge and consent of the said Eugene O'Sullivan, and that the nature of such corrupt practices was —
"undue influence and intimidation exercised in order to induce voters to vote for the said Eugene O'Sullivan or to refrain from voting for the petitioner, John Murphy."
The election was declared void, and, curiously enough, shortly after that Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan was made a Justice of the Peace for the county of Kerry. But there was something further. Mr. Justice Kenny, who with Mr. Justice Madden tried the East Kerry election petition case, said in delivering judgment—
"The Firies district a quarter of a century ago was the scene of a terrible crime. It is hard to credit any decent law-abiding person identifying

839
himself with that terrible outrage, yet we find the respondent (Eugene O'Sullivan) delivering a speech of a very shocking character in connection with moonlighting in the Firies district."
And Mr. Justice Madden said that of the speech of Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan and the sentiments that prompted it there could be only one opinion amongst those who had any respect for the law or any regard for the good fame of the county of Kerry. I believe that Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan is still a Justice of the Peace.
The Statute with regard to this question seems to be quite clear. It was quoted in the debate on March 14 by the noble Earl, Lord Desart. What it says is this—
"if a candidate is reported for treating or undue influence he is subject to the same incapacities as if at the date of the report he had been convicted on indictment of corrupt practice."
And another section runs—
"A person convicted on indictment of corrupt practice shall for seven years not be capable of holding any public or judicial office, and if he holds any such office the office shall be vacated."
In the interpretation clause a judicial office includes a Justice of the Peace. I think it is little short of a scandal, first of all that this man should have been made a Justice of the Peace after having been found guilty of corrupt practices, and then that the authorities, with that Statute before them, should have allowed him to continue on the Commission of the Peace.
I will now take the case of Mr. John Sweeny, of Burton Port, County Donegal. Mr. Sweeny is a public-house keeper. In 1899 he was convicted of selling methylated spirits without a licence, and in 1905 he was convicted of keeping his public-house open during prohibited hours. And then he was made a Justice of the Peace!But even after that he was fined£50for the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors at his unlicensed hotel in Burton Port, but the fine was reduced by the magistrates to£12 10 s., with a recommendation by the Bench—this is a little habit they have in Ireland—that the amount be further reduced to 10 s. He did this again in the same year and was fined in the same way; and last August he was again fined for selling watered rum. Now when you buy rum you like to get it neat and to add water yourself, but this gentleman charged the full price for rum having watered it first of all. That is Mr. John Sweeny's record,
840
and I ask any respectable person. Is it right that a man should remain a magistrate who had been convicted of two offences before he was made a Justice of the Peace and then goes on in this way, finishing up with selling watered rum? In my opinion it is perfectly disgraceful and scandalous and I hope I shall have some sort of satisfactory answer from the Government on the subject.
To show your Lordships how very slack the authorities are in this matter I may mention that Mr. Gilhooly, M.P., was removed from the Commission of the Peace for a speech which he delivered on the occasion of the trial and conviction of a number of persons for participating in the riots of Bantry on August 14, 1910; but he was subsequently chosen as chairman of the local district council, and thereupon became an ex officio Justice of the Peace. A great many people have speculated very much as to what would be the action of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on that matter. Here was a man who was removed from the Commission of the Peace for making a speech with regard to riots but who afterwards became an ex officio magistrate, and no notice whatever was taken. I put that case in by way of parenthesis to show how very slack, to say the least of it, the authorities in Ireland are with regard to Justices of the Peace.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashby St. Ledgers, in replying to me on the previous occasion when I called attention to this matter, said, referring to the debate the previous day on the subject of the Congested Districts Board and Mr. Fitzgibbon, M.P.—
"The Motion of the noble Earl is another instance, of which we had an example yesterday, of the drastic and disciplinary action which noble Lords opposite are always urging the Government of Ireland to adopt towards people who happen to be their political opponents."
I really do not care a pin whether these men are Nationalists or Unionists. It is a perfect disgrace to the country that they should be retained as Justices of the Peace. These men are placed in responsible positions, in many cases in out-of-the-way districts, and it is the greatest possible evil to a country when there is not respect for the magistracy. There was no political motive whatever in my mind in raising this question. But is it any palliation of the non-action of His Majesty's Government to say that I am making

841
political capital out of it? I venture to say that if Justices of the Peace were to do this sort of thing in England the noble and learned Earl now on the Woolsack would have them off the Commission of the Peace at once and without any hesitation. There is no political question involved at all. It is a question of maintaining decent benches of magistrates and carrying out the law in a proper and respectable manner. I await with the greatest interest the answer which the noble Lord opposite will give. I beg to move.
Moved, That there be laid before the House the findings of the Court in the East Kerry Election Petition and the Judges' statement relating thereto, and the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown with reference to the retention by Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan of the office of Justice of the Peace.—(The Earl of Mayo.)
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, the noble Earl has to-day brought forward the two names which I asked him to defer when he raised this question on March 14 because he had not given me sufficient notice to enable me to go into the merits of those cases, and I am obliged to hint for having deferred them until to-day. The noble Earl has told your Lordships what he knows about these two gentlemen. Some of the things he has told you are accurate; others, perhaps are not quite so accurate. But before going into the individual cases I would like to make a protest against the attempt he has made to-day and made before to set up something of what I may call a cumulative case against these and other individuals. I submit, and I hope the House will agree with me, that there is a broad distinction between offences committed prior to an individual being elevated to the Bench and those committed after his appointment. Noble Lords laugh, but I think they are laughing a little too soon.
I would remind the House that there are in Ireland, apart from the official and resident magistrates who do not come within the scope of this discussion, two classes of magistrates. There are the ordinary magistrates, appointed by the Lord Chancellor either as the result of his own selection or, more frequently, I believe, on the recommendation of some responsible person like the Lieutenant of a county, and there is also another
842
class of magistrates—namely, ex officio magistrates who owe their position on the Bench to the Local Government Act of 1898 which was passed by noble Lords opposite. As far as this second class is concerned, it was held by Lord Ashbourne, when he was Lord Chancellor, and it has been held by his successors, that the Lord Chancellor was precluded from taking into consideration any act of commission or omission on the part of any gentleman previously to the attainment of that position. When we discussed this subject before the Easter recess Lord Ashbourne was in his place, and I asked him whether he remembered the case of Mr. Kelly, an Irish magistrate. I do not know what Mr. Kelly had done, but he was the subject of a Question in another place in the year 1905, when Mr. Walter Long was Chief Secretary for Ireland. In reply, Mr, Long said—
"I have referred this Question to the Lord Chancellor, whose observations are as follows: Mr. Kelly became a magistrate under the provisions of the Local Government Act without the need of any previous sanction or approval from the Lord Chancellor, and he only thereon became amenable to the jurisdiction of the word Chancellor under the enactment which places him in the same position as other Irish magistrates with regard to conduct after he became a magistrate. But this power does not authorise the Lord Chancellor to inquire into speeches made several months before his election."
That was the attitude taken up by Lord Ashbourne when he was Lord Chancellor. It is, if I may venture to say so with great respect, an absolutely unanswerable position, and it is one which has been followed by successive Lord Chancellors. Therefore when noble Lords opposite laughed when I said there was a broad and important distinction to be drawn between acts committed before and acts committed after gentlemen came upon the Bench in Ireland I think they had forgotten that this ex officio class of magistrates existed. Certainly the noble Earl, Lord Mayo, seems to have forgotten it, for he said, alluding to the case of Mr. O'Sullivan, that after that gentleman had made certain inflammatory speeches he was made a magistrate. He was not made a magistrate. He became a magistrate by virtue of the Act of 1898. And I go further and say that, even as regards ordinary magistrates, charges and convictions previously to their becoming magistrates ought not to weigh unduly with the Lord Chancellor when he is called upon to consider the gravity of any particular

843
offence or charge that may be brought against an individual since his appointment. If that is so, and I believe it is, a great part, if not the major part, of the noble Earl's indictment against these people falls to the ground. In the case of Mr. O'Sullivan the violent speeches to which the noble Earl alluded were made years before this gentleman ever came upon the Bench.
THE EARL OF MAYO: He made another speech.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I am coming to that. Let me emphasise again that Mr. O'Sullivan was not appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The noble Earl spoke as if the Lord Chancellor had elected him and put him on the Bench. He became a Justice of the Peace by reason of his election as chairman of the Killarney Urban District Council. I am pretty sure, if it had been a question of appointing him, that the speeches to which reference has been made would have been taken into consideration and he would not have been appointed. Then there is the question of the election petition. The noble Earl has quoted the Statute, and he feels quite certain in his own mind that under the terms of the Statute Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan ought to be removed from the Bench. But here he comes into conflict with the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. When Mr. O'Sullivan became a magistrate as I have described by ex officio process, the attention of the Lord Chancellor was called to the matter of the election petition, and he had to decide whether the conviction was such as would deprive this gentleman of his position.
It is a very long technical story. I do not know whether the House would like me to give it to them in full, or whether your Lordships would be content if I summarise it by saying that the Law Officers of the Crown advised that as Mr. O'Sullivan had not been reported to have been personally guilty of corrupt practices under Section 4 of the Act of 1883 he had not become subject to the incapacities imposed by Section 6, one of which is incapacity to hold a judicial office, which includes the office of Justice of the Peace. That being so, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland did not consider that it was his duty to remove Mr. O'Sullivan, and I doubt very much whether, in view of this
844
opinion of the Law Officers, he would have been right in doing so. That is the case of Mr. O'Sullivan.
I pass to the case of Mr. John Sweeny. Mr. Sweeny is not an ex officio magistrate. He was appointed by the Lord Chancellor in 1908 upon the recommendation of the Duke of Abercorn, who apparently did not make sufficiently careful and exhaustive inquiries into Mr. Sweeny's previous career before he took upon himself the step of recommending his name to the Lord Chancellor. Anyhow, Mr. Sweeny was appointed on the recommendation of the Duke of Abercorn. I may say that the Lord Chancellor was not aware that Mr. Sweeny was the owner of licensed premises. He was recommended to him as a hotel keeper, and he was not aware, as a matter of fact, that he was the owner of licensed premises, not that that would necessarily have been an insuperable bar to his appointment. Since then it is true that Mr. Sweeny has been convicted of two offences in connection with his unlicensed hotel. It appears that one of the Revenue officers stopped at Mr. Sweeny's hotel, and, being a zealous gentleman and wishing to probe into the practice which obtained in this unlicensed house, called for whisky and beer, but, contrary to the practice adopted in unlicensed hotels, he was not called upon at the time for the money with which to procure the drink from outside and the cost was included in his bill. For that Mr. Sweeny was fined the nominal sum of 10 s. The Lord Chancellor, however, regarded this as only a technical breach of the law, because if the revenue officer had been called upon to put down his shilling at the time he called for the drink there would have been no breach of the law; and after considering the circumstances and having regard to the decision of the magistrates the late Lord Chancellor came to the conclusion that no action on his part was necessary. The second case was one of selling spirits below proof. Here, again, it was held that although Mr. Sweeny was legally responsible he was not personally connected with this offence, and there was no proof that he had any cognisance of it. That was the police report on the subject. It occurred at a public house of his at a place where he did not reside, and there was no evidence that Mr. Sweeny was the offender. He might have been, indeed, the person sinned against. The wholesale dealer might have supplied him with the

845
rum watered, There was certainly no evidence that Mr. Sweeny was aware that he was selling spirit below proof. Again in view of that fact the Lord Chancellor did not think it necessary to interfere.
These two cases form part of a batch of five which were originally submitted to this House by the noble Earl. I think we may feel that we have reached the limit of delinquencies which the zeal and industry of the noble Earl has been able to unearth. These five cases represent the sum total of the alleged unsatisfactory condition of the Irish Benches which deprives them of that respect to which the noble Earl rightly attaches importance. What are they? In two cases the gentlemen had already been removed before the noble Earl drew attention to them. Then there is the case of Mr. O'Sullivan, who was not liable under the Act to be deprived of his office. Only two cases remain—that of Mr. Scott, who was fined 1s. for being intoxicated, and Mr. Sweeny, who has been guilty of two offences of a technical character. On the last occasion on which we discussed this subject the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition took the opportunity to base upon it, as far as I could gather, a general charge against the reliability and respectability of the Irish Benches. I have not the noble Marquess's words, but I think the substance of his observations was that many of the local Benches are at the present moment recruited in such a manner that nothing but a denial of justice can be expected from them in a certain class of eases.
If the Irish Benches are unsatisfactory, the most unsatisfactory elements are the ex officio magistrates who come upon the Bench by virtue of the Act of 1898 passed by a Conservative Government. However good your recruiting for the rest of the Bench may be, it is always liable to be very largely diluted by the ex officio magistrates who come upon it in the way I have described. For instance, there is the case of. Mr. Gilhooly, M.P., who was rightly deprived of his position on the Bench, but who reappears as an ex officio magistrate. But who is responsible for that? Not His Majesty's Government, not the Irish Administration, but noble Lords opposite and their colleagues in another place who passed the Act of 1898. In so far as the honour and the reputation of the Irish
846
Benches are compromised by these gentlemen, if any one is responsible for it it is the Party opposite. I do not know whether the noble Marquess will go further into that question to-day, but if he does I am sure he will bear in mind the distinction which does exist and should be emphasised between magistrates appointed by the Lord Chancellor and magistrates who come to the Bench in an ex officio capacity hope that we have now got to the bottom of the serious and disquieting charges which the noble Earl makes against the Irish Benches.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords the noble Lord who has just addressed the House was good enough to refer to some observations which I made in this place on the 14th of last month, and he seemed to be under the impression that the complaint which I then undoubtedly did make was founded upon somewhat imperfect knowledge limited to some half-a-dozen cases in which acts more or less improper had been committed by individual magistrates sitting on the Irish local Benches. But if the noble Lord had been good enough to refer to the report of what I then said he would have observed that, far from resting myself merely upon half-a-dozen individual cases of that kind, I really based my argument upon quotations from language used by two learned Judges and one right rev. Prelate in Ireland. The two learned Judges—Judge Todd and Judge Craig—both spoke in the strongest language, and in general language not limited to any particular cases, of the conduct of some of these Irish Benches. Judge Todd said—
"It made him ashamed that some gentlemen, after the evidence which had been sworn before them, should act contrary to it."
That is a pretty severe and sweeping condemnation of a Bench. Judge Craig said—
"It was a disgrace to the administration of justice, and if the people who appointed such magistrates could only see them, they would be ashamed of themselves."
Similar remarks were made by the right rev. Prelate whom I quoted.
The noble Lord begged me to keep in mind the distinction between offences committed by these persons before and after their appointment as magistrates. I do not want in the least to rake up the old records of every gentleman who succeeds in finding his place on an Irish Bench of

847
magistrates, but I do say this, that when the record of a particular individual before his appointment is anything but a clean record, it becomes necessary to look with somewhat critical eye on his conduct after he has obtained a seat on the Bench, and in the case of certainly two of the persons referred to by Lord Mayo he was able to say that their conduct both before and after their appointment to the Bench had been of a kind which in the judgment of most people would render them very unfit indeed to administer justice. In particular there is the case of Mr. Sweeny, who was twice convicted before and twice after his appointment to the Bench. The noble Lord seemed to be under the impression that this gentleman was an ex officio magistrate.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: No; he was appointed on the recommendation of the Duke of Abercorn.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: In his case the story is a perfectly clear and simple one. There were two convictions before his appointment, of which I suppose the Lord Lieutenant was not aware, and there have been two convictions since. The fact that these two earlier convictions preceded the two which took place subsequently to his appointment seems to me to show the later offences should not have been condoned, and that the retention of Mr. Sweeny as an administrator of justice is not for the public interest. But I do not want to pass again in review these different cases. What I do wish to impress upon the House is that enough has been established to show that some inquiry into this question of the conduct of the Irish local magistrates is really necessary. We have had an inquiry dealing with the question of the magistracy in this country, and, as the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack knows, the question arose whether that inquiry should be extended to Ireland or not. The Prime Minister was interrogated on this point in the House of Commons, and when asked whether he would include Ireland in the inquiry, he said—
"No, sir, I think not. The Royal Commission announced by the Lord Chancellor is intended to deal with the question of the appointment of magistrates in England, Scotland, and Wales …When the inquiry has been concluded the Government will be glad to consider whether a similar inquiry should be held in the case of Ireland, where, I may add, the conditions differ somewhat from those in Great Britain."
848
Our point is that the time has come when that inquiry, of which a prospect was held out by the Prime Minister, might very well be instituted. The same point was referred to in the Report of the Royal Commission, in which the Commissioners stated, differing apparently somewhat from the Prime Minister, that the terms of their Commission would have enabled them to deal with the appointment of justices in Ireland. They added, however, that—
"It was called to our attention that the Prime Minister had stated in the House of Commons that the inquiry was not intended to include Ireland, which might be dealt with by an independent and further inquiry."
Surely such an inquiry would not be a very unreasonable one to make. The noble and learned Earl will, I hope, permit me to quote one sentence from his own evidence before the Royal Commission—
"The office of Justice of the Peace is one of great importance. It is necessary that Justices of the Peace should be men of independence, integrity, of good repute and good sense. It is not a question of social rank. What is required is that there should be general confidence in their capacity and impartiality and a personal respect for them on the part of those among whom they live."
I really would ask the noble and learned Earl, who has listened to these discussions, whether it is possible to believe that those who will attend these local Courts and who will have to go to these local Courts for justice can possibly entertain a feeling of general confidence in their capacity and impartiality and a personal respect for them so long as gentlemen of the type of Mr. Sweeny, Mr. O'Sullivan Mr. Scott, and Mr. Gilhooly are allowed to retain their places on the Bench. The matter is really one which demands further investigation, and I hope it will receive such investigation at the hands of His Majesty's Government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have very few words to say in answer to the appeal made to me by the noble Marquess. I quite agree that your object is to get on the Bench men who will be respected and whose decisions in judicial matters will be looked up to. I can assure your Lordships, from the experience of six years, that with the innumerable personal jealousies and constant difficulties that arise in connection with it, the duty is an extremely difficult one to discharge by any one who holds the office of Lord Chancellor in this country or in Ireland. All that can be done is to exercise the best discretion possible in the selection of

849
magistrates. It is still more difficult, sometimes to deal with cases of dismissal, because you are not always sure of your facts; and any one who has, as I have, to consider the question whether a man ought to continue a Justice of the Peace, especially where he has been elected by a public body to a position which makes him an ex officio magistrate and has not been nominated by the Lord Chancellor, has a very difficult task. He must be careful before he inflicts an irreparable stigma or disgrace upon a man whose offence may perhaps he inconsiderable. All I will say further on this subject is that I wholly decline to express any opinion as to the propriety of the conduct of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. I have no doubt that he has fully considered the facts. I cannot know or believe that I am in possession of all the facts that were laid before him, and it would be ungenerous and wrong in me to express in this case, especially in his absence, any criticism of his action in so delicate and difficult a matter.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I ended my speech with a Motion for Papers. I should like to know if we might have printed the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown with regard to the case of Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan. I was not quite clear as to what Lord Ashby St. Ledgers said upon this, and I should like to ask whether he means to say that the Lord Chancellor cannot remove an ex officio magistrate no matter what he may have done.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The view taken by successive Lord Chancellors of Ireland is that the Lord Chancellor cannot take into consideration anything which had been done by a man before he became an ex officio magistrate. Anything that the ex officio magistrate may do afterwards, of course, comes within the Lord Chancellor's purview. That was laid down by Lord Ashbourne in 1905, and it has been followed ever since. I really do not know what other course is open to the Lord Chancellor. The Act which creates these ex officio Justices of the Peace must have contemplated that in ninny cases the personal record of the individual would not bear investigation. Noble Lords opposite must have contemplated that when they passed the Act, and presumably it was the intention of Parliament that whatever the previous record of these gentlemen was they were to sit on the Bench.
THE EARL OF MAYO: The noble Lord said the Papers were very long and he gave us in his speech a summary of them. Might we have them printed, together with the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: It is not usual to print the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown, but I will consider that point.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I wish the noble Lord would explain one point which arises out of what he said a moment ago. I think he said that the Law Officers believed that the Lord Chancellor could not take into account anything done by an ex officio magistrate before he became an ex officio magistrate. Take the case of Mr. Gilhooly. He was au ex officio magistrate, and was removed from the Bench for having made a speech at Bantry in August, 1910. Is it the view of the Government that in a case of that kind the Lord Chancellor is precluded from taking into consideration other acts committed by the same person before his appointment to the magistracy?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: My Lords, it has been my fortune, unhappily, to have had more to do with the appointment of Irish magistrates than I think any other member of your Lordships' House, and I frankly admit that it is not that portion of the public duties which have been committed to me to which I look back with the liveliest satisfaction or pleasure, and I am sure that noble Lords opposite who had the same duty to perform of nominating magistrates to the Irish Benches are equally removed from any feeling of complacency on the matter. But I would point out to the noble Marquess that when I became Chief Secretary for the second time in 1892 it was necessary, if you wanted to present to the mind of Irishmen a desire on the part of the Government to have impartial and fair Benches, to make a large number of appointments to redress the amazing inequality which existed at that moment on the Irish Benches. How were they manned? It would be a bitter story to describe to the House how those Irish Benches were manned before we came into office in 1892. It was no more than common justice and common decency required that we should make a large number of appointments. If we had had

851
a wider choice, if the social conditions of Ireland had given us material for a wider choice, those appointments might have been different from what they were. I understand that my own humble name is associated with many of those magistrates who are obnoxious to some of the friends of the noble Marquess. That may be. But from the inquiries which I have been able to make during the intervening years I feel that on the whole justice has been as well and as impartially administered by the renovated Benches as it was under the old régime.
As to the noble Marquess's request for an inquiry, it may be right to have an inquiry into the question of magistrates in England, Scotland, and Wales, but in Ireland, where the social conditions are so uncertain and in many respects unsatisfactory, I for one would deprecate the appointment of any Commission or tribunal the object of which would be to rip open a number of circumstances in Ireland which it would be better to leave alone. It is no gain to a country in the condition of Ireland to set a roving inquiry on foot upon a matter so delicate and involving so many dangerous indirect issues as the administration of justice. I hope, therefore, that the noble Marquess will not persevere in his request for an inquiry. I do not think it would be expedient; it would serve no good purpose, and it might produce a great deal of mischief.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

THE WRECK OF THE "TITANIC."
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether it is in accordance with the customs of International Law and the usual practice that an inquiry should be held in a foreign country into the loss of a vessel sailing under the British flag which is shipwrecked on the high seas.

2. Whether the United States Government communicated with His Majesty's Government before instituting the inquiry into the disaster to the "Titanic"; and whether the Governments of any other Powers who had citizens amongst the passengers have notified their intention of holding an inquiry into the matter.

852

3. Whether the evidence given before the Committee in the United States will be admissible as evidence at the inquiry to be held in this country.

I see by this morning's papers that it was stated yesterday in another place in reply to a Question concerning the inquiry now being held at Washington, that this was the first occasion on which a foreign Government had held an inquiry into the loss of a ship sailing under the British flag. I think the House will desire to know whether the situation is in accord with the customs of international law, and, further whether His Majesty's Government were approached with regard to the inquiry now proceeding in America before it was actually instituted. A departure of such magnitude from the practice to which we have been accustomed is of vital importance, not only to British shipping companies, but still more to the officers and men on ships sailing under the British flag. If this inquiry is taken as a precedent it is very difficult to say where we shall end. If the United States Government have already approached the responsible Department in this country it is obvious that the question of precedent must already have been raised, and in that case no doubt the House will be able to get some information on the matter.
So far as I have been able to see, this inquiry at Washington had, perhaps, two grounds of justification. The first is that, the shipping company which owned the "Titanic" was not altogether a British company. I believe it is partly American in its management, and therefore an inquiry could be held by the country which was largely interested in the shipping concern. Obviously, if that decision is accepted it raises an extraordinary situation, because it strikes at the root of the whole question of the position of the Mercantile Marine in time of war. It is obvious that a shipping company which is under such dual management would, in time of war, promptly hoist the flag of the neutral Power if one of these Powers happened to be neutral and the other belligerent. That would raise the question, which would be difficult to deal with, as to whether the ship belonged to the neutral Power or the belligerent Power. The only other justification which might, be advanced for the inquiry in America is the terrible loss of life among American citizens. But if that is to hold good as a reason for this inquiry,

853
it is obvious that every other nation which had citizens on board the "Titanic," who unfortunately are no more, would be justified in holding an inquiry of a similar character. To put it shortly, I can imagine nothing more deplorable for the survivors of a great disaster than to be dragged about from one country to another attending inquiries and giving evidence of an experience so awful.
There is another point, and perhaps the most important point of all, and that is the one raised in lily third Question-namely, whether the evidence given before the Committee in the United States will be admissible as evidence at the inquiry to be held in this country. The feelings of the officers and men who have given evidence at the American inquiry are naturally worthy of great consideration; but far more important still is the result with regard to the evidence to be given at the official inquiry in this country. I believe that noble and learned Lords will agree that evidence given at a first inquiry is of far more value and is far more to be depended upon than evidence given at a later inquiry. There are obvious reasons for such a view. H the evidence given before the inquiry now being held in America is to be admissible at the official inquiry in this country, no doubt His Majesty's Government have made arrangements for an official transcript of that evidence to be made for the purpose of the inquiry to be held here. If the evidence is not to be held admissible, then the inquiry here will obviously be penalised by not being the first inquiry held into tins great disaster.
I do not wish to go into the question of whether the American inquiry was right or wrong. Fortunately, the relations between this country and the United States are so friendly that no international question can possibly arise. Our relations with the United States Government are friendly; our relations with the people of the United States are, perhaps, even more so. But undoubtedly there is a certain amount of feeling in this country in regard to the inquiry which is now being held. I do not think that feeling is strong. It has certainly not been as forcibly worded as if the situation had been reversed. Imagine that it had been an American ship which had been lost and that we were holding an inquiry here and detaining American
854
citizens from going back to their own inquiry and possibly asking for documents from United States shipping companies to be laid before our inquiry. In that case I think things would be said in the United States which every one in this country would be likely to regret. Moreover if the action of the United States is to be taken as a precedent by other Powers, we may get to a serious situation indeed. If our relations with another Power were strained, and if, alas, there were a similar accident, I think we should hold very strong views indeed if we found that our citizens were being detained in that country for an inquiry into the loss of a British ship purely and simply because a number of citizens of that other Power had been aboard. Though such a disaster as this draws the whole world together, still these matters, unless threshed out before the situation arises, do give points for friction. I have therefore put these Questions on the Paper not only to elucidate the present position, but also, if possible, to make clear what is to be our position in the future.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will not think me wanting in courtesy or good will if I rather wish to excuse myself as positively as I can from discussing to-day, even on the very threshold of such a discussion, a situation which is so clearly unripe. What may happen ultimately we do not know. I think the noble Earl is perfectly entitled to put down the Questions which he has put on the Paper. I have no complaint whatever to make of that. But I do contend that anything like a discussion this afternoon, here or another place, would be immature, could do no good, and might be prejudicial. The noble Earl asks, "Is there a right for another country to inquire into the circumstances of the wreck of a British ship on the high seas?" There is no doubt that any State may institute an inquiry about the wreck of a foreign vessel in which the lives of its own citizens have been lost, without any departure from international law, though we are not aware that any such case has arisen before. The answer to the second Question is simple. Communications have not been addressed to the Government of the United States, and no intimations or communications have been received from any other Powers by us. On the point of the admissibility of evidence, the Wreck Commissioner, Lord Mersey, in this country will be able to

855
receive any information that he thinks will be useful, and will attach to it whatever weight he thinks it deserves, quite independently of what may have happened anywhere else. No doubt he will get all the most direct evidence that he can obtain in the regular course. But the inquiry that Lord Mersey undertakes is different from a trial between parties, and the rules of evidence applicable to litigation are not necessarily adhered to in an inquiry of this kind. As to the detention of witnesses, compelling witnesses to attend, and, maybe, detaining them, powers of that kind, as I am advised, exist in most countries. It is obvious that such powers, existing as they do, should be exercised with full consideration for the witnesses themselves, and also for the necessities of any inquiry at home. We cannot and do not, and I am sure the noble Earl does not, suppose that the Committee of the Senate will overlook the necessity for regard for these fair and reasonable considerations.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I was glad to hear the noble Viscount admit that my noble friend was justified in putting these Questions on the Paper. They relate to matters which are engaging a great amount of public attention at this moment, and they are matters with regard to which much anxiety is felt in many quarters. I feel sure that my noble friend will not disregard the appeal made to him by the noble Viscount and that he will not press more than is necessary his demand for fuller information. It seems, of course, to most people unusual and not in accordance with precedent that a ship sailing under the British flag and wrecked in mid-ocean should be made the subject of an inquiry of this kind by a foreign Power; but, on the other hand, we have to remember that the circumstances of this case are. I think I am justified in saying, wholly unparalleled both as regards the magnitude of the tragedy and the moving incidents by which it was accompanied. In these circumstances it is, perhaps, not a matter for surprise that public opinion in the United States should have been deeply stirred, and should have insisted upon some such inquiry as that which is now in progress.
I do not think it would be quite correct to say, as my noble friend apparently suggested, that other foreign Powers stand
856
with regard to this question where we-stand. I do not think it can be said that any foreign Power is interested in this deplorable episode in the way in which this country and the United States are interested. There is another consideration which occurs to one—it occurred, I think, to my noble friend—and that is that it was not unnatural that public opinion in America should insist upon a prompt inquiry into the loss of the "Titanic," for it is clear that there is a better chance of obtaining trustworthy evidence while the events are still recent and while the vivid impressions of this lamentable occurrence are still freshly impressed upon the minds of those who were involved. With regard to the noble Viscount's statement that no diplomatic communication has been made to the Government of the United States—
VISCOUNT MORLEY: May I just say that this is not a Government inquiry, but an inquiry by the Senate. The Executive Government have, I think, nothing whatever to do with it.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am well aware of the fact that the Senate is a body which claims for itself very great independence of the Executive Government, and I do not, of course, suggest for a moment that representations should be made to the Senate. But it was stated in the House of Commons last night by the representative of His Majesty's Government that they were considering whether any diplomatic representations should be made, and it does seem to me that such communications may become necessary to this extent, at all events, that possibly British subjects who have to appear before the Senate Committee may need a certain amount of advice and assistance. I will go a little further and say that I trust it may be so arranged that the proceedings on the other side of the Atlantic will not be of a kind which will interfere with the proceedings which will have to take place on this side of the Atlantic under circumstances which to most of us suggest that the proceedings here will be more regular in form and more satisfactory in substance than those which are going on at Washington. But, my Lords, although difficulties may arise in connection with this question, I feel, as I think my noble friend feels, that public opinion on both sides of the

857
Atlantic is sound upon this question, and that on neither side will that public opinion allow two countries connected, as we and the United States are, by the closest ties and also, in this case, by a common sorrow, to fail in their obligations either to the living or to the dead owing to any mere technicalities of international procedure or etiquette.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Viscount on the Front Bench a further Question on this subject. The noble Earl on the other side of the House, in putting these Questions, stated that British subjects had been "detained" in the United States for the purposes of this inquiry. I take it that the word "detained" in this kind of case would usually mean detained by some process of law. I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether, as a matter of fact, that is so. From a perusal of the reports in the newspapers I gather that the Committee of the Senate had detained these individuals by a statement that if they had not got a legal right to detain them they had a right to do so as the people who owned the harbours. I believe that was the exact expression used. I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether, as a matter of fact, any British subjects have, against their will, been detained in the United States for the purpose of this inquiry. I concur with the sentiment expressed by the noble Marquess that no attempt to get at the facts of this wholly deplorable matter should be hampered by technicalities, but I think it is vital to remember that the "Titanic" was only technically a British ship. She sailed, it is true, under the British flag, but to the best of my belief the company that owned her is entirely and absolutely controlled by an American corporation. The American Shipping Trust undoubtedly owns and controls this Line and can do exactly what it likes with it, although technically it is a British company and flies the British flag. It seems to me that although the "Titanic" flew the British flag, that is a technicality which ought not unduly to weigh with us when we know that it was owned by a foreign company. I
858
cannot help hoping that as the result of the inquiry which is to be held in this country there may be an agreement between the nations of the world that the state of things under which a ship is technically owned in one country and controlled in another should no longer exist, but that the flag and ownership should go together.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, there are one or two observations that I should have liked to make on this occasion, but after what the noble Viscount has said as to the inappropriateness of at this moment interfering, I abstain from doing so. The national character of a ship is by no means a technicality. It is a matter of supreme importance, and a supposed jurisdiction of all the world would be absolutely intolerable. I do not want to enter into a discussion of the matter after what the noble Viscount has said. I feel it cannot do any good, and it might do some mischief.
VISCOUNT MORL: I am sure my noble friend behind me (Lord St. Davids) does not expect me to follow him into the large and serious questions with which he dealt. But in reply to the question which the noble Lord put to me, all I can say is that we are in communication naturally with our Ambassador, and up to to-day, or at all events yesterday, our Ambassador has received no appeal from any British subject desiring protection against detention, arrest, or anything else. That is the extent of our knowledge.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: My Lords, there being no business on the Paper for Monday, I beg to move that the House do adjourn until Tuesday next.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Six o'clock, to Tuesday next, half-past Two o'clock.