Lords Sitting of 6 February 1913

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
Part II Unemployment Insurance—The Special Exclusion (Dredgerman, &c.) Order, 1913, made by the Board of Trade under Part II of the National Insurance Act, 1911: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 207.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I venture to ask the noble Marquess opposite a question with regard to the order of business for Monday next. Upon the Paper on your Lordships' Table it appears that the Established Church (Wales) Bill is to be taken on Monday. We were most of us under the impression that on Monday a Motion that stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Midleton was to be taken first, and I am given to understand that the statement that the Welsh Church Bill is to be taken on that day is due to an inadvertence. If so, an announcement from the noble Marquess would probably relieve people's minds.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): In reply to the noble Marquess, I can say that it is quite true that the notice which appears on the Paper which was circulated to your Lordships this morning is incorrect, owing, no doubt, to a clerical error. The arrangement by which the Established Church (Wales) Bill is to be taken on Tuesday still holds good.

PILOTAGE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next (The Earl Beauchamp). (No. 206.)

CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT ABROAD) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): My Lords, this is a small Bill dealing with the employment of children abroad. It can be very fairly said that it only supplements the Acts for the protection of children and young persons
868
which are already in existence as far as children employed in this country are concerned. But it is a somewhat remarkable fact that if children and young persons are sent across the Channel there is not the slightest protection for them. No Statute regulates their employment abroad, the result being that children and young persons are sent out of this country with a view to singing, playing, performing, or being exhibited, for profit without any restriction whatever being imposed. This Bill absolutely prohibits any child being sent abroad for such employment as I have mentioned, whilst young persons can only be sent out of the country if a licence is obtained beforehand from a Metropolitan Police Magistrate sitting at Bow Street. A "child" is defined under the Act of 1908 as a child up to the age of 14, and a "young person" is defined as a person between the ages of 14 and 16.
I think your Lordships will see that there must be a great many reasons why it is undesirable that a child should be taken away from the protection of its parents or guardians and sent out of this country for employment abroad for profit by some contractor who cannot be looked after in a foreign country. Then, again, the taking of a child out of the country in this way nullifies the Education Act. Under one of these contracts a child of six, seven, or eight years of age can at the present time be sent abroad with no protection whatever, and with the possibility, indeed I may say the probability, that the child will receive no education at all, or certainly not the kind of education which it would receive in this country. Therefore at the present moment it is quite possible in this way to nullify the provisions of the Education Act as applied to English children if they are sent out of the country. The state of things in France and other countries is undoubtedly detrimental to the health of children, who are employed for excessive hours abroad. I am informed that the performances are two a day, and that the night performances as a rule continue until midnight or one o'clock in the morning. Your Lordships will see that that state of things must be detrimental to the health of the children. It is not allowed in this country, and if English children are protected here surely it is our duty to see that they are equally protected abroad.
The information which has been collected for some years at the Home Office shows that as regards food and lodging a great

869
deal is to be desired. In many cases children sent abroad in this way have not sufficient food provided for them, and the lodgings are of the worst description, the children being herded together under bad conditions both sanitary and morally. We find that in many cases children taken abroad under these contracts are actually deserted and found on the streets of Continental cities, and our English Consuls have actually to send them back here at the expense of the country. There is another matter which requires remedying. When once these children are abroad the contractor is able to transfer them under his contract to another contractor, and I am informed that there are not a few cases in which parents have entirely lost sight of their children because they have gone out of the hands of the original man who employed them into the hands of other persons unknown to the parents. As regards children, we propose in this Bill, as I have already explained, that they shall not be allowed to proceed abroad with a view to their being employed in singing, playing, performing, or being exhibited, for profit.
Then there arises the question of young persons. A great many of the objections which I have enumerated apply also to young persons; yet it will be admitted to be undesirable to entirely prohibit young persons from going abroad to earn their living. On the other hand, it is necessary that there should be a limit placed upon their employment abroad, and therefore we propose in this Bill that no young person—that is, no one between the ages of 14 and 16—should be allowed to go abroad for employment in singing, playing, performing, or being exhibited, for profit unless a licence is first obtained from a Metropolitan Police Magistrate sitting at the Police Court in Bow Street. That licence will have to be obtained from the magistrate under regulations made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and those regulations and the instructions issued by the Police magistrate under the regulations will provide, not only for the proper treatment of the young person abroad, but also for its safe return to its parents or guardians. There is strong English opinion in Paris that it is desirable that there should be these regulations. A petition was presented to the Home Secretary only last Jute, signed by, among others, the Bishop of London,
870
the Bishops of North and Central Europe, the Chaplain of the British Embassy in Paris, and by the leader of the Salvation Army in Paris asking that a Bill of this description should be passed by Parliament.
The first clause of the Bill provides that if any person causes or procures any child or young person, or having the custody, charge, or care of any such child or young person, allows such child or young person to go out of the United Kingdom for the purpose of singing, playing, performing, or being exhibited, for profit, that person shall, unless, in the case of a young person, such a licence as is herein-after mentioned has been granted, be guilty of an offence. Clause 2 provides that a Police magistrate may grant a licence in such form as the Secretary of State may prescribe and subject to such regulations and conditions as the Police magistrate thinks fit. That gives complete discretion, not only to the Secretary of State, but also to the Police magistrate to enforce such regulations as are provided for the protection of the young person. It is further enacted that a licence under this clause shall not be granted for more than three months, but may be renewed by a Police magistrate from time to time for a like period. I am sure your Lordships will recognise that it is desirable that there should not be a licence for all time. Further, the Police magistrate to whom application is made for the granting or renewal of the licence may require the applicant to give security. This is necessary to enable the regulations to be enforced.
There is another important provision in the last subsection of Clause 2, which provides that particulars of the licence shall be sent to the Consuls in the cities in which the children are to be employed, and those Consuls will have to keep a register of the children so employed. Clause 3 endeavours to provide for children who are already abroad. The difficulty there is that these children are really out of the power of Parliament, but we think it desirable to put in this clause showing that it is desired that these children shall be returned as soon as possible to this country under proper conditions. What we also do is this. We impose the obligation on the people who have sent them out that they should endeavour to get them back again. If they apply again to send children abroad and have not complied with this desire on the part of the Home Office that the children already abroad should be brought

871
back to this country, it will be in the power of the Secretary of State to refuse to grant any further licences to such contractors. Clause 4 deals with the question of penalties, and provides that a person guilty of an offence against this Bill shall on summary conviction be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to a fine not exceeding £100, or alternatively or in default of payment of such fine, or in addition thereto, to imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding three months. I have now explained the main provisions of the Bill. I venture to hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading to-day, and that it may have a speedy course through your Lordships' House. I can assure the House that a measure of this kind has been too long delayed—it is six years now since the Home Office was asked to deal with the matter—and that the sooner children who are serving under contract abroad are protected the better. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should like to say a single word of warm welcome to the proposal of His Majesty's Government to legislate on this matter. It is somewhat humiliating to have to confess that at this stage of our progress and our life a Bill of this kind should be necessary, but I think no one who has worked long or has wide experience of the work in the poorest parts of our great cities, not London alone but other great cities, can have failed to recognise that there is a definite danger of the kind which the noble Lord has described, especially amongst that class of the population which is on the borderland between being citizens of England and being foreigners—the children of mixed parentage, and so on. It is in those groups of the population that this difficulty has been found to exist as a real one. Children disappear and no one quite knows what has become of them, and it turns out afterwards that they have been exploited and used in the way described. That the evil is on a gigantic scale I do not believe, but that it is a real one is indisputable. The Bill does not go too far while I hope it goes quite far enough to render the existence of a wrong of this kind difficult if not impossible, and I for one, as regards its Second Reading, will give the Bill my most cordial support.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill what the Government precisely intend as to its fortunes in the present session of Parliament. It is rather late, perhaps, to introduce a Bill of this kind. Better late than never. But still I do see a little difficulty unless the Government have some special method in their mind of getting this Bill through Parliament in the present session. The Bill is very much required. I have made some little inquiry into the matter, and I am informed, upon an estimate made by a man who is in a position to know, that there may be probably some 500 English girls at this moment engaged in performing at these places abroad under very low conditions in most cases. Indeed, the responsible man who approached me on this subject did not approach me with a view to saving these girls in respect of their education, to which subject the noble Lord referred, or in respect to their health, but entirely in respect of the moral surroundings into which they are plunged in a large number of cases by the negligence of our law to provide for them. The information at my disposal contains the phrase that the surroundings in which they are placed are "positively awful," and though, of course, I have no means of verifying all that is said I think the man who informed me is a responsible man whose word can be accepted for what he vouches. There is no doubt, therefore, that a remedy is called for.
I should like to put one or two questions to the noble Lord with respect to the provisions of the Bill. In the first place, I should like to know what provision there is at the present time in the law in respect of the County of London. I believe there is some sort of provision. I think an agent in London who takes children and young persons abroad for these purposes has to be registered. I should like the Government to inform your Lordships what protection such registration actually affords. I gather that it does not go near far enough. The next question I wish to ask is this. Why is the power to give licences under this Bill confined to London Police magistrates? I am quite sure that these particular proceedings which the Bill is intended to regulate do not exist merely in London. I am informed

873
that there are other large cities in which girls are collected for the purpose of Glancing saloons abroad. Is it intended by the Government that such young persons are not to be exported from any port except London, or only at any rate after authority for their exportation has been given by a London Police magistrate? I should have thought that was rather an unwieldy provision having regard to the circumstances of the United Kingdom.
Another question is with respect to subsection (4) of Clause 2. That appears to me to be the most valuable subsection in the Bill—the subsection under which a Police magistrate is given power to bind over the licensee in a substantial sum to bring home again these young persons after a certain interval. I notice that this is only permissive. I should have been happier if it had been compulsory in every case that where a licence is granted it should only be granted subject to the individual being bound over in the sum contemplated. That would appear to be a more complete provision and requisite in every case. It would not injure the man in any way if the children were returned to this country, and yet it is the most effective of all measures for seeing that this particular provision is carried out. In that respect I do not think His Majesty's Government have gone quite far enough. But when I come to Clause 3 I am somewhat doubtful whether they have not gone a little too far. I think it difficult to apply the law in cases where children and young persons have been taken out of the country before the passage of this Bill. I do not say that in the vast majority of cases it may not work satisfactorily, but I can conceive a number of hard cases where children have been exported for purposes to which your Lordships would not object, but yet with no knowledge on the part of the persons taking them abroad that such an Act as this would be passed. It might be hard in some cases that the drastic provisions of this Bill should be applied to these persons ex post facto, and I have some doubt whether that provision is legitimate. But the main scheme of the Bill, the scheme under which these young persons are not to be exported without permission, appears to me thoroughly good. I understand that in the case of children below the age of fourteen the practice of taking
874
them abroad for these purposes is absolutely prohibited.
LORD STRACHIE: Yes.
Tim MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am glad to hear that, and I welcome the provision that no young person between the ages of fourteen and sixteen is to be allowed to be exported for this purpose except under a licence and subject to recognisances. I hope the Government will be able, after due consideration has been given to it by your Lordships' House and by the other House of Parliament, to pass this Bill into law, but I have little doubt whether that is possible in the course of the present session. If not, I should be glad to have an assurance from the noble Lord that the Bill will be reintroduced at the earliest possible moment next session.
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Marquess first asked whether we thought that this Bill would pass through the House of Commons during the present session. It is, of course, difficult for me to say what is likely to happen in another place, but a great deal depends upon whether or not the Bill has a speedy passage through your Lordships' House. If any considerable time is taken over it, or perhaps even if it is amended at all, there might be difficulties as regards time in another place; but I can at once give the noble Marquess the assurance for which he asks, that if, owing to delay in this House, the Bill is unable to get to the other House in time to become law this session the Government will re-introduce it next session. As regards the question of registration, to which the noble Marquess referred, I was not aware that there was registration at the present moment, but whether there is or not it has not had the slightest effect and is perfectly valueless for the objects which this Bill seeks to attain.
Then the noble Marquess asked why these licences should be granted only by a Metropolitan Police magistrate sitting at Bow Street Police Court. My answer is that it seemed to us desirable to have uniformity in this matter. If you had Police magistrates all over the country acting in regard to this, you would be sure to have diversity of opinion. But the

875
strongest argument for limiting it to London is that for all practical purposes these children are sent out from London. I should think the cases would be infinitesimal where they are sent out from any port except the Port of London and from London itself. As to the option given to the magistrate as regards the regulations he makes, I think this is a case where we may very fairly trust them when these cases are being dealt with by one authority. The magistrates at Bow Street Police Court are always men of great discretion and knowledge, and I think we may trust them as to whether or not they think it necessary to impose obligations upon the licensee. Of course, cases may arise which we should not think of at the present moment where it would be harmful to impose any obligations. I think this is one of those cases which may fairly be left to the discretion of the Metropolitan Police magistrate.
The noble Marquess next referred to Clause 3, which imposes an obligation to bring back children who were taken out of the United Kingdom before the date at which this Bill comes into operation. That to a certain extent is only a pious opinion, because there is no power of enforcing the contractor to bring the children back in those cases. The only power we have is to say to these men, If you behave badly and if you have not brought these children back, or if you have brought them back in a bad condition, we will not trust you in the future. It is only right that there should be power vested in the Home Office and in the magistrates to say that there shall be no licence granted in the future in the case of people who have behaved badly in the past.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

BETTING INDUCEMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MARKET GARDENERS COMPENSATION (No. 3) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

THE TERRITORIAL FORCE.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Lord who represents the War Office the Questions standing on the Paper in my name—viz.:
The number of recruits in the Territorial Force on the 1st January last who have been tested in musketry during the musketry year 1911–1912, and the number not yet tested.
The number of recruits who, in accordance with Territorial Force Regulations, 1912, paragraph 361, sub-paragraph (3), were not considered competent to fire on an open range during their first year.
The number of recruits who have—

(a) Qualified in the whole recruit course;

(b) The number who have failed to qualify;

(c) The number who did not complete the course;

(d)The number who have completed the recruits' course but have not fired the trained men's course;

(e)The number of recruits who have fired Table A or part of Table A on a 30-yards range;

(f) The number of recruits who have fired their standard test on a 30-yards range.

The number of trained non-commissioned officers and men of the Territorial Force who have been tested in musketry during the musketry year 1911–1912.
The number who have—

(a) Qualified in the standard test;

(b) Failed to qualify;

(c) Did not complete their course;

(d) The number of trained men who have fired their instructional practice, Part I, on a 30-yards range;

(e)The number of trained men who have fired their standard test on a 30-yards range.

The number of trained non-commissioned officers and men of the Territorial Force who did not fire the musketry course in 1911–1912.
The number of non-commissioned officers and men who have in accordance with Territorial Force Regulations, 1912, paragraph 361, been certified as qualified by their commanding officers in musketry by reason of having fired fifty rounds of ball ammunition or their equivalent.
The number of rounds of ball ammunition that has been commuted by units of the Territorial Force into Morris tube in accordance with Territorial Force Regulations, 1912, paragraph 361.
The number of officers, non-commissioned officers and men in the Territorial Force according to establishment who are not required to undergo any musketry training at all, and the number serving on the 1st January last.
The establishment of officers for the Territorial Army and the number serving on the 1st January, 1913.
The number of recruit officers who have during 1912 qualified in the—

(a) Musketry course;

(b) Failed to qualify;

(c) Failed to complete the recruit officers course;

(d) Not yet commenced the recruit officers course;

(e) Not required to undergo a musketry course.

The number of trained officers who have during 1912 qualified in the—

(a) Musketry course;

(b) Failed to qualify;

(c) Failed to complete the annual course;

(d) Not required to undergo a musketry course.

The number of officers of the Territorial Force who have attended a musketry course during 1912 (voluntary) at the School of Musketry, Hythe, in accordance with Appendix 6, Territorial Force Regulations, 1912.
The number of non-commissioned officers and men of the Territorial Force who have attended a musketry course during 1912 (voluntary) at the School of Musketry, Hythe, in accordance with Appendix 6, Territorial Force Regulations, 1912.
The strength of the Territorial Force Reserve, non-commissioned officers and men on the 1st January, 1913.
The number of officers, non-commissioned officers and men in the Territorial Force who are under obligation to serve abroad on mobilisation.
The number of non-commissioned officers and men at present serving in the Territorial Force on a one year's engagement.
The number of non-commissioned officers and men who have re-engaged to serve for a second period oil four years on completion of their first full term of four years.
The number of officers and men in the National Reserve less than fifty-five years of age.
In event of mobilisation of the National Reserve, what percentage should be allowed for unfitness.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, may I before answering the noble Duke's Questions venture to make yet one further appeal to him. On the last occasion on which he addressed your Lordships' House he gave his reasons for not being able to accept the invitation extended to him by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to come to the War Office. He said—
"My reason is that wish to remain absolutely without knowledge of the secrets of mobilisation."
I cannot help feeling that the noble Duke has, perhaps, painted a picture in his mind of himself decoyed into some remote portion of the War Office building and there forcibly detained while masses of mobilisation secrets are poured into his unwilling ear. I can assure him that this picture is quite imaginary, and that if he did see his way to come to the War Office all that would happen would be that he would get information of a much more complete and satisfactory character than it is possible to give across the floor of your Lordships' House. I would therefore venture once more to urge the noble Duke to reconsider his decision, in his own interests and also perhaps in the interests of your Lordships, who I feel must be rather weary of listening to the avalanches of figures which pour from time to time across the floor of your Lordships' House. And also I would appeal to him in the interests of the public, and for this reason. When a large number of Questions are asked and when the answers to those Questions contain a large number of figures, it is inevitable that the report of the proceedings in your Lordships' House which appears in the daily Press is of a very condensed and abridged description. It is equally inevitable that, in the course of condensing these questions and answers, a certain number of errors, some perhaps of a minor kind but others of serious importance, creep into the report. I think the noble Duke himself realises this, because frequently after a discussion in this House he writes a

879
letter to the Press in which he emphasises his point of view. He did so on the last occasion, and in his letter then he wrote—
"I would therefore ask you to publish the figures as they appear on the Paper of the House, so that the whole and not merely the half of the case may be before the public."
I entirely sympathise with the noble Duke, and I also am very anxious that the whole and not merely the half of the case should be before the public. I would therefore venture once more to make this appeal to him, and if he does reconsider his decision in this matter I can only say that as far as I am concerned I shall be only too happy to render him any possible assistance.
I now turn to the Questions on the Paper, and I may say with regard to them that as the only musketry returns which we have are calculated up to the end of the musketry year, which is September 30, I shall have to give the figures to October 1, except where otherwise specified. The number of recruits who have been tested in musketry during the musketry year is 53,783, and the number not tested 6,997. I cannot give the information asked for in the next Question, because the only figures which we have are a combination of sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of Paragraph 361 of the Territorial Force Regulations—that is to say, "qualified by attendance." The number qualified by attendance is 11,717. The number of recruits who have qualified in the whole recruit course is 40,581; the number who have failed to qualify is 13,202; the number who did not complete the course is 6,997. The recruits' course and the trained men's course are not allowed to be fired in the same musketry year. Consequently the men who are shown in my answer to paragraph (a) of this Question will be eligible to fire as trained men in the musketry year 1912–13. I will take first of all paragraph (f) before I take paragraph (e) of the noble Duke's Question. The recruits' standard test cannot be fired on a 30-yards range; it is carried out on 100, 200, and 500-yards ranges respectively. The information asked for in paragraph (e) is not available. We have no information, because unless the recruits pass the standard test the only information which we subsequently have is of the number of recruits who are sent up by the commanding officers as having qualified in accordance with sub-paragraphs (2) or (3) of Paragraph 361 of the Territorial Force Regulations. The number of trained men tested is 124,015. Of these, 112,929 qualified in the standard test, and 11,086
880
failed to qualify. 5,251 did not complete the course. Here, again, with regard to paragraphs (d) and (e) in the noble Duke's Question, the answers are really the same as to paragraphs (e) and (f) in the preceding Question. The trained men's standard test cannot be fired on a 30-yards range, but must be carried out on 100, 200, and 500 yards ranges respectively. We have no information as to paragraph (d).
Next the noble Duke asks for the number of trained men who did not fire the standard test. The number is 5,251. The number of men qualified in accordance with the Territorial Force Regulations, Paragraph 361, sub-paragraphs (2) and (3), was—Recruits, 11,717; trained men, 10,193; total, 21,910. I fear we have no information available in reply to the next Question. Indeed, it would be a very difficult Question to answer—that is to say, the information would be very difficult to get because it would necessitate an enormous amount of clerical work and sending round to all commanding officers. The reply to the next Question is—Establishment, 78,655; strength, 65,646. The establishment of officers of the Territorial Army is 11,242, and the strength 9,294. These last figures I may say are exclusive of the 717 Royal Army Medical Corps officers of general hospitals and sanitary service only available on mobilisation, and 1,087 officers of the Officers Training Corps and officers on the unattached list. Officers are included in the figures which I have given in regard to recruits and trained men respectively, and we have no return showing them separately.
The only qualifying rifle courses for the Territorial Force held at the School of Musketry, Hythe, during 1912 were advanced courses. These courses are for selected officers who have previously qualified at a local course of musketry. Qualification entitles an officer to the symbol "H" after his name in the Army List. 35 officers attended; I failed. The following numbers of officers attended qualifying maxim gun courses—Yeomanry, 4; Infantry, 15. Of these, 1 Yeomanry and 2 Infantry officers failed to qualify, whilst 1 Yeomanry officer remained for 14 days only and was not examined. The following numbers of officers attended refresher courses—Refresher rifle courses: Yeomanry, 2; Infantry, 29. Refresher maxim courses: Yeomanry, 2; Infantry, 5. In addition to the above, 256 officers attended local courses of musketry in commands; of

881
these, 12 failed to qualify. 6 Yeomanry and 30 Infantry non-commissioned officers attended the qualifying rifle course, and 4 Yeomanry and 9 infantry non-commissioned officers attended qualifying maxim gun courses. 2 non-commissioned officers of the Yeomanry and 13 of the Infantry failed to qualify at the rifle course, and 1 Yeomanry and 1 Infantry failed in the maxim gun course. The following numbers of non-commissioned officers atsended refresher courses—Refresher rifle courses; Yeomanry, 2; Infantry, 8. Refresher maxim course: Infantry, 4; Yeomanry, nil. In addition to the above 58 noncommissioned officers attended local courses of musketry in commands. Non-commissioned officers are not examined at these local courses.
The strength of the Territorial Force Reserve in non-commissioned officers and men on January 1, 1913, was 884. The dumber of officers, non-commissioned officers and men in the Territorial Force who are under obligation to serve abroad on mobilisation is—Officers, 1,152; non-commissioned officers and men, 18,903. The number who re-engaged for one year between January 1, 1912, and January 1, 1013, was 31,518. With regard to the next Question, I am afraid the number is not available. The Force was four years old on April 1 last year, and between that date and January 1 of this year 2,752 men re-engaged for a four years term. The total number re-engaged for a four years term for the whole year ended January 1, 1913, was 4,769, and as men may re-engage before the expiration of their current engagement probably many of those re-engaging between January 1, 1912, and April 1, 1912, were men who were due to complete four years after April 1, 1912. The number of officers and men in the National Reserve under fiftyfive years of age is 157,605. There is no intention of mobilising the National Reserve as such, and therefore no general percentage of men unfit on mobilisation can be calculated.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: In view of the debate on Monday next I should like to ask whether the noble Lord would be able to circulate these interesting figures before that debate comes on.
LORD HERSCHELL: I am not sure whether I could undertake that the figures could be circulated before Monday morning next, but I will do my best to comply with the noble Viscount's request.

FISHERY POACHING IN IRELAND.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I rise to draw attention to the persistent remission of poaching fines in fishery cases by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and to move for the following Return—

1. Fines inflicted on offenders against the fishery laws during the last three years.

2. Where the Lord Lieutenant remitted such fines where there was a previous conviction or convictions against the offenders.

3. Where the Lord Lieutenant remitted such fines when the magistrates adjudicating did not recommend reductions.

This is not the first time that I have drawn your Lordships' attention to this matter, and on the last occasion some years ago when I raised it I received an unsatisfactory answer to say the least of it. But this has now become almost a scandal, because the Lord Lieutenant persistently remits fines when there have been previous convictions against the offenders and even when the magistrates adjudicating do not recommend reductions. This practice, as your Lordships will readily see, is rendering the administration of the fishery laws in Ireland almost impossible and bringing the whole matter into disrepute, and is very discouraging to the magistrates and to the local conservators who are doing their best by means of their bailiffs to get convictions against poachers.
I have in my hand a summary of returns, covering in most cases a period of five years received from boards of conservators of fisheries in Ireland showing the amount of fines inflicted upon offenders under the fishery laws which were memorialed against and the amount such fines were reduced to by the Lord Lieutenant. The reductions were opposed in nearly every instance by the conservators, though in a few cases where there were extenuating circumstances they recommended reductions. In Dublin, Wexford, Waterford, Lismore, and Cork the reductions were opposed in all cases by the conservators. In the case of Waterford the fines during the five years which were memorialed against amounted to £460 10 s.; these fines were reduced to £151 77 s. 8d. In Cork the lines amounted to £366, and were reduced to £55. The fines in the five years in Limerick amounted to £366, and these were reduced to £71 4s. 6d. The return in respect of Coleraine is for two

883
and a-half years only, and here fines amounting to £559 10 s. were reduced to £151 13 s. 6d., although the reductions were opposed in almost all cases. What it comes to really is that the Lord Lieutenant takes sides with the convicted poachers.
I am not interested in any way in a salmon fishery, nor have I any fishing rights over any salmon river. Therefore I do not raise this matter from any personal point of view. But I am a conservator of the Dublin district, and I am calling attention to this persistent remission of poaching fines at the request of a conference of fishery conservators in Ireland. It has been suggested that it would be much fairer if appeals in these cases could be heard by the County Court Judge sitting alone. I know I shall be at once met by the objection that this would be an interference with the prerogative of the Lord Lieutenant. I was met by that objection in Lord Cadogan's time. But I submit that the County Court Judge would sit in the district and be able to hear the whole of the circumstances of each case. The Lord Lieutenant in Dublin, on the other hand, has to be advised by the Law Officers of the Crown, who, may I say, know nothing whatever of the local bearings of the various cases. I venture to say that the practice of remitting fines on offenders who have been previously convicted reduces the whole procedure to an absurdity. I think the idea of bringing in the County Court Judge a good one. At all events, may we hope that the Lord Lieutenant will moderate his zeal in remitting fines. If less kindness were shown to poachers it would be better for all, because these poachers often take the spawning salmon out of the streams, thereby doing an immense amount of harm.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return showing (1) Fines inflicted on offenders against the fishery laws during the last three years; (2) Where the Lord Lieutenant remitted such fines there having been a previous conviction or convictions against the offenders; (3) Where the Lord Lieutenant remitted such fines when the magistrates adjudicating did not recommend reductions.—(The Earl of Mayo.)
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, this is, as the noble Earl reminded you, not the first time that this question has been before your Lordships' House. Indeed there was a debate in 1903 on
884
the subject when the whole matter was gone into rather exhaustively. I shall have something to quote from that debate a little later on. But first let me say that we fully recognise the importance of maintaining a firm administration of the fishery laws in Ireland, but the fact of the matter is that the fishery code enjoys a peculiarity in so far as it fixes, not a maximum fine which is to be imposed, but a minimum fine. That is very unusual, and I think the noble Earl will admit that it would have been very much better if this minimum had never existed in the code, for this reason. Magistrates have no option on conviction but to impose the minimum fine. They do so knowing that this fine is subject to appeal to the Lord Lieutenant and very often subject to reduction. What would be the state of affairs supposing the Lord Lieutenant as a matter of practice did not diminish these fines? I think that in many cases the magistrates would fail to convict altogether. They would feel that the fine was much greater than the necessities of the case involved, and in many cases, sooner than impose what they would regard as a grossly excessive fine, they would fail to convict altogether. The fact of the matter is that this discretionary power in the Lord Lieutenant is really important in making the Act effective and operative. The noble Earl asked, why not have another authority. He challenged the present authority, and thought the Lord Lieutenant was not the right person to exercise discretionary power.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I did not say that.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: As a matter of fact, the Lord Lieutenant cannot divest himself of the responsibility connected with his prerogative of mercy. I may tell the noble Earl that the Lord Lieutenant goes into these cases very carefully. Before coining to a decision he consults, I am told, the magistrates who had convicted, the conservators who were responsible for the proceedings, and the local constabulary. I do not think the noble Earl suggests that the Lord Lieutenant does not realise what his responsibility is, or that he does not take sufficient pains to come to a proper decision in each case.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Does the noble Lord suggest that all these parties are brought up to Dublin Castle to be examined by the Lord Lieutenant?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I did not say that; but the Lord Lieutenant, I am told, enters into communication with the magistrates, the conservators, and the local constabulary in every case before coming to a decision. He never acts without the fullest inquiry into the case. With regard to the Return for which the noble Earl has asked, it would be possible to give him a Return showing the number of fines inflicted on offenders during the last three years; that could be ascertained, but the noble Earl will see that it would involve reference to all the local Courts, some 600 in number, and it would involve a considerable amount of work. The same thing applies to cases where a previous conviction or convictions against offenders have existed. That also could be ascertained with some trouble, but I really hope the noble Earl will not press us to give him this Return. He seems to possess the gist of the information himself, and he can give it to your Lordships' House. I suggest to him that it would be hardly worth while putting the officials to all this trouble for the purpose of getting the exact figures. Therefore I hope he will not press Nos. 1 and 2 of his Motion.
But when we come to No. 3 of the Motion—a Return showing where the Lord Lieutenant remitted such fines when the magistrates adjudicating did not recommend reductions—there I think he will see that it is quite impossible to give him the Return. There is no sort of precedent for challenging, or, indeed, inquiring into, the exact way in which in each case the Lord Lieutenant in the exercise of his prerogative came to his decision. The exercise of the prerogative of mercy is a duty which is cast upon various high officers of State, and there is no precedent for giving, and we could not possibly give, the reasons upon which those officers acted in the particular cases. I am rather fortified in taking that view, because when I look back to the debate which took place in 1903 I find that a similar Motion was made by Lord Ardilaun; and Lord Ashbourne, in replying, said it would be quite impossible to give the Return. He said—
"It asks for the number of cases and the amounts involved, but nothing would be more misleading without the reasons that were operating on the Lord Lieutenant, and it would be quite impossible to give those reasons. The Lord Lieutenant goes into the cases with great care. The reports of the magistrates are fully considered and everything is weighed and balanced before a decision is arrived at. Without indicating what are the reasons, which it would be impossible to give, the Return would be most misleading."
That is my answer to the noble Earl on
886
this point. As I have tried to explain, we fully realise the responsibility of enforcing the fishery laws in Ireland. At the same time we think that the power of diminishing fines is a valuable provision in itself in making the fishery code actually operative. Although it is possible to give the noble Earl the information in reply to Nos. 1 and 2, it is quite impossible to do so in regard to No. 3. But with regard to Nos. 1 and 2, I hope the noble Earl will not think it necessary to press for this Return.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, I rather hope my noble friend will press for these first two Returns. It seems to me that they would give us very valuable information. As to the third, no doubt the difficulty is, as the noble Lord opposite has mentioned, that it is quite impossible to inquire into the reasons why the Lord Lieutenant exercised the Royal prerogative. At the same time, would it be impossible to ascertain from the magistrates the cases in which they had recommended reductions? The noble Lord has told us that the Lord Lieutenant always inquires from the magistrates, the conservators, and the Police force. No doubt that is the case; but it would, I think, be a very valuable contribution to discussions on this question if information could be given to your Lordships as to the number of cases in which the magistrates had recommended reductions. I rather gather from what the noble Lord said that some alteration in the code is necessary; that the cause of this great evil is to be found in the fact that the code insists upon the imposition of a minimum fine. I understood that in the noble Lord's opinion the minimum fine is in many cases excessive, or that the magistrates would consider it excessive, and, rather than inflict it, would not convict at all. That may be the ease, I dare say, very often in what I may call minor charges of poaching—taking salmon out of condition—but it does nor affect the graver evil such as fishing with stake nets in close time, and matters of that kind. The fines inflicted are barely sufficient in themselves to act as a deterrent, and when they are reduced, as they always are, to a fourth or a fifth of the regular amounts it is really absurd. It is like fining a man a shilling for committing an illegal act which brings him in £10. The effect of it, of course, is to bring the law into utter contempt, to discourage conservators from doing their duty, and to make the administration of the fishery law in Ireland perfectly absurd.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Lord who speaks for the Irish Office said with great truth that this was not a new grievance. It has been more than once discussed in your Lordships' House, and I am hound to say in common fairness that, it is not only the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland but other Lord Lieutenants who have preceded him who have pursued the same disastrous practice of indiscriminately reducing the fines imposed on people convicted of this sort of offence. It is quite true, as the noble Lord told us, that there is a certain want of elasticity in the present code, and there may be cases in which the minimum fine is too high. Nobody would for a moment he extreme to mark if in such cases the fines were reduced. But what is within our knowledge is that there are cases where the destruction of breeding fish has been carried on in the most reckless manner, sometimes by the use of poisonous weeds which are to be obtained with great ease on the banks of most of these rivers, with the result that not only a large number of mature fish are killed, but that every small fish in the river, the whole of the breeding stock of the future, is simply wiped out of existence in the space of a couple of hours In a case of that kind, where the culprits are able to go away, as they have sometimes, with fifty, sixty, or even a hundred salmon, to impose upon them a fine of a couple of sovereigns is really to make the law ridiculous.
We know how the thing happens. Pressure—political pressure—is put on the Lord Lieutenant, and the fine is reduced to please somebody or other who is pestering him on behalf of a neighbour or a constituent. In these circumstances it is really impossible to expect that the conservators of fisheries can carry out their duties with any hope of success or with any degree of efficiency. The noble Lord is probably aware how extremely difficult and dangerous it sometimes is to obtain evidence in such a case. But when you get a case where, in spite of many obstacles, evidence has been procured, a conviction obtained, and a fine not unreasonable in view of the circumstances imposed, the fine is almost automatically reduced. The noble Lord stated that the Lord Lieutenant consults the magistrates and the conservators. Perhaps he does; but is he guided by them? I will undertake to say that a number of cases could be produced in which remissions
888
have been made in defiance of the strongest possible protest from the conservators, who know how disastrous the policy of the Irish Government is to the business in which they are concerned.
Then the noble Lord used an ingeiousn argument. He said the magistrates would not convict, if the full fine were to be insisted upon. That may be true. But that clearly would only be applicable to comparatively trivial cases, but not to cases of wholesale destruction such as those to which I referred a moment ago. The Irish Government have really no excuse for their behaviour in this matter. Not very long ago they appointed a Departmental Committee to inquire into the whole question of these inland Irish fisheries, particularly in view of the results of the large transfer of land to the occupying tenants, a transfer which sometimes carries with it control over the adjoining waters. Let me tell the noble Lord what he will find if he will look at the Report of that Committee. The Committee are impressed by the enormous value of the fisheries of Ireland as a national property. They say their value may be fairly estimated at something like £500,000 per annum. The number of men—and this is important—who fish for salmon, not as the owners of private fisheries but on Common Law rights, is approximately 8,000. These are men who depend for their living upon the preservation of these fisheries. In addition to those, there are all the men who earn their living by attending private fisheries and accompanying private fishermen all over the country. The whole of these people are materially concerned in saving this particular industry from destruction.
Then the Committee make this very important observation. They say that there is a clear distinction in this case between the preservation of salmon and the preservation of game. The preservation of game, of course, is quite a different matter. If you destroy grouse or partridge you only injure the unfortunate individual who is concerned with that particular grouse or partridge shooting, but when you destroy salmon fisheries you are injuring not only the owner of the river fishery but all the people who depend for a livelihood upon the preservation of the stock of breeding fish. The Committee say with great truth that the stock of salmon in these rivers is in the main public

889
property, and that is really the way to look at it; and the Committee add that this asset of public property inures to the benefit of working fishermen much more than to that of sportsmen or of the owners of proprietary netting rights. Then the Committee dwell upon the widespread prevalence of poaching and its disastrous effects, and say that a powerful effort ought to be made to preserve this great possession for the benefit of all. The noble Lord himself said that in his opinion, and in the opinion of those with whom he acts, the firm administration of the fishery law was an absolute necessity.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: May I interrupt to ask the noble Marquess whether he alleges that poaching is on the increase.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am quoting from the Report of your own Committee.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Is that the allegation made?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I have no means of answering that question. I am resting myself upon the Report of a Departmental Committee appointed by the present Government. That Committee dwelt on the widespread prevalence of poaching and its disastrous effect and on the necessity of combating the illegal destruction of fish. I have no doubt whatever that the Committee believe that the thing is on the increase. I will tell the noble Lord why. Because a number of the tenants who have bought their land have no idea of the value of the fisheries and cannot be trusted to protect them. I remember hearing of a case where a farmer bought a farm with which he acquired a rather nice salmon pool, but he immediately proceeded to poison the salmon and take them out, thereby injuring not only his own property but his neighbours. What is the good of approving of a firm administration of the fishery law if the Lord Lieutenant seizes every possible opportunity of reducing fines indiscriminately and therefore turning the fishery law into disrepute.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am sorry that on the Benches opposite, as it happens, none of the noble Lords, four in number I think, who have in former times filled the position of Viceroy of
890
Ireland, happen now to be sitting. I am able to speak from my own experience of that office, and I can say—I have no doubt that the other noble Lords who have been Viceroy would bear me out—that this question of fish poaching in Ireland has always been a matter of serious preoccupation to the holder of that office and to the Irish Government. Before I left Ireland the movement for the encouragement of tourists was started, in which I took a warm personal interest. I presided at the first meeting which was held in Dublin of the association established for the development of Ireland as a tourist centre, and I remember pointing out that among the attractions of Ireland to the traveller one of the greatest was its remarkable capabilities for fishing; that Irish people ought to understand that, by allowing the indiscriminate sort of poaching that 'went on and not discouraging it, they were in this particular respect killing the goose that laid the golden eggs; and that all Irishmen therefore ought to combine to endeavour to bring public opinion to bear to check the propensity for poaching which seems to belong to so many Irishmen.
It is true that there was, and I have no doubt there is, a vast amount of indiscriminate poaching, much of it of the most stupid and senseless kind. The spearing of spawning fish in the shallows when they are so red as to be absolutely unfit for any kind of human food was a common act. Then the noble Marquess mentioned the poisoning of pools by the wild spurge which grows by the riverside, which is a most deadly poison to fish, and I have no doubt there has been of late, as there was in my time, a vast amount of that particular kind of damage. But I think it is important to draw a distinction, when one collies to consider this question of fines, between the large and systematic forms of poaching and the far more numerous cases where a few young sons of farmers, irresponsible young men, combine together and go out fishing, partly enjoying the lark and partly, I suppose, in the hopes of getting a few fish. In my time the vast proportion of cases were of the latter character, and in those cases it was undoubtedly a most frequent practice to reduce, sometimes to a considerable extent, the fines imposed. I should be sorry to say in every case of a fine which I reduced that I was asked to do so by the con-

891
victing Bench, but, as noble Lords very well know, in Ireland it is very often more upon the Police report than upon the actual recommendations of the Bench that the Viceroy has to be guided in reducing or remitting fines. Upon that, as upon practically every other subject on which one requires information as Lord Lieutenant it was the Constabulary to whom one looked for it, and I freely admit. that in a great number of cases I did reduce the fines, after consultation as a rule with my legal adviser.
What the precise practice of my noble friend who is now Lord Lieutenant has been I do not know. I have not looked into the particular circumstances mentioned by the noble Earl opposite, and therefore I cannot give an opinion, but I should expect to find, if there had been a great number of remissions, that most of them at any rate had been in cases, not of carefully organised poaching where stake net fishing is involved, but of the minor though exceedingly mischievous kind which I have already mentioned; and when the noble Earl states the total figures of the reductions which have taken place in certain counties those figures do not disturb my conviction that such is probably the case, because in those minor cases owing to the existence of a minimum fine the reductions on paper no doubt look somewhat serious. But I must remind the House that when, for cases of ordinary river poaching, men living in a small mud cabin in one of the western counties, and subsisting on, perhaps, almost the smallest income on which life can be supported, are subjected to a fine of several pounds, it is quite clear that they simply cannot pay and that they have to go to prison. There is an actual pecuniary disadvantage to the conservators in sending a man to prison instead of obliging him to pay a fine of the dimensions which he is able to produce, and I think it will be found that all Viceroys have preferred as a rule to reduce the fine to a sum which is within the possible means of the culprit to pay rather than continue to impose a fine which almost automatically sends him to gaol. That being so, I cannot feel that the mere fact that large reductions have taken place altogether warrants the very severe language which the noble Marquess has used about the manner in which the discretion of His Majesty's present Viceroy has been exercised—although to some extent I think he included all past Viceroys
892
in his condemnation. I think he will see that it is reasonable that a considerable percentage of reductions should be made in respect of this particular offence, and so long as the law remains as it is in my belief whoever is Viceroy will find it necessary to make a good many. My noble friend behind me speaks on behalf of the Irish Office, and, as I have said, I am not acquainted with the particular circumstances and do not therefore pretend to put forward any personal defence for the action of my noble friend the present Lord Lieutenant, but I thought it wise to mention from the results of my own experience what my general impression of what has occurred is, and I do not know that any noble Lord opposite will be found to contradict what I have said.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I do not know whether the noble Lord opposite will actually resist giving the Returns as regards Nos. 1 and 2 of my Motion. People connected with fishing possess one virtue, and that is patience. If this information could be given by degrees it would do; we are in no great hurry for it. I foresaw that it might be impossible to get the information under No. 3. But might it not be given in this way—the number of cases where the magistrates did not recommend reductions.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: As I have said, it is possible to grant the Returns in answer to Nos. 1 and 2, and if the noble Earl presses for them we must get them, but they will involve a great deal of trouble and take a good deal of time. But with regard to No. 3, I am afraid I cannot make any promise. The noble Earl must appreciate that the exercise of the prerogative is not a matter upon which—
THE EARL OF MAYO: I have amended that part of my Motion.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: But it is to get at the same information. The noble Earl seems to me to be criticising the action of the Lord Lieutenant in his exercise of the prerogative of mercy. I do not think there is any precedent for the exercise of the prerogative being questioned or criticised either in this House or in another place, and I must decline to give the noble Earl that information.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Very well; I withdraw No. 3 from my Motion, and move for a Return showing (1) Fines inflicted on offenders against the fishery laws during the last three years; and (2) where the Lord Lieutenant remitted such fines there having been a previous conviction or convictions against the offenders.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

BUSINESS OF THF HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I understand that it would be for the general convenience if the House were to meet at 3.30 p.m. on Monday next. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.