Lords Sitting of 29 July 1914

EARL KITCHENER.
Field Marshal Horatio Herbert, Viscount Kitchener of Khartoum and of the Vaal, in the Colony of the Transvaal, and of Aspall, in the county of Suffolk, Baron Kitchener of Khartoum and of Aspall, in the county of Suffolk, K.P., G.C.B., O.M., G.C.S.I., G.C.M.G., G.C.I.E., His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General in Egypt and Minister Plenipotentiary in His Majesty's Diplomatic Service, haying been created Baron Denton of Denton, in the county of Kent, Viscount Broome of Broome, in the said county of Kent, and Earl Kitchener of Khartoum and of Broome aforesaid—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
READING CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
(Unopposed Orders.)
Reported, without amendment.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
(Deal Order.)
Report front the Select Committee that it is not expedient to proceed further with the Deal Order; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
OXFORD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 25th day of May last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 25th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2ª; agreed to: Bill read 2ª accordingly and committed for To-morrow.
RIDDINGS DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
NORTHWICH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments: A further Amendment made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
COUNTY AND BOROUGH COUNCILS (QUALIFICATION) (No. 3) BILL.
Brought front the Commons.
HESKETH ESTATE (FLOOD DEFENCES) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
LONDON, BRIGHTON AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
LEYLAND GAS BILL.
  TEES VALLEY WATER BILL.
  Returned front the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
  Report front the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Welby be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Onslow; read; and agreed to.

INDICTMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I beg to present a Bill to amend the law relating to indictments in criminal cases and matters incidental thereto. The Bill provides for a good deal being done by rules, and in order that the matter may be made clear I purpose having the rules printed and laid on the Table of the House so that they may be considered along with the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed. (No. 201).

PACK-BERESFORD'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
House to be in Committee on Tuesday next, and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
COUNTY AND BOROUGH COUNCILS (QUALIFICATION) (No. 3) BILL.
Read 1ª, and to be printed. (No. 202.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 18) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 19) BILL.
  Moved, That the order made on the 25th day of May last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 25th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2ª; agreed to: Bills read 2ª accordingly.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 18) BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 19) BILL.
Committed for To-morrow.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the object of this Bill is one in which the business world concurs. It is to make certain amendments in the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, which are in themselves very desirable, and which have this further advantage, that they bring our law into accord with the Uniform Regulation on Bills of Exchange which has now been assented to by more than thirty foreign countries. These proposals were brought forward by our own delegates at the last Hague Conference in 1912. The amendments have been approved by the
240
Bank of England, the Institute of Bankers, the Incorporated Law Society, and the various Chambers of Commerce and other expert bodies to whom they were submitted for consideration. I therefore hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
*LORD FABER: My Lords, I listened with interest to what the Lord Chancellor said, and I agree that this Bill is entirely non-contentious and has been approved by high financial authorities in the City. But there are one or two provisions in the Bill to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention, and which I hope the Lord Chancellor will be so good as to consider. The object of this Bill is to bring our law on the subject of bills of exchange into line with that of foreign countries. At present there are different regulations applying to bills of exchange in Europe, in America, and in England. This Bill will remedy some of those differences, but not all.
Clause 2 provides that where a bill falls due on a non-business day it shall be deemed to be due and shall be payable on the next succeeding business day. That is a very necessary provision, because at present we are in this curious position. If a bill falls due on a Sunday, on a Good Friday, or on Christmas Day, it is payable on the day before; but if a bill falls due on a Bank Holiday it is payable on the day after, and that leads to confusion especially in foreign countries when sending bills here for payment. Therefore it is proposed in this clause to make the law uniform, so that all these bills in such cases shall be payable the day after. Clause 3 provides that if a man writes his name on the face of a bill he accepts that bill. At present it is not quite certain what happens if he writes his name on the back of the bill. It might be only an endorsement. It is decided by this clause that if he writes his name on the face of a bill he accepts that bill.
Clause 6 provides that, notwithstanding any enactment to the contrary, a bill of exchange which is presented for acceptance or accepted or payable outside the United Kingdom shall not be invalid by reason only that it is not stamped in accordance

241
with the law for the time being in force relating to stamp duties. I should like to see that law applied to bills that are payable in this country, my contention being that a bill should not be invalid by reason only of its not being stamped so long as the penalty for non-stamping is made sufficiently heavy. I know I shall be told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might lose money in this way, and that he fears that people would not stamp bills of exchange at all; but I think that if the penalty were made sufficiently high that need not interfere with my proposal. I know that it may be said that this clause is a money clause and that we have no I jurisdiction in this House over it. That I might, of course, interfere with my desire to get the clause altered so as to apply it to bills in this country as well as to those payable abroad, but I cannot say whether that is so. At present, as regards bills of exchange payable in this country, we always take three days of grace after the bill is due. That is not done in any Continental country and is done in only a very few of the States of America, and I should like to suggest to the Lord Chancellor that the three days grace now given in this country should be done away with.
When the Committee stage arrives I should like to move two Amendments. They are not important and are not contrary to the Hague Conference, but they would be very valuable indeed to bankers. The first of those Amendments refers to forged endorsements on so-called cheques, which so-called cheques have not the protection of ordinary cheques as regards endorsement. At present when a cheque is produced to a banker it is the banker's duty to know the signature of the drawer, and if he does not know the signature and passes a forgery the banker has to pay; but as regards the endorsement on the cheque, as long as it is purported to be signed by the payee the banker has nothing to do with it. How can he know, when a cheque is payable, say, to John Brown or Tom Jones, that the John Brown or Tom Jones who has endorsed the cheque on the back is the genuine John Brown or Tom Jones? There is an Act which says that the banker is not liable for the endorsement on that cheque. But in the last few years there has grown up a new kind of document, issued chiefly by local government boards and so on,
242
which has attached to the cheque a receipt, and the receipt has to be signed and no endorsement is required. That does not come under the cheque law. Consequently a banker is liable for the receipt on these forms being a genuine receipt, which seems to me to be unfair, because it is quite impossible for the banker to know whether or not the receipt is genuine. Therefore we want by one Amendment which I shall move in Committee to include these documents within the law applying to cheques. The other Amendment which I shall move is a short one which would enable people to cross documents of this kind and to get thereby the protection of a crossing which at present they cannot enjoy. Those are all the remarks I have to make on this Bill. I think it is a very good Bill and should certainly go through. In days to come we shall hope to get even nearer to foreign nations than we are now, but at present this is a good beginning, and all the City authorities will be glad to see this Bill passed into law.
On Question, Bill read 2—, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of a Bill of a very different character from the last, but a Bill which has this resemblance in its circumstances, that up to this stage it has been received with great unanimity. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons and has passed all its stages in that House, and while there it was received by both Parties with approval. That is not to be wondered at, because in no sense is this Bill founded on any Party tradition. The origin of its principle—which is the mitigation, in the case of young persons, of first offenders, of the evil effects of imprisonment without discretion being exercised—we owe to a remarkable Home Secretary who accomplished much in his time. I refer to Lord Cross. In 1879 Lord Cross passed through Parliament the Summary Jurisdiction Act, which dealt with these punishments and

243
may be said to have initiated the policy of subsequent legislation. Then in 1887 was passed the First Offenders Act, which went still further in the direction of mitigating the effects of imprisonment in the case of first offenders. Then came, in 1891, the Youthful Offenders Act, which carried that policy still further.
In 1907 the Probation of Offenders Act was passed, which introduced a new principle, not altogether to avoid punishment, but instead of imprisonment putting the youthful offender on probation under a supervising officer, who observed him and reported on him, and, if he conducted himself well, assisted him as far as could be back to employment in civil life. Then came further provisions in the Children Act of 1908, and in the same year the. Prevention of Crime Act was passed which contained some very important provisions relating to what are called Borstal institutions—places of imprisonment directed not so much to punishment as to reformation; places where the person confined is, no doubt, in custody, but is under admirable training physically and mentally. He is there being fitted in every way in which it is possible for a person in those unfortunate circumstances to be fitted to go back into civil life, and when he does go back into civil life he is assisted to employment, particularly to employment at sea, which opens peculiar facilities for dealing with this class of case. It is difficult to realise how great a change the Borstal system introduced, and in this Bill power is taken to extend those provisions still further.
This Bill does not refer exclusively to Borstal institutions; in fact, the Borstal part of the Bill is by no means the main part. The principle of the Bill, applied in various forms, is the mitigation of the evil effects of imprisonment on juvenile or first offenders. That principle assumes in the Bill various forms. The Bill deals with fines, with probation, with supervision, and with those Borstal institutions to which I have referred, and in addition to that it aims at simplifying the general law and procedure. For instance, there is a very harsh method in our procedure by which, when but, a small fine is imposed, there is a large sum payable in costs. In future the sum ordered to be paid will include the costs, so that the offender who has been sentenced to pay a fine will know what he has to pay.
244
Bearing that in mind I come to the first of the main provisions of the Bill, which is to deal with fines. It is an extraordinary fact that at the present time more than hair the prisoners in our local prisons are there for non-payment of lines, and not because they have been sentenced directly to imprisonment. The number of these prisoners is something like 80,000. The fines are often of small amount. Some people, of course, refuse to pay the fine and prefer to undergo the imprisonment; but experience has taught that in the majority of cases these persons would have been glad to pay the fines if they could have obtained a little time. The principle of the Bill is this. At present you can get time in which to pay, but under the Bill it is to be the rule to give time to pay. When a fine is inflicted the person on whom it is imposed is to have time in which to pay it, and this provision—in Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill—taken in conjunction with the others, will have, it is believed by those who are advising the Government in these matters, and they are persons of great experience, substantial influence in relieving the prisons of a lot of people who now find their way there. Imprisonment leaves a certain stigma, and it is not right that there should be imprisonment unless it is necessary to compel obedience to the law. Therefore what is proposed here is that as a general rule time shall be given for the payment of fines.
There are other provisions. When there are short sentences there is power given, particularly applicable in the case of juvenile offenders, to sentence them, not to go to prison, hut to be detained in the precincts of the Court, where they will be under the control of the Police while not actually in prison. That, of course, is something which can apply only in the case of very short sentences. Then I come to what I call probation. Large powers are given in the Bill, particularly in the case of juveniles, to let them out on probation or to sentence them merely to be under probation. When a young prisoner is put under a probation officer the officer looks after him; the lad is under conditions which involve his undertaking to be of good conduct—it may be an undertaking to abstain from alcohol—and the duty of the probation officer is to look after him in this period. I need not tell your Lordships that these provisions apply only to youthful

245
and early offenders. We hope that this system, which is already in operation to a small extent, may become in operation to a considerably larger extent, and that we fluty thereby avoid such a state of things as our prisons getting filled with young persons. Then arises the question, Where are the probation officers to come from? The Bill makes provision as to that. It enables societies to be set up, the business of which will be to train and provide these probation officers, and the Treasury will give money to assist those societies in all proper cases.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What kind of societies?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will tell the noble Marquess in a moment. They will be carefully approved societies for the purpose. In the case of the worst class of offenders the power of sending them to Borstal institutions instead of to prison is enlarged. Instead of sentencing them to a short term of imprisonment, in cases where the Court thinks it is the only chance of the reform of a young offender he may be sent to a Borstal institution where he will be trained. Those institutions are described in the Prevention of Crimes Act as "places in winch young offenders, whilst detained, may be given such industrial training and other instruction, and may be subjected to such disciplinary and moral influences, as may conduce to their reformation," and I might add to that, their employment in later life. There are four typical Borstal institutions in this country—one at Borstal, another at Feltham, a third for girls at Aylesbury, and a wing of the prison at Canterbury is used in this way. This is the kind of life of a boy in a Borstal institution. He gets up at 5.30 a.m.—it is an early hour, but it is found that the process of reformation is assisted by early rising; at 6.10 there is drill and gymnastics, at 7 o'clock breakfast, at 8 o'clock work begins, and 11.30 work stops, at 12 dinner is partaken of, at 1.30 work begins again, at 5.15 work ends for the day, at 5.30 the boys have supper, at 6.10 they go to chapel, at 6.30 there are evening classes, recreation, and hair-cutting, and at 8 o'clock bed. That is a wholesome mode of life, and in the end a large number of these boys, as I have already said, are assisted to employment, notably service at sea. The Bill takes power to extend that.
246
I will tell your Lordships very shortly what the Bill consists of. It is essentially a Bill of detailed provisions, all directed to the end of which I have spoken, and substituting some thing for the evil effects of ordinary imprisonment in the case of youthful and first offenders. The first two clauses deal with the obligation to allow time for the payment of fines. Then supposing a fine has to be paid by instalments and some instalments are paid, the period of imprisonment in default is reduced proportionately to the amount which is paid, and discretion is largely given to the Court to allow further time. Then there are provisions for the enforcement of the payment of these fines, for we do not intend people to trifle with us. Then there are uniform scales of Court fees. These provisions take up the first six clauses of the Bill. The seventh clause is concerned with probation. And now will answer the question put to me by the noble Marquess. Clause 7 says that—
"If a society is formed or is already in existence having as its object or amongst its objects the care and control of persons under the age of twenty-one whilst on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, or of persons whilst placed out on licence from a reformatory or industrial school is Borstal institution, or under supervision after rite determination of the period of their detention in such a school or institution, or under supervision in pursuance of this Act, or some one or more of such objects the society may apply to the Secretary of State for recognition, and the Secretary of State, if he approves of the constitution of the society and is satisfied as to the means adopted by the society for securing such objects as aforesaid, way grant his recognition to the society."
So that your Lordships will see that these are voluntary societies which have to be approved by the Secretary of State. Then under Subsection (4) of Clause 7 power is given to grant money towards the expenses incurred by the societies. It is to these societies we look to provide the probation officers.
Clause 10 deals with the terms on which a prisoner may be committed to a Borstal institution. That committal may be for a longer time than the period of the sentence which he would otherwise get, because he is being sent to an institution where he is under discipline and where he gets a new chance. Clause 12 deals with the power of the Court to order a very short period of detention in the precincts of the Court instead of in prison. Then there are certain miscellaneous provisions with which I need not deal. Clause 16 enables more

247
easily the transition to be made from the third division to the second division than is the case at the present time. There are other provisions for the benefit of prisoners. They are relieved of the cost of conveyance to prison. There are various provisions as to consecutive sentences and facilitating applications for bail and the granting of it. Then there are provisions as to licences for persons who have been sentenced to penal servitude. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with the other miscellaneous matters in the later clauses up to Clause 36. There is a restriction upon corporal punishment not of very great importance. Then there are provisions as to right of appeal and certain provisions as to indictment, and clauses containing the provisions necessary in the application of the Bill to Scotland and Ireland.
I have told your Lordships the material provisions in this Bill. To deal with it as a whole and as the application of a simple principle is not possible further than I have indicated. The principle of the Bill is to mitigate the punishment of imprisonment. The Bill was sifted carefully in the discussions which took place in the other House. It met, I think, with unanimous approval. It is founded on the experience of Police magistrates, Judges, and officials. It represents another step in that long chain of reforming Acts of which I have spoken, which began with Lord Cross's Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879 and which have been continued by successive Governments until in this Bill we have the last proposals resulting from the experience of those who have to administer this unfortunate side of our social system. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I ask to be allowed to take the lead in congratulating the Government upon this Bill. Those congratulations, I believe, will be as general in this House as they were in the House of Commons when the Bill was there introduced. The noble and learned Viscount has justifiably called attention to the approval which this Bill there received, not merely at its inception but throughout the long discussions which resulted in its taking the final form which it now has and in
248
which it comes before your Lordships' House. If you look at the headings of its clauses you see that it covers a vast number of subjects. It is a sort of omnibus Bill, with all sorts of odds and ends of administration that require attention at the present time. But to me, and, I imagine, to most of those who have looked into the matter, far the most important part of the Bill is that which relates to prison reform, using the word "prison" in the widest sense and using it for institutions as unlike as can possibly be to the ordinary idea of a prison, but regulating, reforming, and enlarging the scope of these institutions in a way which experience has shown to be desirable.
I suppose it is true to say that, while England was in advance of most other countries with regard to a great deal of the legislation of a generation or a couple of generations ago, upon the action of the Criminal Law as a whole we did not go very rapidly forward as regards the elasticity of prison work and the kind of experimental prison reforms which were being attempted in some other countries, notably on the other side of the Atlantic, more markedly than among ourselves. Work inside our prisons is peculiarly difficult to reform by the ordinary process of the influence of public opinion, because public opinion is so exceedingly uninformed as to what goes on within the prison walls. A vast number of people who pass the walls of a prison and look up upon it congratulate themselves that probably those who are inside are kept out of mischief for the time being, and they think that no doubt all is going on well inside. It is many years ago that our great prison reformer, Mr. Howard, spoke of prison reform as "the open but unfrequented path." But something has been done.
I believe our legislation will bear favourable comparison with that of any other country so far as what has been done within the last ten years at all events. The Lord Chancellor has called attention to the group of three Acts passed within a year and a half, the Probation of Offenders Act, the Children Act, and the Prevention of Crime Act. All these, speaking largely, had the same purpose. It was to prevent those getting into prison who could get there nothing but harm owing to their tender years, while very many of them were those whose offence

249
had been of a sort which in some other walks of life would not have been regarded very severely at all. All these Acts taken together, and the way in which they have since been developed, have tended to render impossible the sending of anybody to prison under the age of 14, and rendering it very difficult for anybody to be in prison under the age of 16. Nobody, I believe, is imprisoned to-day under 14 years of age, and very few indeed under 16 years of age. Of course, probationary and reformatory institutions may most rightly get their hold upon some of those who are too young to go within the prison walls. It is a curious fact, after all the progress that has been made in a thousand different ways in our ordinary social life in this country—the advance of the standard of comfort, the standard of education, and the rest—that there has not been what, we should all, I imagine, have expected 20 years ago, a proportionate diminution of what we may call ordinary crime. I do not know whether your Lordships are all familiar with the fact, but I think I am right in saying that whilst in 1893 out of every 100,000 persons there were 192 charged on an average with indictable offences, now out of 100,000 persons 184 are so charged. It is an improvement, but it is not a great stride in advance to come from 192 to 184 as the change that 20 years have brought about for the better.
And I believe that, those who are thus disappointed can, when they look into it, find a ground for their disappointment partly in the results of the long period during which we have been accustomed, until lately, to go in for very short prison sentences. If there is one thing upon which prison reformers and students of the subject are now agreed, it is the fatuity and uselessness of very short sentences. I do not know whether your Lordships read a series of articles which appeared some six weeks ago in The Times by a lady of great experience and knowledge, as the articles showed, who brought out in various ways the genuine mischief that had been done by very short sentences and the certainty that, while these may very decidedly be punitive, they are hardly ever reformative, and most of all is that true with regard to women and girls. We are asked, If that is so, what would you do instead? This Bill is the result of many endeavours which have been made to answer that question. We say that what
250
we must do instead is that when we can catch an offender early in the career of crime which might otherwise come, we should be able to turn him or her off that mischievous path on to a more useful life. and all the legislation of 1907 and 1908 tended in the direction of taking care that young persons at all events should have a chance which they never had before.
The Lord Chancellor has referred to the Borstal system. Any one who has looked with care into what has been happening in regard to that system, applied to both boys and girls, will see that where it has been able to be rightly worked the experience is extraordinarily satisfactory considering how short a number of years we have been at work on the subject. But in Borstal institutions as truly as in prisons we have to take care that we do not do harm by the sentences being too short, and one of the advantages of passing this Bill will be, I hope, the institution of a minimum sentence of two years for anyone going under the Borstal system, which is not a penal system but an educative and reforming system, and the period of two years is felt to be the minimums time during which that process is likely to have the full beneficial effect it might to have. I have means of knowing what has happened both to boys and girls under the Borstal system, and I have no hesitation in saving that I believe it to have had the highest possible success in its operations upon a class singularly difficult to know how to mould and guide and help.
If one had to summarise what the Bill as a whole will do in the way of advantage, I should make it almost all turn upon the improvement which it will effect in making probationary and reformative a great lead that is now penal, and extending experiments which have been in their early days proved to be successful to a larger scale for the benefit of the training of those who instead of being started on a criminal career, are often pulled up at the time and started upon something very much better than would have been likely to be theirs had they not had, I would almost say, the gain of going to a Borstal institution or reformatory in the early days of their grown-up life. There are many questions of detail, questions possibly better discussed in Committee, but of great importance. I am particularly grateful for the recognition, none too early, given of the

251
efforts of societies which have hitherto furnished the probationary officers upon whom so much turns. These are not societies existing in the main for the production and training of probation officers. The societies exist for philanthropic purposes, temperance purposes, and the rest, whose Police Court officers have proved themselves so effective in getting hold of even other criminals than those who would specially have fallen under their scope that magistrates have used them again and again; and we have often felt, those of us who are dealing with the matter, that we have been providing from the limited funds of a private society a great deal of what ought to be subsidised from public funds.
Nothing is to me more satisfactory than that Government aid will now be given to those officers who, though being supported by these societies, are really officers for the public service as a whole much more than for the promotion of some particular branch of amelioration or reform in our social system. It is a very great gain that their position should be recognised, and I congratulate and thank the Government for having taken the matter in hand. But I do think it most important that one change should be made. We want a larger number of women. There are women as probation officers in London and in some of the large towns, but there are great areas and many large towns, too, in which there are no women at all, while a great many of those who have to be thus helped are girls and young women essentially needing the guidance of a woman as the probation officer to whom they could be entrusted. Therefore I hope to see, when this Bill becomes an Act and is in operation, great encouragement given to the appointment of women as probation officers, considering those to whose gain their energies and activities would have to be devoted.
Then there is another point to which I am rather anxious that some attention should be given in Committee. I refer to the places of detention which are to be temporarily used in order to avoid sending to prison those who ought not to go there. The provision in our large cities of places of detention for that purpose is comparatively easy, but it is not nearly so easy in country places and towns; and I venture to hope that there will be a wide interpretation given to the clause, and that its terms will be con-
252
sidered with a view to their enlargement if necessary as to what are the right places which can be thus used. We have what are known as Remand Homes in a great many places, but it does not appear from the wording of the Bill that the term "Remand Home" will be regarded as covering the places which are henceforward to be looked upon as appropriate for the detention of prisoners in this way. However, that is a matter of detail. Again we want women there. Girls and young women are no small proportion of those thus temporarily detained, and it is a vital necessity, in my judgment, that the number of women officers looking after these places should be considerably enlarged.
Then there is the point about Children's Courts. We have sonic Children's Courts. A start has been successfully made already in our great cities, but we have not nearly so many as we ought to have. And there are places where the object of the Children's Court is a good deal defeated by the fact that it is held at the ordinary Police Court at the close of the ordinary proceedings and the children are kept in the Police Court throughout the day waiting for the time to come when their Court is opened. The idea of the Children's Court was to keep the children from the contamination of the Police Court, yet under the system I have mentioned they are kept within the very walls of the Police Court for the best part of the day. Of course, this may be an administrative rather than a legislative detail—
LORD BARNARD: May I interrupt the most rev. Primate for one moment? In connection with the Petty Sessional Court over which I have the honour to preside, the Children's Courts are always held at the commencement of the proceedings and never at the end.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am very glad to hear that, and I hope that policy will be adopted in other places as well. There is no doubt that the fact is as I have stated in the particular case I have in mind, but I hope such cases are rare. I think, following the example of our friends on the other side of the Atlantic, that we should extend the development of the Children's Courts in the way of having also special children's magistrates, because it does not

253
follow that every magistrate is equally competent to deal with the strangely difficult and delicate task of looking after the working of a Children's Court. One case has come under my own notice where an otherwise admirable magistrate has become so exceedingly deaf that it has been proved practically impossible to get him to hear what the children have to say. That kind of difficulty is an instance of a very obvious sort of our needing special men to deal with a very special department of work. The noble Viscount (Lord Bryce) who has had unique experience of American life will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I am right in saying that most of the places in the United States—which set us the lead in the matter of Children's Courts, and where these Courts have been so successful—have children's magistrates doing the work in these Courts. Of course, that does not mean that those magistrates are not available for other work, but they are specially qualified for that particular work. These are all details, however. The large principle which this Bill covers is, to my mind, in every sense a wholesome and desirable one. The Bill appears to me, as far as I can judge, to be admirably calculated to effect that which it is intended to do, and I desire to offer it, on behalf of some of us who have been long interested in these matters, a cordial welcome, and to express our gratitude to the Government for the form which the Bill has taken.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I wish to join with the most rev. Primate in praise of the Bill, which I am sure is an excellent one; but there is a little matter about which I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor a question, and that is with regard to the Board of Statutory Visitors, and I look to Ireland. There was a largely-signed memorial to the Home Secretary, signed by leading representative women of all parties and creeds in Ireland, asking him to make a statutory order in the Bill that there should be two women inspectors to every women's convict prison in Ireland. The memorial wound up in this way—
"The appointment of women as prison visitors should cease to be a discretionary power and should be made a statutory one."
I believe there is a woman inspector of women's prisons in this country, but there is not one in Ireland, and that is the
254
reason why I have asked for this provision. It is, of course, no good my moving an Amendment if the Lord Chancellor does not think fit to accept it. That is why I ask the question now, Would he accept such an Amendment?
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, I should like to support what has been said by the most rev. Primate with regard to the working of Children's Courts. It has been found in the United States, where these Courts originated, that it is quite essential to their good working that they should be held in a different place from that in which the ordinary Criminal Courts are held. It is desirable to prevent the children from feeling that they are in any Sense treated as criminals, and to remove all the associations which attach to ordinary penal procedure from the treatment of their cases. I was much struck in attending the proceedings in these Courts by the fact that the ordinary atmosphere of a Criminal Court was absent and that the whole thing was dealt with on a different basis. In fact, the magistrate seemed to feel that he was not merely a magistrate but, so to speak, an agent for reformation; one might almost say a friend. He was endeavouring to treat the children as those who had lapsed through ignorance or unfortunate conditions, and to deal with them not as if they were mere criminals but as persons who were capable of being reformed by the application of tactful and sympathetic methods. It is very desirable for that purpose that the Children's Court should be held ice a different place; and it is also desirable, as the most rev. Primate said, that the work should be entrusted to persons who have acquired special experience and special tact and sympathy in the way of dealing with these cases.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire to join with the most rev. Primate in congratulating the Government on the presentation of this Bill. In its general scope and in most of its provisions I have no doubt that it will receive the general approbation of your Lordships' House. It is almost useless to do so, but I cannot help repeating once more my very respectful protest against the way in which your Lordships' House is treated. This is pre-eminently a Bill which ought to be discussed here. It

255
deals with very detailed and intricate matters of the administration of the Criminal Law. We have amongst us some of the greatest legal luminaries of the country. I notice that they hardly ever contribute to our debates, but they are members of your Lordships' House. There was a time when the Law Lords were not only of the greatest importance in the administration of justice, but they did help us in discussing legal matters in your Lordships' House. Except the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, there is not a single Law Lord present at the present moment, and as far as I know for the last two or three years they have not taken any part in any debate before your Lordships.
But that is not the only opportunity we have. I should think that half of the members of this House are magistrates, most of them active magistrates; yet this Bill is brought before us at a time of the year when it is practically impossible to go into the details of it. I do not desire to oppose the Bill in any way, but I think that there are in this House noble Lords whose contribution to a discussion of this kind would be most valuable, because they not only administer the law but administer the prisons. Many of your Lordships are members of the Prison Committees in your various counties and know what happens—may I say with all respect?—even better than the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack does. Although in a matter of law a magistrate may be contemptible to him, in a matter of prison administration the magistrate knows quite as much as the noble and learned Viscount. Therefore it was of great importance to the country that this Bill should have been brought forward at a proper time. The Bill might thereby have been greatly improved; objections to the Bill might have been removed in the course of the discussion. All that is lost because this Bill has been produced in your Lordships' House at the very end of July. I make that protest. I do not suppose it will have any effect, but still one is bound to say what one thinks on a matter of that kind.
The most rev. Primate told your Lordships that this was the last of a series of Bills tending to get rid of short imprisonments which do so much harm. It is a step in the right direction, and a very
256
important step. But I should like to make one comment upon what the most rev. Primate said. It is this, that the Bill does not really strike at the main part of the evil, for when this Bill passes the short sentences will go on in the great majority of cases just as before. These are the kind of short sentences which in one's practical experience one comes across. You go into a prison as a member of the Visiting Committee, and as your Lordships know, the procedure is to ask every prisoner whether he has any complaint. He sometimes tells you something beyond his complaint; he sometimes protests against his sentence; and in that way one gets to know the kind of sentences which magistrates in the county inflict. You come across a man who perhaps is, I will not say defective, but is not as fully in command of his intelligence as most free men are. He says something which you can hardly understand, and you appeal to the warder to know what he is. "Oh, he is in and out here continually," says the warder; "I do not think he rightly knows all he is doing." That is the kind of case one comes across in every prison in every month of the year. These men are in and out continually. They are tramps, or persons of that kind, without any settled occupation or abode. They commit these petty offences of drunkenness, or vagrancy, or Wandering without visible means of subsistence, and are put into prison for a week or fourteen days. They are perhaps out for a week and then in for a month or out for a month and then in for a week. It does no good. It is no good as a deterrent, and it is very costly to the country. The problem which the Government—I do not mean to say this Government; I am not speaking in any Party sense— of this country has to face is how to deal with that kind of case.
I turn for a moment to consider one or two of the clauses of the Bill. First of all with regard to probation. I am glad to see the provisions which the Government propose in respect of probation. I think, however, they might have gone perhaps a trifle further in some respects. There are certain crimes which, owing to their definition, do not come within the probationary clauses. Your Lordships will observe that they have to be crimes for which I think a month's imprisonment without the option of a fine is the

257
possible punishment. There are a good many offences which come below that standard, and yet might very properly be dealt with under the probationary clauses. I refer in particular to crimes in connection with prostitution and soliciting; and I shall, perhaps, persuade your Lordships in. Committee to introduce Amendments to cover that kind of case.
Now with regard to handing this duty over to societies. I interrupted the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to ask what sort of societies they were. Of course, they are very useful and do admirable work, but I should like to utter a word of warning. Your Lordships know perfectly well that probation officers are not established by this Bill for the first time; the whole probation system is in operation, and we already appoint the local societies' probation officers—the Joint Committee in the county does it, believe. From my own experience that works very well. I do not know whether it works badly in other counties, but as far as I know it works very well in the county with which I am principally connected. I want to know from the Lord Chancellor why this new provision is made. Why is it not left to the authority in the county, the Joint Committee or whatever it is, to appoint the probation officers as it does now? Why should it be handed over to societies, very excellent societies, no doubt, but societies which are not official, and over whose conduct there is no efficient public control? I want to speak with the greatest respect of these societies, because I know that they do good work. But philanthropic societies are dominated by men who have very strong views on certain questions, and views which are not altogether approved in certain instances by what are called men of common sense outside. I think it would be very dangerous if they were allowed to have complete control of the probation system of the country. I do not say that that is necessarily the effect of the Bill, because I observe that the Secretary of State has to approve; and I suppose the Secretary of State will keep his eye upon these societies. Perhaps he will issue regulations governing them. I do not know. But in his interesting speech I do not think the Lord Chancellor went into that. I should have been very glad if he had told us how he proposes that these
258
provisions with regard to the societies will work—whether the magistrates will still have the duty of appointing the probation officers, and whether they will still have the control of them. If that is so, I do not think there is much criticism to be made. But I should hesitate if it is proposed to hand over this very important duty to be administered entirely by societies which, however admirable, are not public societies, and which may be dominated by persons who are not in every respect quite wise.
I turn to another provision. It is proposed in this Bill to change the rules as to the classification of prisoners. I refer to Clause 16 and the following clauses of the Bill. I think, though I speak under correction, that a new principle is introduced in these clauses, because after a magistrate or a Court of Justice has awarded a certain sentence to a prisoner, part of which is, of course, to determine under what classification as a prisoner the man is to be punished, there is authority in the Visiting Committee to alter the classification. At present—I speak again under correction—I think that a Visiting Committee of a prison has no such power; that it has, indeed, no powers at all except to administer the discipline of the prison. The Visiting Committee sees that the prison is properly conducted; it sees that the prisoners have no complaints; it sees that if a prisoner breaks the discipline of the prison he is suitably punished. Those sort of things are the duty of the Visiting Committee; but up to now they have had no control whatever over the sentence passed on the prisoner and under which he is being punished for the moment. It is now proposed for the first time, I dare say very properly, that after a prisoner has been sentenced to be imprisoned in the third division, the Visiting Committee can say he is to be imprisoned in the second division. It is a new principle that a Committee sitting in private is to have that power. I dare say that can be justified, but there is one provision in the clause which I do not think can be justified, and that is that the Visiting Committee are only to act on the motion of the governor. I think the Government should reconsider that provision. I do not think it is at all suitable that the governor of the gaol should be in a position of superiority to the Visiting Committee.

259
That seems to me an improper provision. The governor of the gaol is a very important person and does his work admirably, but that is not the class to which such a charge should be committed. The Visiting Committee consists of men of a far higher standard than he can ever hope to be, and the authority ought not to rest, I venture to think, with the governor of the gaol.
If the House will bear with me, there is one other topic on which I should like to say a word. The most rev. Primate congratulated the Government, and very truly, upon the efforts which they are making to diminish the amount of imprisonment; but there is one direction in which the Government have not acted at all, and that is a very important direction—I refer to the imprisonment of men before their trial. That is a great and most heinous scandal in this country. Men are imprisoned before they are tried. I came across a case the other day. A man was committed for trial on the charge of firing a stack. That is arson, and therefore cannot be tried at Quarter Sessions, but has to be tried at Assizes. Unfortunately for the man, the Assize of the county to which he belonged had just been held, and consequently he had to wait for the next Assize. I think I am correct in saying that the next Assize did not take place for five months. For five months this man was in St. Albans gaol without trial; at the end of that time he was tried and he was acquitted. He got no redress; he got no compensation; nothing was done to give him any return for this very grave injustice. And that may happen and does happen continually. I admit that mine was an extreme case. All I say is that it is a real case which actually occurred. Of course, if the man had been bailed it would have been different; but he was a poor man, I expect a tramp, and therefore he was not bailed. Consequently he remained in prison for live months untried, and at the end of the trial he was acquitted. That is an outrage which ought never to occur. I hope the Government will consider a remedy for dealing with the possibility of that class of case. If I received the least encouragement from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack I would nut down an Amendment to cover a case of that kind. The sort of remedy would be that where the committing magistrate
260
was made aware that the man could not be tried for more than a certain number of months, the magistrate should be directed to commit him for trial, not to the Assize of the county, but to some other neighbouring Assize, or to the Central Criminal Court, in order to hasten forward the trial so that these cases to which I have referred should not occur. I apologise to your Lordships for detaining you, but I think this is an important matter, and I hope the Government will consider it. For the rest, I join in the congratulations which the most rev. Primate has given to the Government, and I hope that the Bill will speedily pass into law.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DEFECTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Duty to provide for education of mentally defectire children.
1.—(1) It shall be the duty of the local education authority for the purposes of the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899 (herein called the principal Act) to make suitable provision, either alone or in conjunction with other local education authorities, for the education of children belonging to their area whose age exceeds seven years and who are ascertained to be mentally defective within the meaning of the principal Act, and accordingly after the words "they may" in subsection (1) of section two of the principal Act there shall be inserted the words "and in the case of mentally defective children whose ago exceeds seven years shall":
Provided that the duty of a local education authority under this Act shall not include—

(i) A duty to make provision for boarding and lodging a mentally defective child unless the Board of Education are satisfied, after considering the report of a duly qualified medical practitioner approved by the Board under section one of the principal Act, and after consultation with the local education authority, that suitable provision for the child's education cannot be made in any

261
other way, and unless the grants payable out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of a mentally defective child so boarded and lodged amount to not less than one-half of the cost of conveying such child to and from any school so provided and of educating, boarding, and lodging and medically attending and treating tint child (including in the case of a school provided by a local education authority expenditure out of income by the authority by way of interest on or repayment of capital raised, or by way of rent or other similar payment, for the purposes of the provision of the school); or

(ii) A duty to establish a certified school for boarding and lodging mentally defective children, unless the Board of Education are satisfied after considering the reports of such medical practitioners, and after such consultation as aforesaid, that there are not less than forty-five such children belonging to the area for whose education suitable provision cannot be made in any other way.

(2) Subsection (6) of section two of the principal Act and the Elementary Education Amendment Act, 1903, are hereby repealed.
(3) In case of doubt as to whether a child is or is not mentally defective within the meaning of the principal Act, the matter shall be determined by the Board of Education.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, on behalf of Lord MONK BRETTON, moved an Amendment to leave out subsection (3). The noble Marquess said: My Lords, my noble friend cannot be in the House for the moment, and I will formally move his Amendment. May I ask what the special reason of this subsection is? It was introduced at late stage in the proceedings in the House of Commons, and I really do not understand the use of it. The appeal to the Board Education as to whether child is a defective seems to me altogether out of place. Under the principal Act, the Act of 1899, the question as to whether or not a child is a defective within the meaning of that Act is determined by a doctor. The Government now say that if there is any doubt that doubt is to be resolved by the Board of Education. The Act of 1899 was a voluntary Act in this respect, and this is a compulsory Act; and it may very well be that it is not quite sufficient to say that one doctor should determine whether a child may be taken away from its parents and put into a boarding school elsewhere. But why should the appeal authority, as it were, be the Board of Education? I venture to say that the proper appeal authority against the doctor ought to be a magistrate of some kind. Your Lordships will remember that in the Mental Deficiency
262
Bill of last year the authority was a judicial authority—namely, the magistrates who have the control of the lunacy administration of the county. If there is to be an appeal of any kind I should have thought that was the proper authority to appeal to in this case. At any rate, I venture to put the question to the noble Earl.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 22 to 24, leave out subsection (3).—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, the noble Marquess is quite right in his general interpretation of this subsection, but the circumstances in which it is expected that the Board of Education will be called upon to act are not quite those which have occurred to his mind. Here we are dealing for the first time compulsorily with all defective and epileptic children. The noble Marquess knows that this will be a compulsion upon a large number of local authorities to undertake work which they have not had before. Only a few local authorities, comparatively speaking, have acted under the Act while it n as a voluntary treasure. Now, however, it is going to be compulsory, and it is quite obvious that these local education authorities will not have any technical knowledge of the kind of children, or whether particular children ought to go to this school or not. It was really meant, in cases where there was a conflict of opinion between the parent and the local education authority, that then the Board of Education should be called in to act as arbiter in this connection. I can understand that a local authority of so much experience as the London County Council, for instance, would perhaps feel that this subsection reflected a little upon their powers of judgment. That was not the intention in putting in this subsection. It was really inserted in order to try and get a general ruling, and to provide local authorities all over the country who have had no experience of administration of this kind with some assistance such as that which the Board of Education can give them. I am glad to give an assurance that the Board of Education never intended to overrule the London County Council without consulting that Council in the first place. The noble Marquess will realise

263
that, the wording of the subsection implies that this consultation would take place, because the jurisdiction of the Board of Education only arises in cases of doubt, and doubt can only arise when there is a difference of opinion between the London County Council and the parent. Then, of course, the Board of Education, knowing or being able to judge of the amount of experience possessed by the local education authority, would naturally be inclined to take that as one of the chief features which they would have to consider when they gave their decision upon the subject. It really is important to have this authority. It is more in regard to those areas which have not adopted the Act of 1899, as I said, than in regard to areas which have experience, that the subsection was included in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I certainly am not going to press the noble Earl at the present moment, but I should like to represent to him that the words are very loosely drawn for the purpose he has in view. The phrase is, "In case of doubt." It is not said who is to have doubt. The noble Earl says the parent is to have the doubt; but there is nothing on the face of the subsection to say that. "In case of doubt" in any one's mind is very loose. Then the subsection goes on to say that the meaning of a certain legal phrase is to be determined by the Board of Education. It is not the sort of words one would expect. As to whether a child is defective within the meaning of the Act—that is to say, the legal construction of a particular phrase in another Act of Parliament—that is not for the Board of Education to determine at all; that would be for some legal authority to determine. I suggest to the noble Earl that he ought to alter the phrase if he intends to cover the kind of ground which he indicated on the part of the Department was meant. I hope he will consider with the draftsmen whether he cannot improve the words.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I shall be very glad to do that; but I think there is this to be said on the other hand. Although, perhaps, in form it looks as if the question to be decided was a legal one, is it not really much more a medical question? It is whether the child is defective within the meaning of the principal Act. It is important in a case
264
of that kind to have the experience of a doctor. Then, of course, the case only arises when the local education authority acting under the advice of the doctor has a different opinion from that of the parent. It is in those circumstances that it is suggested that the matter should be determined by the Board of Education. I shall be glad to go into the question with the Board of Education, but as at present advised, supposing there was an alternative, I should not be inclined to suggest a magistrate. I would rather have a medical authority than one of a legal kind.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I am very anxious that nothing should happen to prevent this Bill passing, and that no Amendment should be pressed at this stage which would in any way endanger the Bill. To a certain extent I agree with the noble Marquess opposite. I think that prima facie this comes very much in the category of blind and deaf and epileptic children who are now dealt with. The principal Act very properly provides that the opinion of a competent doctor should be obtained that the child is one which should be treated in a special school and is not fit to be treated in an ordinary school. There is no doubt that the parent would resent having his child earmarked in this particular way. I do not wish to move any Amendment which might delay the Bill, but I should like the Government to look into the question. If there is a conflict and a decision has to be given, the body to deal with that ought to be a local body. You cannot send a child up to the Board of Education in London as if it were an affidavit or some such document. The matter should be decided on the spot.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, this Amendment is put down on behalf of the London County Council. In that case the subsection is entirely unnecessary, and as the noble Earl is so well satisfied with the way in which London has administered the previous Act I would ask him whether at a later stage he would accept an Amendment excepting London from this subsection. I agree that it is absurd, even in connection with a local authority far away from London, that the matter should be decided by the Board of Education; but I think as far as the London County Council is concerned it is entirely

265
competent to deal with such a matter itself. If the noble Earl will accept an Amendment on those lines it might avoid any conflict which might happen between those two bodies.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think it would be better for me to look into the question generally, as I said just now. So far as there is a point of substance in the complaint which was raised by the noble Marquess, I think it is clearly desirable that it should be looked at as it affects the whole of the country and not as it affects the one district of London.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Earl is well aware that a great deal of this legislation in London is separately treated. As regards London there is a separate Act altogether, and perhaps it would be suitable to follow the general lines of legislation on the subject.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Enforcement of obligations of parents of mentally defective and epileptic children.
5.—(1) If a local education authority are satisfied, after consultation with the parent of a mentally defective or epileptic child over seven years of age, that the parent is not making suitable provision for the child's education they may require the parent of the child to send the child to a certified class or school suitable for the child, and if he fails without reasonable excuse to do so may apply to a court of summary jurisdiction for an order requiring the child to be sent to a certified class or school suitable for the child and willing to receive him, being either such as the parent may select, or if he does not select a suitable class or school, then such class or school as the court thinks expedient, and such an order shall be a sufficient authority for the conveyance of the child to the class or school named in the order:
Provided that no order shall be made requiring the child to be sent to a certified class or school which is not within reach of the child's residence or to a boarding school without the consent in writing of the parent, unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that such consent is unreasonably withheld, or that the parent cannot be found, but consent shall not be deemed to be unreasonably withheld if withheld with the bonâ fide intention of benefiting the child:
Provided further that if the court shall refuse to make an order the court, unless for good cause it shall otherwise order, shall award costs to the parent, and the costs so awarded shall, unless some reason to the contrary appears, include such sum as compensation for the expense, trouble, and loss
266
of time incurred in or incidental to his attendance at the court as to the court may seem just and reasonable.
(2) The provisions of this section shall be in substitution for, and not in addition to, the power of a court of summary jurisdiction, on an attendance order not being complied with, to order the child to be sent to an industrial school under section twelve of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, as applied by the principal Act.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the power of a parent to withdraw a child from school on proof to the satisfaction of the local education authority that he will make suitable provision for the child's education in some other way.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved, after the word "may" in subsection (1) ["and if he fails without reasonable excuse to do so may"], to insert the words "by complaint." The noble Earl said: The object of introducing these words is to make it clear that the Summary Jurisdiction Act applies to Clause 5. It would cause great inconvenience if it did not apply as governing the whole matter of summary procedure.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 2l, after ("may") insert ("by complaint").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Certification of children.
6. Section one of the principal Act shall be construed and have effect as if the following words were added at the end of subsection (3) of that section:—
"Such duly qualified medical practitioner shall, if so directed by the local education authority, before giving a certificate under this section, consult the head teacher of the school, if any, which the child has been attending, or such other person as the local education authority may appoint for the purpose, and a copy of any report made by the head teacher or such other person shall be forwarded to the local education authority."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, after the word "authority" where it first appeared in the clause, to insert "or if he is so requested by the parent of the child." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this Amendment has to do with the smile part of the principal Act as the subsection on which I ventured to address your Lordships just now. The Government propose to modify the principal Act in One respect—namely, that when they have asked a medical officer to determine whether the child is defective, they retain a power in

267
the hands of the local education authority to direct that the head teacher should be consulted before the decision is finally arrived at. After all, the local education authority are not the only people or the principal people concerned. I know that education reformers think that the only people to be considered are the local education authority and the child, and they do not think that any one else ought to have any say in the matter at all. But as a matter of fact the parent ought to have a say, and your Lordships and the other House of Parliament think so and have put in some little protection for the parent. This Amendment is one more protection for the parent. The head teacher is a safeguard, because the head teacher does know what appearance the child has presented as a subject of teaching in the experience of the teacher himself. Therefore it is very proper that he should be consulted; and I think it would be quite fair that not only should the local education authority have the head teacher's opinion as a safeguard, but that the parent should have the head teacher's opinion also. I suggest, therefore, that in addition to the local education authority the parent may request that the doctor's verdict should be visaed by the head teacher. It is a very simple Amendment, and I think it is obviously just and fair. I hope the Government will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 19, after ("authority") insert ("or if he is so requested by the parent of the child").— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I shall be glad to accept the noble Marquess's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Short title and commencement.
9.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1914, and shall be construed with the principal Act, and that Act and the Elementary Education (Amendment) Act, 1903, and this Act may be cited together as the Elementary Education (Defective, and Epileptic Children) Acts, 1899 to 1914; and the Education Acts, 1870 to 1911, the Education (Choice of Employment) Act, 1910, and this Art may be cited together as the Education Acts, 1870 to 1914.
(2) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January nineteen hundred and fifteen.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, my Amendment to this clause is a purely drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("and the Elementary Education (Amendment) Act, 1903").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: When does the noble Earl propose to take the next stage?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I suggest this day week if that is convenient to the noble Marquess.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Wednesday next and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 203.)

COMPULSORY SETTLEMENT IN SKYE.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLETOH: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships many minutes with regard to this matter, but I think your Lordships will see that a somewhat important point of principle is raised. The Questions which I ask are three—namely, whether the Secretary for Scotland has been informed of the proposal of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland to settle by compulsion about 150 families from the Islands of Lewis and Harris on the Macleod estate in the Island of Skye without purchase of the land; whether His Majesty's Government think the proposal is a reasonable one in the form in which it has been made; and whether copies of the correspondence on the subject can be laid on the Table of the House.
I may possibly have overstated the number of families at present to be moved, but I believe it is actually between 130 and 140. There is no assurance, of course, that that will be the end of the proposal. I do not for a moment deny that extensions of existing holdings are often required, not only in the interest of the holder, but in the public interest so as to make them what are called economic holdings. I do not for a moment question the necessity of providing new holdings when for some reason or other, through subdivision, or squatting, or whatever it is, that course is desirable. I frankly admit

269
in both cases that public policy requires the change; the interests of the individuals require it; and I do not believe that in the long run to that extent it is to the disadvantage of the State. Nor do I for a moment controvert the idea, which I am sure will be put forward, that the circumstances of the Lews and of Harris at the present time require consideration and possibly the migration of some of the population in excess of the possible living means provided in those islands. But having made all those admissions, I do press strongly the point that when this has to be taken up as a matter of public policy the requirements of public policy Should not be carried out at the expense of any individual or to his injury, but should be paid for by the public authority frankly and fairly and on proper terms. Of course, the position of the individual is an important one. The position of the community into which these large numbers of persons are to be migrated also requires a certain amount of consideration. The expense will be greatly increased in the new locality for roads, for sanitary provisions, for education, for, to a moderate extent, policing, and in many other matters of that kind. Probably to a certain extent the community must take its chance. That is not so much an injury to the individual. But I do put forward the suggestion that, even in the interest of the community into which these people are migrated, this should be taken into account, because obviously if it is done to excess you are going to reproduce in the new district the very conditions you are seeking to remedy in the old one.
I believe that this proposal which I know has been made is one which is absolutely without precedent. The proprietor of the estate in question, Macleod of Macleod, is a man who has not shrunk in the past from assisting, in the public policy of the extension of holding and of making new holdings. I venture to say it is more than fifty years since I first saw the place of which I am speaking. I have seen it at intervals since, and have been on terms of personal friendship with the successive proprietors of the estate. I am therefore speaking of matters of which I have a certain knowledge. The position of the proprietor is that he is perfectly prepared to accept the co-operation of the Board in carrying out schemes of this kind for the benefit of people round his own home.
270
He has, as a matter of fact, in quite recent years provided accommodation for thirty-six new families and for six extensions of holdings upon two small farms of his estate, but, of course, with a preference to those who are in his immediate district.
As I understand the matter, as long ago as last November the Board o Agriculture intimated to Macleod their desire to secure a large part of the farm of Talisker for the formation of sixty-two new holdings, fifty-three of which were to be allotted to migrants from the Islands of Lewis and Harris. And on January 29 of the present year the Board further proposed to settle on other farms seventy-five new holders who were also to consist largely of migrants from the Island of Harris. On January 8 Macleod wrote to say that he sympathised with the general aim of the Board of Agriculture in regard to the formation of smallholdings under suitable conditions, but he intimated to them— and I am sure it was a reasonable intimations—that he would offer his resolute opposition so long as the estates remained in his possession to the migration of this large number of people of another island of whom he had in, knowledge, with whom he had no connection, and who were in no way related to those amongst whom they were to be placed. He went on to say that—
"If the Departmerts of Government concerned deem it expedient, as a matter of national police, to transport a population from the Lews or elsewhere and to settle them in Skye, the process should be by purchase."
I have quoted the text out of the letter, because it seems to me so reasonable that I want to know what is the answer to the position taken up. Macleod said in January that to enable the Board to effect their purpose on a large scale he was willing to sell the farm of Talisker, comprising 15,000 acres, as a whole; and that if more land were wanted he would sell the farm of Drynoch, about 7,000 acres; and Gesto, about 8,000 acres; and a still larger one, Glen Brittle, about 45,000 acres; but that in no case would he be prepared to part with a portion only of any farm. That is a reasonable safeguard, because for smallholdings you must have as good land as you can get, but if you take all the good land out of a farm you deteriorate the rest to such an extent as to make it useless. Macleod went on to say that while he—

271
"would deeply regret that the necessity should have arisen for parting either with the possession or with the control of lands which have been in his family for many hundreds of years, yet if required by the Government for a development which they believe to be in the public interest, he would consent to sell, and would ask only that the price should be fixed by arbitration."
There is no question of anything being given for compulsory taking. That is not asked for by Macleod, and, as a matter of fact, it is forbidden by the Act under which the Board is working. Macleod received a reply from the Board of Agriculture, dated February 11, in which no allusion whatever was made to this firm, frank, and, I consider, fair offer. It said that the case would be dealt with in the terms of the Small Landholders Act. I have looked at that Act. Your Lordships will recollect the general purport of it. The section in question is a very long and complicated one, and it occupies five pages.
LORD EMMOTT: Section 7.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Yes, Section 7. It is a very long and complicated section, and I venture to say that any one fairly reading it will see that most of its provisions, if not all of them, are clearly intended to be put into operation for the compulsory taking of land bit by bit, here and there, and it is not a fair reading of it to suggest that numbers of population may be migrated from other parts of the country and put down in this way. It is obviously necessary to have a certain power of compulsion for the extension of holdings or for even making new holdings in the same district, but I venture to say it is not reasonable to do this large operation at the expense of one individual, even supposing that it be granted that public policy requires it. I believe—it is only a conjecture on my part—but I believe that up to the present time no similar proposal has been made anywhere else in Scotland, that nobody has been made the object of such a suggestion, and that nobody else's property has been proposed to be taken without purchase for a large experiment in migration.
I venture to make an appeal to the Government that they should consider very carefully the position they are going to occupy in this matter. If expense is incurred, then it may be very much more difficult for the Departments concerned or
272
for the Government themselves to say that it shall not go on. The whole object of my Question is, first, to make sure whether the Board of Agriculture is carrying along with them the Secretary for Scotland, because the section to which I have referred, if it applies to a case of this kind, gives such absolutely supreme power to the Board of Agriculture and to the Land Court that I do not believe, except on any technical point, there is an appeal to a higher tribunal. Every one knows the case mentioned in the House the other night in the South of Scotland which was the subject of appeal to the Court of Session, and in which the Land Court and Board of Agriculture were found to have acted very wrongfully. I want to be sure, first, that the Secretary for Scotland has been made aware of what is proposed; secondly, that the Government as a whole approve of what is being done; and, thirdly, if possible, by means of the publication of the correspondence, that we may appeal to even a larger tribunal than the Government itself.
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD EMMOTT): My Lords, I am quite sure it was not necessary for the noble Lord to tell the House that he was no enemy to the policy of finding new holdings where possible for men who needed them, or to the policy of enlarging holdings. The commencement of this legislation was, I think, largely due to him, and he was interested in the early steps in regard to it. And the noble Lord also frankly acknowledged that the condition of the Lews was such that some remedy was required. What he says is that if an experiment in migration is to be made it should not be made at the expense of any individual, but that the Government should buy the property instead of applying for a scheme under the Small Landholders Act. He says that no similar plan has been carried out before, and he complains of what is now proposed.
The noble Lord asks three definite Questions, to which I will reply. He asks, in the first place, whether the Secretary for Scotland has been informed of the proposal of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland to settle by compulsion about 150 families from the Islands of Lewis and Harris on the Macleod estate in the Island of Skye without purchase of the land. The answer to that Question is that the Secretary for

273
Scotland has been informed of the proposal, and that the statements made in it are correct with this exception, that the number of migrants to be settled is less than stated. It is now known that in Skye alone there are 270 applicants for new holdings, and 253 applicants for enlargements. What happened in regard to this matter was this. It must be remembered, of course, that a duty is laid upon the Board of Agriculture in regard to this matter, and Section 7 or the Small Landholders Act of 1911 authorises the Board to apply to the Land Court, failing agreement with the landlord, for a compulsory order for the constitution of new holdings and enlargements.
Shortly after the commencement of their operations the Board had received more applications from the Lews and Harris than it would be possible to provide for in the Long Island even if all the land were sub-divided. And in August, 1912, they wrote to Macleod of Macleod asking if he would be willing to negotiate and co-operate with the Board in a scheme for the migration of fishermen and crofters from the Lews to the shores of Loch Bracadale. Macleod's reply was in the affirmative, provided the Board paid all outlays, including the taking over of sheep stock upon valuation terms. In consequence of this the Board sent its inspectors, and several farms were inspected. The schemes provided for the migration of men from the Lews and Harris. Lists of applicants for the Macleod's estate were drawn up and placed before the proprietor, who then withdrew his promised co-operation and stated that if the Government considered migration was essential they should purchase the land. I do not think I need go into the actual schemes which were mentioned by the noble Lord; that would be taking up your Lordships' time unnecessarily; but I have given an account of what happened, and I Lave corrected the only point in the Question of the noble Lord which required correction, and that is that it is uncertain how many of the men from the Lews and Harris will be migrated if this scheme obtains the sanction of the Land Court.
I pass to the second Question—whether His Majesty's Government think the proposal is a reasonable one in the form in which it has been made. His Majesty's Government do consider the proposal a reasonable one in view of the impossibility
274
of meeting the demand for holdings from suitable applicants in the Lews and Harris. Your Lordships are perfectly well aware that the conditions in the Lews and Harris cannot be dealt with except by migration or emigration. Even in the short time in which I have represented the Scottish Office in your Lordships' House the Government has been reproached several times for not dealing with the conditions in the Lews. Now the only way in which the Board of Agriculture can deal with those conditions is by migrating some of the congested population. In order to do so they must find somewhere to which to migrate them. These people desire to remain in the islands if possible because they want to retain their boats and to continue fishing. I am informed that after diligent search nowhere more suitable than these farms of the Macleod's could be found. Therefore I put this to you as a question of necessity. The Scottish Board of Agriculture has no desire to interfere with proprietors and is sorry to have to do so, but it is bound to do so to meet a great public need.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Why do they not purchase?
LORD EMMOTT: I am coining to that. In the exercise of a public duty seine one must be interfered with. I desire to say in regard to the Macleod that he is well known to be an excellent landlord and to have the interests of his tenants at heart. But I defend this action of the Board of Agriculture as a necessary measure to help to remove the congestion. In regard to the question of any loss sustained by the landlord, the Macleod will obtain compensation under subsection (11) of Section 7 for everything directly attributable to the constitution of new holdings. I was dealing with a similar question the other day, and I stated then what is the fact, that there is an appeal on a point of law as regards the compensation awarded by the arbiter in some of these cases. But the arbiters so far seem to have taken everything into account and to have allowed very liberal compensation. I further desire to say that if the Court sanctions the schemes which are being put before it the landlord will be consulted about fire selection of tenants.
The noble Lord asked, very naturally, why the Board of Agriculture do not purchase instead of applying for a scheme

275
before the Land Court. The reason is that their resources are very limited, and that it would lock up far too much money to buy a large property of this kind. Another reason they have is that the purchase schemes, some of which were due to the action of the noble Lord himself and some of which were due to Lord Pentland, have not turned out such great successes that His Majesty's Government is very much enamoured of them or is desirous to proceed further in that direction. After all, the noble Earl opposite (Lord Camperdown) often complains, and I dare say will complain again, of the old purchase scheme for which the various Boards have been responsible in the past. I say frankly that His Majesty's Government do not feel at the present moment at all inclined to increase the number of those schemes.
The only other Question is as to the publication of the correspondence. The correspondence in this case was all in regard to the negotiation stage, and the Board of Agriculture has an immense correspondence not only with the Macleod but with other landlords in regard to these matters. Correspondence of that kind is carried on as a rule, and is understood to be carried on, in a confidential way and not with a view to publication; and although I do not think there is any reason why the Board of Agriculture should be afraid of publishing this particular correspondence—in fact, I am pretty sure there is not—they feel, on the broad public ground that this correspondence is not meant for publication, that they cannot assent to its publication. They feel that if either House were able to ask for the publication of negotiations of this kind relating to a very preliminary stage of dealings in land in Scotland it would be against the public interest. Therefore, with the greatest possible regret, I must ask the noble Lord not to press for the publication of this correspondence.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the speech which has just been made. The noble Lord does not in any way contradict Lord Balfour's assertion that this is the largest scheme of the kind that has been proposed. But while the Board are perfectly prepared to undertake a scheme of this magnitude, are they certain that if that scheme is approved by the Court
276
the men will migrate from the Lews? I say this for this reason, that in 1906 the Congested Districts Board had inquiries made by the parish council of Stornoway in their district, and that that parish council, knowing all the difficulties of the case and having inquired, reported that none of the cottars, squatters, or crofters were found to be in favour of migration to the mainland or to other parts of Scotland. That is six years ago. Then a year or two ago a farm was purchased in Ross, and it was said—I do not know whether it was true or not —that it was intended for migrants from the Lews. Well, whether the migrants from the Lews were or were not prepared to go I cannot say, but the rumour was received in the most unsympathetic manner in the district to which these migrants, whoever they were, were to be transported, and that was dropped. Therefore the Board at that time found themselves—I refer to the farm to which I have alluded in your Lordships' House before, called Seafield—the Board found themselves with this land which they had purchased and for which they had no tenants. They had to look for tenants where they could, and there has been a great deal of difficulty there ever since. Therefore in the, first place is it quite certain that these 150 families will be prepared to go? I am by no means certain that it is so. In the next place, suppose they go to Skye, will they be welcome among the people who are in Skye? That is a most important question, because it by no meat's follows that because there are smallholders in Syke—and, as the noble Lord knows, there are a great many smallholders there because Macleod has done a great deal in that way and has to the utmost of his power assisted the establishment of smallholdings—the persons who are already in that district will be altogether satisfied to have these 150 families dumped down in their midst.
Then we come to what is to be the result financially. I think if I were so disposed I could make a very safe prophecy as to what would be the result financially. But how is it proposed to deal with this matter in the first instance? Lord Balfour has said, "If you wish to make a large experiment of this kind, you ought to buy Macleod's property"; but the noble Lord opposite says, "No, we are not prepared to buy the property, and

277
the reason is that we do not think it would be a lucrative transaction." But is that a reason for imposing this loss upon Macleod? Then there is this further point. These tenants who are to be put on Macleod's estate are tenants who are imposed upon him whether he will or whether he will not. What security has for the receipt of their rents hereafter? If he is not paid he will have the very unpleasant alternative of going to Court to make these men pay their rents; and probably those rents will most of them not exceed £5.
Then with regard to the general question, by multiplying the number of these small crofters—because they are crofters and nothing else; you cannot call them anything else—by multiplying these crofters indefinitely and populating all that portion of the West of Scotland with small crofters, where is the additional labour to come from and how are they to be employed? Do you think t hey earn live on a croft the rent of which does not exceed £5? The thing is too absurd. And remember what Lord Balfour said about rates. The other day complained in this House of two schemes. One was at Strathnevar, a property which had been bought from the Duke of Sutherland, and that land had been resold to the settlers. In each case the settlers did not pay their annuities, and then they applied to be allowed to revert to the position of tenants. The Government agreed. They said, "Yes, you can go back from your bargain, and in place of being owners you will become tenants." What has the result of that been? I will tell you in two or three figures with regard to those two places what the result is. I am doing this as an illustration of what I think is likely, in fact is sure, to happen in other cases. Syre cost in one way and another £13,480. The annuities for land proper, not including the shooting rent of £250, which, after all, is the chief asset on the place, was £140. Well, they would not pay it, so they went to arbitration, and the result was that the fair rent that was fixed came out at £109 9s. But then the Board, by way of receiving this £109 9s. rent, became liable for owner's rates, and that was the point on which Lord Balfour laid so much stress. And what do your Lordships suppose the amount of those rates was? This arrangement has been in existence for two years,
278
and the first year the rates were £88 and the second year they were £90. Now the total rent was £109 9s. and the rates £88 or £90: so the result of the outlay of that £13,480 is this. There is a shooting rent, much despised, but it is the only asset of this part of the district, of £250; but in addition to that there is only £20 from the land. Net receipts, £20 ! Outlay, £13,000 !
Barra is even worse. This happened in Barra? Barra cost the taxpayers of this country £12,140; that is when it was bought. The annuities in repayment of the land came to £204. That they would not pay any longer, so their arrangement was altered and instead of being owners they became tenants. The fair rent that was fixed in this ease was £02 17 s. instead of £204; but your Lordships must, of course, remember that in that £201 there was a certain amount; in regard to the fact that it was a purchase and not a mere annual rent. But, then the Board, out of this £92 17 s., became liable for owner's rates, and in 1912–13 those were £78 and in the next year they were £68. Therefore the net result to the taxpayers in that case is this. They expended £12,440, and they received in net rent £19 or £20 ! It would be cheap in both those cases to give the land to the people and to beg them to be satisfied with paying nothing to anybody; reserving, of course, the only valuable asset, which is the £250 shooting rent on Syre. Those are the two cases that I mentioned the other day, and I am bound to say that I have obtained these figures by inquiry at the Board of Agriculture, so therefore I know that they are all correct. You will have exactly that same sort of thing here if you enlarge the number and the acreage of these smallholdings, all these being small people who have no outside means of employment. I really do not know what will result to this part of Scotland. One would suppose that Scotland is going mad. The loss to the taxpayer will be beyond anything your Lordships can conceive. In this case the Government say, "We are not prepared to purchase." I have no doubt they are not. But what do they do? They put it on Macleod.
LORD EMMOTT: He gets compensation. The noble Earl must be familiar with the arbitrations that have beers made in regard to these matters. As I showed

279
only a few days ago in regard to two estates, the compensation allowed in some cases for the diminution in shooting and fishing rent values, etc., amounted to twelve years purchase or thereabouts to the landlords besides in some cases six or seven years to the tenants.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Yes, but you are allowed compensation only where you can prove that you have sustained actual loss whether in the selling value of your estate or otherwise. I will point out to your Lordships how it is worked by the Board of Agriculture. It immediately becomes to the interest of the Board of Agriculture to make the rent from the new holders as nearly as possible the same figure as the old rent, because then there is no compensation to pay. That is one of the objections to this system. Observe how it works. Seven years hence round comes your Land Court and cuts down that rent by fifty per cent., if we are to judge of their future by their past. I will only say in conclusion that everything Lord Balfour has said appears to me quite reasonable. If this country is determined to perpetuate and to increase a system of smallholdings which are uneconomic, this country ought to be sufficiently liberal to pay for it and not throw the cost of it on to the unfortunate proprietors.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite who represents the Scottish Office informs us that His Majesty's Government consider the proposal which has been made to the Macleod a reasonable proposal. Now I venture to say that that is a view which would not be accepted by any audience, I do not care where you seek it, to whom the facts of the case were fully explained. How did the noble Lord proceed to establish his case? He told us that it was necessary to do something to relieve the congestion which exists in the Lews. We are all agreed as to that. He said that migration was desirable and that it was necessary to find some place to which the people might be migrated. Again we do not differ from him. Then he said that the people desired very much to remain in the neighbouring islands. That we quite understand. And, finally, he said that these farms, the property of the Macleod, were suitable for the experiment. I am quite ready to make a present to the noble Lord of all those propositions; I will take them as established.
280
But when the noble Lord tells us that the proper way of giving effect to this policy is to collect 150 families from these islands and to dump them down on this unfortunate gentleman's property, to make him really responsible for them in the future, then I part company with him altogether. Surely the reasonable thing in a case of that kind is to do what I believe is always done in Ireland. When the Congested Districts Board require land they purchase it from the owner and try the experiment themselves and at their own risk. When it was suggested by my noble friend that this was a case in which purchase might have been resorted to, the noble Lord opposite said, "Oh, but the proprietor receives compensation." My Lords, no compensation will really be an adequate solatium to a man who finds his estate still left upon his hands and left upon his hands under these deplorable conditions. But the noble Lord went further. He gave us with great frankness—he always talks frankly to us—the reasons why the Board did not desire to resort to purchase in this particular case. He said the Board would not purchase because their funds were limited and the lock up was too large. I dare say their funds may be limited, and it may be a considerable lock up; but that is not a sufficient reason for doing what is, after all, a very grave injustice to the Macleod who, by the noble Lord's own admission, is a very good landlord and has shown himself throughout these transactions ready to meet the Government Department in a reasonable spirit.
But the noble Lord added another reason. He said that the Board were reluctant to purchase because their purchase schemes had not been a success. What an admission ! It is an admission that purchase would have been a thoroughly unsound proposition, and that therefore because the Department did not desire to involve themselves in it they imposed the risk and the trouble upon this unfortunate gentleman. I never heard a more inadequate explanation of what seems to me to be an act of great injustice. The noble Lord said that the experience of the Board rendered them not inclined to increase the number of their purchase schemes. Exactly. Therefore they propose to try an experiment upon the corpus vile of the Macleod instead of with funds of their own production. I am not very much surprised

281
that His Majesty's Government decline to produce the correspondence which led to that denouement; but I think we have elicited enough this evening to form a pretty clear opinion as to what the purport of that correspondence was. And I must say that my noble friend has elicited the fact of what I can only describe as a very great wrong that has been done to a perfectly innocent individual.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I do not want to continue the discussion, but I desire to touch on one or two points. The noble Lord opposite was using the argumentum ad hominem to me because I was as partly responsible for the purchase of Syre and Strathnevar. That is true. I was, as Secretary for Scotland, responsible for the purchase of those two places. But if the figures are looked into it will be found that we made a satisfactory bargain so far as the value to the then landlord was considered. I ventured to hope that the stimulus of ownership would get these smallholders to exert themselves, and, as has been the case in Ireland, be the means of turning them into a satisfactory community. That experiment has, I am afraid, to a large extent, failed. But if I say it has failed it should be regarded rather as an object lesson than as an example; and I am not at all sure that even if it is repeated under more favourable circumstances it carries a guarantee of success. The important point about it is this, that if you are going to undertake this pokey I believe it to be worth while to undertake it in the general interest; it should be undertaken, as I ventured to do it, at the public expense and not to the detriment of the individual landowner.
The noble Lord said that Macleod would get compensation for anything directly due to the scheme. So he will. But the Board of Agriculture and the Land Court together, while they will give compensation for disturbance to the tenant for sheep and certain compensation to the landlord for things which now happen, I do not suppose that the noble Lord and the Secretary for Scotland will contend that future reductions of rent will be regarded as directly due to this scheme and that for that the landlords will get any compensation. Look what the position is. At the present time this land is let at fair rents to a certain number of substantial tenants, who are making
282
their money and who have made their money and paid their rents for years, and the landlord runs, comparatively speaking, no risks, He pays his rates, he pays his repairs, and be executes all the obligations of a landlord. But look at what is going to happen if these families are put on the estate and do not thrive. They will either go bankrupt and not be able to pay their rents, and it will be a difficult thing to remove them; or, as the noble Earl said, the Land Court will go round and reduce the rents. Now all these things are wholly beyond the control of the landlord. He has a self-contained reasonable possession at the present time with only the ordinary risk between landlord and tenant of the rise and fall in prices and so on, and he exercises a discretion whether he will continue a tenancy. But here a number of men are put on him over whom he will have no control. They may be bad in their habits, they may be unthrifty, and they may not know how to farm, and he will have to stand the loss. If it is the case that the experiment on Syre has failed and the State has been put to loss and expense in regard to it, of course we all regret it; but that at the same time is no excuse for deliberately, in the light of that example, putting this unfortunate landlord into the, I think, unfair position into which apparently he is going to be put.

GUIDE LECTURE.
LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government, having regard to the promises of further consideration made in the discussion on 20th May—
Whether, as stated in the Press, pay days at the Victoria and Albert Museum have been abolished.
Whether they have come to any decision as to the appointment of a guide lecturer at the Imperial Institute.
Whether at Kew Gardens steps have now been taken to make the system of guide lecturer better known to the public by means of placards and advertisements in the Press, and in conjunction with the railway companies.
Whether they will state what are the numbers that have gone round with the guide in Kew Gardens from 1st January to 30th June, 1914, as compared with the small number of 203 during the whole of last year.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am glad to be able to tell the noble Lord, in reply to the first part of his Question, that it is quite trite that pay days at the Victoria and Albert Museum have been abolished from the 1st of this month. With regard to the second Question, the Imperial Institute is not controlled directly by Parliament although the Government makes a grant. The authorities have agreed to appoint a guide lecturer as an experiment. The appointment will be made in the autumn of this year. With regard to the third Question, in respect of Kew Gardens, twenty-one notice boards displaying large posters giving full details of the tours of the guide lecturer are placed outside and within the gates of the Royal Botanic Gardens. Fourteen of these are placed outside the gates and seven within the grounds, two being at the Refreshment Pavilion. Large posters are displayed in the waiting rooms of the Colonial Office and the Royal Colonial Institute, and in the offices of the High Commissioners for Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand, and in the offices of the Agents-General for Tasmania, Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales, and Queensland. The Crown Agents for the Colonies and the Agent-General for Western Australia, who were unable to find space for the display of the poster, have been supplied with copies of the leaflet.
In May last the Board issued a communiqué to the principal newspapers of England and Wales calling attention to the fact that the services of a guide at Kew were available for the public, and giving particulars of the small charge made. The Board have now decided to advertise at once in the leading London daily newspapers that a guide is available for visitors to Kew, and to give in such advertisement particulars of the arrangements as to hours of starting, terms, etc. The Board have also arranged with the Underground Railway Company that the company, when advertising Kew Gardens as one of the attractions of their line, will call attention to the fact that the services of a guide are available, and the Board are also approaching the London and North-Western and London and South Western Railway Companies with a view to these companies adopting a similar course by means of referring to the guide in their leaflets or booklets in which
284
Kew Gardens are mentioned. Lastly, the number of visitors who have availed themselves of the guide lecturer from January I to June 30 of this year is 441 at the morning tours and 641 at the afternoon tours, a total of 1,082 and an average of 3.5 per tour. The number 203 referred to by the noble Lord alludes to the period front April 1, 1913, when the guide was appointed, to December 31, 1913, and not for the whole twelve months of 1913, as the noble Lord seems to think from the last paragraph of his Question.

POLICE (WEEKLY REST-DAY) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3ª To-morrow.

THE SITUATION IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, with the permission of the noble Viscount opposite, I should like to ask him whether he is able to give the House any further information as to the situation in South-Eastern Europe.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): My Lords, I am afraid I have very little information to give, indeed hardly any. Your Lordships are already acquainted from the public prints with the important fact that war has been declared by Austria-Hungary against Servia. All Europe, need hardly say, is keenly alive to the far-reaching possibilities that are brought into view by this step. As to the best way of averting the spread of the war beyond the area immediately and primarily concerned all the other Powers are engaged in active communications. As to the part of His Majesty's Government in these international communications there is nothing to add, I think, to what was said yesterday afternoon by my noble friend the Leader of the House. Your Lordships may rest assured of, the earnest and unremitting efforts of His Majesty's Government, well acquainted as they are with all the complications and difficulties of the European position, to aid the cause of international peace and to avoid a vast catastrophe.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 18) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection. That the following Lords be proposed to the Rouse to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bilis; (viz.),

D. Wellington (Chairman),

E. Northosk,

E. Chichester,

L. Braye,

L. Lvell;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet To-morrow, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be
286
heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

FINANCE BILL.
Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered To-morrow in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill.

TRADE MARKS BILL.
To be read 2ª To-morrow (The Lord Southwark).
House adjourned five minutes before Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past ten o'clock.