Sitting of 10 May 1872

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (£6,000,000)*, and passed.
INDIA—RECRUITING OF COOLIES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES WINGFIELDasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been turned to the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the treatment of Immigrants in British Guiana, presented to Parliament in June, 1871, wherein the following irregularities in the recruiting of Coolies in India are brought to notice:—1st, That the medical examination is hasty, and many infirm and aged persons are shipped; 2nd, That, though always entered as agriculturists in the certificates, many of the Coolies belong to other occupations, and are not fitted for field labour; 3rd, That they are deceived by the promise of far higher wages than the majority of Immigrants earn; and, if the Secretary of State has sent or will send instructions to the Indian Government to inquire into these irregularities, and provide the necessary remedy?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Yes, Sir, the attention of the Secretary of State has been drawn to the Report alluded to, and he is in communication with the Indian Government and with the Colonial Office on the subject.

INDIA—INCOME TAX, PRESIDENCY OF BOMBAY.—QUESTION.
SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the case that the Bombay Government, through its Legislative Council, has for local purposes imposed a tax on incomes of £5 a-year and upwards, while the Government of India

601
has raised the minimum of income assessable tinder the Income Tax, first from £20 a-year to £50, and subsequently to £75, and finally to £100?
MR. GRANT DUFF: Yes, Sir, it is true that a tax of the kind has been in operation for some months. It is a local or provincial impost for local and provincial purposes, levied under an Act for imposing duties on the rural non-agricultural classes, and intended to meet the criticism that taxation for provincial and local purposes was laid too exclusively upon the peasants and the land. Like all such imposts, it is merely tentative, and will of course be closely watched both on the spot and in this country.

BANK HOLIDAYS ACT—POST-OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS' CLERKS.—QUESTION.
MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Postmaster General, Whether it may be understood from his answer, on the 23rd April, that the clerks in the Post Office Savings Banks throughout England will, as far as practicable, be relieved from their duties on December 26, Easter Monday, and Whit Monday; and, whether he will not consent to extend this privilege to them on the other Bank Holiday,—viz., the first Monday in August?
MR. MONSELL: Sir, from the terms of the hon. Member's Question, he seems to be under the impression that in country post offices the savings bank business is separated from other postal business, and devolves upon different persons. That is not so; and therefore, in the large majority of places it would not be possible to give a holiday to the persons engaged in savings bank business without closing the post offices altogether, and such is certainly not my intention. With respect to the second part of the Question, I explained the other day that the Bank Holidays Act did not apply to the Civil Service of the Crown; but I stated also that upon the three days I mentioned, as those holidays were generally observed throughout the City of London, it would be proper to extend them to the servants of the Post Office. I believe, however, that the first Monday in August is not so universally observed, and, therefore, it is not my intention at present to extend the holidays to that day.

BRITISH CONSULAR ESTABLISHMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RYLANDSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he is able to assure the House that the Reports from Consuls relative to British Consulate Establishments recently laid upon the Table are given in full, and have not been abridged in any important particular?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: I believe, Sir, that nothing whatever has been omitted in printing the Consuls' Reports as far as answers to the queries in Lord Granville's Circular of August 26, 1871, are concerned. In a very few instances Consuls went into matters extraneous to those subjects, or made remarks of a personal character, touching Departments, Foreign Governments, and individuals, and these have been omitted.
  MR. RYLANDSasked, Whether it is not a fact that some of the passages which have been omitted contain suggestions for economical reforms in the Consular Establishments which may with advantage be laid before Parliament?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, the Consuls were requested to answer as fully as they pleased the queries contained in Lord Granville's Circular of the 26th of August; but in some cases they went into other matters, some of which I will mention. In one case the Consul alluded to the re-organization of the Board of Trade; another referred to the constitution of the Foreign Office, and a third commented upon the strange discrepancy existing between the English Law and the Laws of Moses on the subject of bigamy. These, and one or two other matters referred to in the Reports were considered irrelevant, and it was decided to expunge them, in order that they should not appear upon the Table of the House.

INDIA—EDUCATIONAL SERVICE—RETIRING PENSIONS.—QUESTIONS.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Secretary of State has under his consideration the question of granting retiring pensions to officers in the Educational Service; and, if so, whether he has come to any conclusion upon it?
MR. GRANT DUFF: Yes, Sir, the Secretary of State has had under his consideration the matter alluded to by my right hon. Friend, and is awaiting a despatch from the Government of India on the subject, which he hoped to have received before this.

DOMINION OF CANADA—TREATY OF WASHINGTON—GUARANTEED CANADIAN LOAN OF£2,500,000.—QUESTION.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will lay upon the Table all the Correspondence between the Home Government and the Dominion of Canada and Nova Scotia on the subject of the Washington Treaty, since the date of its signature; and whether, as this Correspondence is essential to enable the House to form a just opinion as to the proposed guaranteed Canadian Loan, these Papers will be laid upon the Table before the holidays? He also desired to put another Question bearing upon the same subject, and having special reference to the Papers which have been delivered. He found from the Papers laid on the Table that a Despatch from the Committee of the Privy Council of Canada was received by Lord Kimberley on the 30th August, which denounced in the strongest terms the Washington Treaty, and that the Despatch was not acknowledged by the Colonial Office until the 23rd of November, so that three months elapsed between the receipt of the Despatch and its acknowledgement. He wished to ask, Whether there was a mistake as to the date; and, if not, whether the hon. Gentleman will lay on the Table any Despatch received between the 30th of August and the 23rd of November?
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Sir, if my hon. Friend will refer to the Correspondence already presented, he will see that it is not confined to the question of the Loan, but goes into the whole subject of the Treaty. We have no further Correspondence with the Dominion Government to present as to the Treaty. Neither is there any Correspondence with Nova Scotia, as since the Confederation we have no direct communication with any of the Provinces which form that Confederation, but only with the Government of the Dominion. With regard to the second
604
Question, it is not out of any personal disrespect to my hon. Friend, but out of regard to the established practice and usage of this House, that I must decline to answer a Question upon so important a point without the ordinary Notice.

ARMY—RETIREMENT OF INDIAN FIELD OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL BARTTELOTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to a statement made by him on the 21st of March, in answer to a Question which he put to him, Whether the scheme which is under consideration to induce Field Officers of the Indian Army to retire is intended to apply to Field Officers generally, or to those only who are unemployed?
MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, the scheme to which I alluded in my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend was one submitted by the Government of India, and which had for its object a reduction in the number of surplus and unemployed officers in that country, so as to save expense. There is no desire on the part of Her Majesty's Government to dispense with the services of any of the very efficient officers who are at present employed in that country.

ROYAL MINT—SILVER COINAGE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BARNETTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in view of the continued inconvenience arising from a scarcity of Silver Coin and Half-sovereigns, he contemplates any plan to increase the power of coining at the Royal Mint, or to supplement it from any other source?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Probably, Sir, the hon. Gentleman is aware that we issue silver coin through the Bank of England. On the 2nd of this month we received an application from the Bank for a further issue of silver coin, but accompanying that intimation was a demand for a further supply of gold coin. There is, of course, a good deal of difficulty in carrying on two different coinages at once in the same establishment. This is, however, what we are now doing, and hope to be able to do till we have overtaken the demand. The pressure on the Mint has of late been something enormous. The

  605
  Bank has issued £16,000,000 of gold during the last 12 months, in excess of the amount received from the public, which is about three times as much as is usually required, and in the same way the £860,000 of silver issued was three times more than the quantity usually required within the same period. No doubt there are ways by which we might put ourselves in a position to overtake any demand which may be made on us. One of these is by the erection of new machinery. The machinery we have at present is antiquated, and it would cost us about £40,000 to put us on a level with the best Mints. I did hope to be able to do what was required in this direction without any expense falling upon the public by disposing of the present site and purchasing one which is at the same time cheaper and more suitable. That proposal the House refused to accede to; but I am reluctant to incur this expense until I am certain that the House will not entertain the proposal. There is another matter which is also worth considering. We are at this moment sending large quantities of gold out of this country for the purpose of being melted down and being coined for other nations. The fact is that our gold is so well assayed that it saves a good deal of trouble to those who desire to use it for this purpose, because it can be melted down and used at once. The remedy for this would, of course, be to charge some mintage on gold, and so make it not worth people's while to export it. For the inconvenience complained of by the hon. Gentleman I have no remedy to suggest, but a little patience and to go on as we are.

SPAIN—SEIZURE AND DETENTION OF THE "LARK."—QUESTION.
MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any information has been received at the Colonial Office respecting the seizure and detention by the Spanish authorities at Manzanilla in Cuba of a vessel called the "Lark," belonging to Jamaica, which, under stress of weather, had been obliged to put into that port, or had been taken there by a Spanish gunboat in January last; whether, notwithstanding the production of her papers and her clearance, showing her port of destination, and the explanation of the
606
circumstances which had obliged her to seek refuge at Manzanilla, and in spite of the assurances and remonstrances of the British Consul at that place, the vessel was detained for eight days under the alleged suspicion that she was conveying arms to the Cuban insurgents, although search had been made and no arms had been found on board; whether, under these circumstances, and without being taken before the Consul or any official person for examination, the owner, a merchant of Jamaica, a passenger, and the crew, consisting in all of seven British subjects, were taken on shore as prisoners and confined during the period mentioned in the common prison, among criminals of every description, many of whom were afflicted with loathsome and offensive diseases; and, under such circumstances of hardship and suffering, without even a bed or a seat to rest upon, except such as they were able after a time to procure at their own expense, that their health became more or less affected; whether before they could obtain their release they were required and obliged to sign a document professing to thank the Spanish authorities for the kindness with which they had been treated, and promising not to make any claim for compensation; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have taken, or intend to take, any and what steps to obtain redress and to procure compensation for these injured persons?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, before the hon. Gentleman replies, I desire to ask, Whether a Question of this unusual length, and containing a recital of so large a number of details, which may or may not be accurate, is in accordance with the Rules of the House?
MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the appeal of the right hon. Baronet, I am bound to say that the Question cannot be held to be out of Order. At the same time, I feel equally bound to say, that the Question is of such a character that, if the hon. Gentleman to whom it is addressed should object to answer all the facts alluded to on this occasion, the hon. and learned Member who puts it might—and, perhaps, more properly—find himself under the necessity of putting the Question on the Paper as a Notice of a Motion on the subject.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Sir, with all deference to your decision, I do not think that this Question is one

607
which would have been better presented in the form of a Motion, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman had not stated the facts in his Question, I fear I must have detained the House by a longer statement than will now be necessary. Communications have been received upon this subject both from the Governor of Jamaica and from Her Majesty's Consul General in Cuba. Those communications convey to us intelligence very much in accordance with the statements made in the Question of my hon. and learned Friend. Immediately upon the receipt of that intelligence at the Colonial Office, we communicated with the Foreign Office, and without loss of time representations have been made to the Spanish Government through the British Minister at Madrid. Her Majesty's Government are at present awaiting the reply to those representations from the Spanish Government.
MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he desired by way of justification to say that he had consulted his hon. Friend as to the form in which he should put the Question, and that in its present shape it had received the sanction of his hon. Friend before being placed on the Paper.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON. TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA). THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.

  CORRESPONDENCE. QUESTION.
  MR. OTWAY: I wish, Sir, to ask my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister a Question of which I have had no opportunity of giving previous Notice. I have understood that it is intended to make some communication to this House on Monday next with reference to the progress of the negotiations with the United States of America. The Question I wish to ask is, Whether the Papers which are expected to be laid upon the Table of the House, bearing upon the question, will be in the hands of Members before Monday, or on Monday, the day when it is expected the communication will be made?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, we do not purpose laying any Papers on the Table before Monday, nor can we say whether it will be expedient that Papers should be presented then or not. We will, however, endeavour, for all practical purposes, to place the House in exact
  608
  possession of the actual state of the negotiations.
  MR. BOUVERIE: I thought, Sir, I understood the other day, that the position of this House with regard to these negotiations would be exactly the same as the position of the House of Lords, and that it would be afforded an opportunity for discussion, in case it should desire to consider the matter.
  MR. GLADSTONE: My right hon. Friend is perfectly correct in his assumption.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

CRIMINAL LAW—REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.

  RESOLUTIONS.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY, in rising to call attention to the subject of Reformatory and Industrial Schools, and to move the following Resolutions:—
  "That all Schools for poor children, aided by public money, should be under one general Education Department.
  "That Industrial Schools should not be treated as penal institutions, but that children of tender age, whether merely vagrants or convicted of minor offences, should, after any due correction, be sent to such schools for the rest of their childhood, as to educational establishments where they may be trained to industry."
  said, he thought that the Bill lately introduced by the hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. J. G. Talbot) evinced a growing complication of the subject, which deserved discussion. These schools might be now established under four distinct Acts of Parliament—two Acts of 1866, the Elementary Schools Act, 1870, and the Bill now nearly enacted just alluded to. They were supported from four sources—voluntary subscriptions, Treasury Grants, school rates, and county or borough rates. Public elementary schools of all sorts were scattered separately under separate departments—Elementary Schools being under one department, pauper schools under another, and reformatory and industrial schools partly under one Department, and partly under another. All schools supported by public money should be placed under the Education Department of the State, both as regarded inspection and finance.

  609
  Whatever varieties of circumstances might affect their inmates, the want of education was common to all, and so far as the object was the supply of that want at the public expense, the Department superintending such supply should be one and the same. It was neither wise nor just that any of these educationally-aided classes should have its education under the control of a department which had nothing to do with education. In the instance of industrial schools, which dealt with children who had not even fallen into crime, it would be admitted at least in their case that the State, in assuming locum parentis, though perhaps obliged to lodge and feed as well as educate, need not educate a child on the score of its desertion as a different animal from an ordinary child. Again, it was a growing conviction in the minds of all who had paid any attention to the subject that pauper schools should not be placed in workhouses, but that they should be separated from them, and great expense had been incurred in making large pauper schools, of which there were a group near London, which had given the nickname of "Pauperia" to the locality. The feeling, however, which had dictated that large outlay was to get the children out of workhouses; and the growing practice of this country was to go a step further still, and get such children to the national schools or the other schools of the country—at all events, to get them out of the workhouses, because the workhouses were not proper places for education, nor should the Poor Law Board be brought into the workhouses for educational purposes. The educational superintendence should be the same for all classes of children, from whatever cause thrown on public aid for education. It was a growing practice in Parliament to treat every detail of the same subject with isolated legislation and separate machinery. Every sort of factory had a distinct Factory Act and set of Inspectors. A central Education Department does not fulfil its post unless it embraces every kind of education to which the people contribute. Each kind of school may be distinct; but the superintendence and inspection of all belongs properly to the central Ministry established for that purpose. One incidental objection to the present system was that Parliament never had presented to it the total
  610
  cost of public elementary education, for one item came in the charge for one department and one in another; the power of the House to check expenditure was taken away, although the division of control was in itself a cause of waste. He (Sir Charles Adderley) was in favour of what the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) had often urged—a Minister for Education who should be directly responsible to Parliament for all educational expenditure, instead of the provisional arrangement still continued from the earliest tentative essays on the subject, leaving the subject in the hands of a subaltern officer of the Privy Council, without authority to guide the policy of the Department, and in a situation which prevented his feeling full responsibility.
  To come now to an exclusive consideration of the two kinds of public elementary schools referred to in the Resolution—namely, reformatory and industrial schools, they were now both treated practically as identical, whether that House wished them to be so or not: his own idea, however, always had been that they were identical, not only in inevitable practice, but originally in idea. He drafted the first Bill on the subject of reformatory schools, which was taken up by Lord Palmerston and passed as a Government measure, with the chief alteration of substituting the title "juvenile" for "youthful" offenders, and he had for many years been engaged in the practical management of those institutions. The original idea of a reformatory was, that a number of children in all great towns being wholly without parental care ran about the streets and fell into crime; and that it was the interest of the State not only to punish them adequately for their offences, in order to deter them from crime, but after their punishment not to let them go back to their old neglected condition, but to step in, in loco parentis, and give them that education the want of which threw them into crime. The idea of industrial schools was that it was felt by a great many magistrates that the reformatories were made of too penal a character for the class of children who came into them; and more and more so, because the class of children who existed at first ceased to exist, by the mere fact of police interference having, however roughly, broken up the

  611
  nurseries of youthful crime, and therefore they wanted a less penal class of schools to be adopted. The origin of the industrial schools was much the same as that which led to the establishment of houses of correction, under the mitigating notion of secondary gaols. As they relented from a Draconic code of hanging and imprisoning children, former habits lingered, and even now many still failed to embrace the full idea which substituted reformatories for prisons and death to criminal children. Although some attempts had been made to distinguish between the class of children sent to industrial schools and those sent to reformatories, yet, generally speaking, the inmates of both were in practice the same, for both were children utterly neglected and thrown upon the streets; and, so far from being children whom the Education Department should "shunt" to other agencies, they were the very class which that Department should take primarily under its supervision; because its business was not to give education to all, but to those who were unable to get it in any other way. In fact, they were the very class for whom the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon), much to his credit, tried to introduce the compulsory system, in order to force them into schools. They were, in fact, the only subjects of compulsory education they yet had, and the system developed, would probably supply all they wanted to have. There was great truth in the Jewish proverb that "the parent who brought up his child in idleness brought him up as a thief!" But convictions were not always a test of criminality. The convicted were often the most innocent. Besides, magistrates often committed children indifferently to reformatory or to industrial schools from reasons totally unconnected with their criminality, and sometimes even almost trumped up a conviction in order to get a neglected child into a good reformatory. He wished to assure the House that he was not at all trying to represent reformatories and industrial schools as having failed in their object. His purpose was to make them more perfect and more consistent with their true intention. It was the greatest satisfaction to him to think that it was to the Reformatories and to the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies that they were indebted for, what they
  612
  might now hope to be, the permanent reduction of crime in the country. Reformatories had broken up the nurseries of crime, and there was now no longer the class of hardened juvenile criminals such as there was some 25 years ago. It was true that there were individual cases occurring every day of juvenile offenders quibus malitia supplet œtatem; but those offenders should be sent to prison and dealt with as adults. He was, therefore, the last man who would deny that reformatories and industrial schools had done great service; but he would be also the last man who would allow any old prejudices to stand still in the way of their complete and perfect success. That brought him to the main point of his Resolutions, and that was that these educational institutions were misused in being made penal in their character. The fact of their being treated as penal frustrated, in many important particulars, their intention. It was the greatest possible mistake to identify punishment with education. They were two separate ideas, and had only the relation to each other that medicine had to food; but they would never think of feeding a child during the whole period of childhood on medicine, and drugging all his food. They were trying to make their prisons schools and their schools prisons; whereas, it seemed to him that the special object of reformatories was, and ought to be, to raise the children in them out of the criminal class. As education was only incidental to the infliction of imprisonment, so punishment should be only incidental to the curriculum of school. They were giving long terms of imprisonment to try to reform character in places where punishment only was possible; and, on the other hand, a number of children, led into crime before their character was formed, were subjected to prolonged punishment during all their childhood, by way and under the parental pretence of education. That was a doubly false policy, both the treating of prisons as schools and of schools as prisons. There was folly as well as injustice in fixing for life the convict stamp both in a child's own consciousness and in the world's opinion of him. The chief object in making reformatories was to get neglected children out of the category of criminals as soon as possible, and not while whitewashing to continue staining them during the whole time they were in their charge.

  613
  If they wanted to rescue from criminal character, why stereotype it? Why destroy the self-respect they wanted to set up? Why bar the entrance to honest ways of industry which they wished to open? At present the entrance to several kinds of industry was barred to youths who had been educated at reformatories. The principal services of the country were shut against them. The Navy was shut against them. No captain of a ship-of-war would take a boy from a reformatory, unless the boy were first further whitewashed by passing through some intermediate employment in the merchant service. The Army and Militia were closed against them. No colonel of a regiment would allow a recruiting sergeant to take a boy from these institutions; and if those who had been in reformatories were sent to the colonies, the colonies felt insulted, although they were the best trained class of emigrants for many purposes that could be sent. He would point out to the House another evil arising from the penal character of these institutions. He had information which showed that magistrates were often unwilling to impose a sentence of the full period of childhood to a reformatory or an industrial school, thinking it hard to give such penal treatment to a child; although, at the same time, they knew that the consequences of a shorter sentence would be turning out the child before the completion of his education. It was a stigma on a civilized country that it should by law treat penally for all their, younger years children for whose previous neglect that country offered the remedy of education in loco parentis. Such treatment of a child of the upper class who might commit a crime, though not so excusably, would be considered monstrous. Magistrates, as he had before observed, were sometimes almost tempted to trump up a charge against children, merely for this absurd penal qualification for schooling, that they might be sent back again, after a too early discharge, in order that their education might be completed. In practice these institutions were educational, and their usefulness as such was impeded by their being nominally penal. He must remind the House that his Resolution did not apply to reformatories, and that it merely proposed that industrial schools, stripped of their penal character, should, be transferred
  614
  from the Police to the Education Department. Before he sat down he would anticipate one or two objections which might be made against his proposition, and which he had attempted to gather from circulars sent up and down the country with the view of getting up an opposition to this Motion. By-the-by, he was rather surprised that these circulars should have emanated from the Government Inspector of Reformatories, and must say that it was not that gentleman's duty to get up agitation on the subject one way or another. Most of the objections raised in these circulars amounted to an expression on the part of very excellent managers who had got institutions of the kind in question very comfortably in their own hands and did not like any change—"We are very comfortable as we are; why cannot you let well alone." He thought, however, that he had shown that the circumstances of these schools were not "well," and that they ought not to be let alone. In his view, these institutions, the value of which to the country had been established by their success, might be further carried out to their first intention, now that the old notions of child-imprisonment and hanging had subsided, and become of even still more value. It had been urged against his proposal that it would be positively immoral to treat bad children on the same footing as the good; but was it reasonable to declare that a child that had once been criminal must always remain criminal? Was the opportunity afforded to it for becoming an honest and industrious citizen, and yet was it immoral to treat it as anything but a criminal child all the while? But it was not proposed to put them to the same schools as the "good children." The proposal was that their schools should be in the school department. It had further been argued that disgrace should continue to attach to these children while they were in these schools in order to prevent parents from encouraging their children to commit crime, with the view of getting them into these institutions. Such parents were not tempted by such motives at all; but if they were, the proper check was to make the parent pay, at least, as much as the child's maintenance at home would have cost, and if the law on that point was not carried out, it was the fault of those who ought to enforce it. It was

  615
  rather owing to the distinction now made, and which he wished to remove, that these schools enjoyed a tempting superiority to the ordinary elementary public schools of the Education Department. Another objection was a mere sentiment, that these schools were places of detention, and therefore must be under the Home Office. Now, all schools were in some sense places of detention, for if a boy ran away from Eton, he was caught and sent back. [Mr. BRUCE: By his parents.] Exactly; and unless the State stood in loco parentis to these children, whom it took from their neglectful parents, the entire justification of such institutions ceased. If compulsion was to be carried out under the Act of 1870, all public elementary schools would be connected with the police, and, according to this objection, should be under the Home Office. There was legal detention in apprenticeship; but must apprentices, therefore, be in the department of police? He, moreover, wished that the penal part of the treatment of criminal children should be in the hands of the police, but the educational part in those of the Education Department. A child thrown into lawless habits or acts by want of education should be punished, and after suffering punishment should be sent to school; while, if he ran away, the police should catch him. The less of prison for a child, even in his punishment, the better. Whipping had high authority and successful experience to support it for children. Flogging, however, seemed the sole remaining privilege of the higher classes; and it seemed to be considered the privilege of children of the lower class to be deemed criminals during the whole period of their schooling. As to the objection that the Education Department could not give the peculiar treatment required by criminal children, and would be too intellectual in its education of them, he would reply that the Department should be adapted to the discharge of all its duty, and not the duty allowed to be partly out of the reach of its Department. Dislike of that Department was at the bottom of the opposition to this Motion, for the benevolent persons who had for 30 years conducted the reformatory and industrial schools and spent large sums of their own money in a most useful manner, aided by grants and inspection, under the quiet shade of the Home
  616
  Office, feared that the Education Department, being always exposed to criticism as the avowedly responsible office for such matters, and in perpetual turmoil, and subject to debate on all its actions or orders in Parliament, would be constantly involving them in trouble. That, however, was not a good reason why the Department should be allowed to hide part of its proper duty in another Department unsuited to it. The Education Act of 1870 allowed school boards to undertake such institutions, and the Bill of the hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. J. G. Talbot) would leave them in a doubtful position between the prison and the school authorities. There was, therefore, a transition state already introduced, and the law was becoming complicated. He hoped, therefore, that the House would give their serious consideration that year to the Resolutions which he thus offered to their notice; and if the Government did not next Session undertake to deal with the subject, he should attempt an amending and consolidating Act, placing the schools in question on the simple footing they were intended to occupy, under the public elementary school Department.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "all Schools for poor children, aided by public money, should be under one general Education Department; and that Industrial Schools should not be treated as penal institutions, but that children of tender age, whether merely vagrants or convicted of minor offences, should, after any due correction, be sent to such Schools for the rest of their childhood, as to educational establishments where they may be trained to industry,"—(Sir Charles Adderley,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. MELLYsaid, as representing the managers of several of those institutions, among whom he might instance the name of a lady well-known in that House, Miss Mary Carpenter, he must object to the Motion. He had paid great attention to the subject for many years, and his complaint was, that the schools were not penal enough; and that the first necessity in these schools to which children were sent should be strict penal restraint. If there were to be penal institutions—juvenile prisons, in which the

  617
  first motive power was the policeman, the second the magistrate, and the third the conviction, they ought, of necessity, to come under the control of the Home Office, as they properly did at the present time. He had always thought there ought to be only three kinds of schools for the poorer classes—namely, national day, workhouse, and criminal schools; and were the last class transferred to the Education Department they must either be crippled by the principle of payment for educational results, or a different scale of payment must be devised for them. Moreover, the adoption of the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would seriously add to the burden of Poor Law relief in each district, and would deal a heavy blow to the whole question of education, for, even under the present system, parents had only to be drunken, dissolute, and neglectful enough, and the magistrates would send their children to the industrial schools, which were, in fact, boarding schools, at the rate of £18 a-year. Several stipendiary magistrates had written to him that the effect of that was, that admission to these schools was already sought as an object of honourable competition. The right hon. Gentleman further wished to diminish the penal character of these schools, which was already too slight; to make a still larger invasion on the public purse; and that still more encouragement should be given to the poor to neglect their children. He (Mr. Melly), however, contended that their legislation should have objects directly opposite to these; and upon that ground alone, he should be anxious that the Resolutions should be negatived. If the schools were to be penal institutions, then, of necessity, they should be in the hands of the representative of public justice; and upon that ground, he contended that the Home Office should have the control of them; but if those schools were placed under the Education Department they must be put into the hands of the school boards; and, if so, their education must be carried on in the manner pointed out by the Education Act of 1870. Now, no man had been more anxious than himself that the education imparted under that Act should be unsectarian; but as the State stood in loco parentis with reference to the children in question, and had the entire control of, and responsibility for,
  618
  them for the five or six most important years of their lives, it would be absolutely necessary to give them religious as well as secular instruction, and in that case the religious difficulty would again crop up, because dogmatic religious teaching would be paid for out of local rates. In fact, that difficulty had already been experienced in Liverpool, and there was no doubt many of the large towns would follow her example, and, after an acrimonious contest, elect men pledged to refuse to support such schools. He, therefore, hoped that the children would be left in the hands of those Christian people who had established the schools; but he should be glad to see a stricter system of inspection established, and that the attention of the magistrates should be again called by the Home Secretary to the indiscriminate and extravagant way in which they had, in some instances, exercised their powers.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he must oppose the proposition of his right hon. Friend. It might have been supposed from the speech of his right hon. Friend that he was attacking institutions that had not done the duty assigned to them, yet he showed that where he himself was in charge of a school they had almost exhausted the bad materials with which they began, and were getting a better class; and that was because the school system had worked so well under the discipline established under the Home Office, that there was really nothing to be desired in that respect. His right hon. Friend had said that the schools had answered so admirably that they had got rid of the very bad material that had previously existed in Birmingham; and then he said that when you put a child into the institution it was ruined for life. The two things seemed to him (Mr. G. Hardy) to be inconsistent. It was not, however, only because the schools were under the Home Office instead of the Education Department that objection arose to the Resolutions. Conceive the injury which would be done by them with respect to the education of the poor. A great number of children were destitute in consequence of the destitution of their parents, or because they had been deserted by their parents; and, unfortunately, some of these children were educated in workhouses. Now, it would obviously be inconvenient for the Education

  619
  Department to interfere in the management of workhouses, which at present were most admirably inspected, even with regard to education, by Inspectors connected with the Poor Law Board. For instance, everyone who had perused Mr. Tuffnell's Reports was aware that that gentleman had conducted such examinations in a most efficient manner. His right hon. Friend had said it was absurd to have different classes of Inspectors as under the Factory Acts; but it should be borne in mind that the whole system of inspection was under one Department. Children employed in factories were educated under the half-time system; but surely it would be absurd to impose on the Education Department the duty of inspecting the whole treatment of such children. Institutions like industrial and reformatory schools, in which a penal discipline was enforced, must necessarily be under the control of the Home Office, and the accessory must follow the principal, and so the intellectual and moral instruction, as well as the general discipline, came under the Rev. Sydney Turner, and in that way were achieved those results which had been alluded to in terms of approval by his right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Melly). Children came into these institutions, because the religious bodies outside had failed to arrest them in their career. Therefore, they must be treated like criminals, lunatics, and others, and be placed under chaplains or religious teachers who would undertake to train them. Indeed, he believed that no attempts had been made to establish reformatories without such definite religious training. Some of them had been established by Roman Catholics, some by members of the Church of England, and some, he believed, by members of other religious bodies. In all cases, however, where children were shut up and kept away from the operation of the voluntary energies of the different religious bodies, they must be placed under the care of those who would undertake their whole religious instruction; but if these institutions were connected with the Education Department, which acted upon different principles, a conflict would ensue which it was most desirable to avoid. His right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Adderley) was aware that this was not a new subject to him, for when
  620
  he was Under Secretary of State for the Home Department his right hon. Friend had addressed a Memorandum to the Home Office, and he (Mr. G. Hardy) had investigated the subject, and placed on record the convictions which he still entertained. Where the jurisdiction was criminal, beginning with, and continuing under penal discipline, the Home Office was the proper authority to deal with the liberty of the subject, which was involved in the question. The object, then, was so to educate and discipline the minds of the children, that when they left the reformatories they should be fit to enter the merchant service or to be bound to some trade, and so to pass through the intermediate discipline, after which they were readily admitted into the Army or Navy. The Home Office, as had been admitted by his right hon. Friend, had admirably done its duty in regard to these schools; but if that duty was neglected, the proper course would be to censure the Office, rather than to place the schools under another Department which had already quite enough to do; and however ambitious the Vice President of the Council might be to have the entire education of the country in his own hands, he did not suppose the right hon. Gentleman would wish to take these criminal classes from that discipline and authority which had been exercised with so much advantage to them and to the country.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, a great part of the life of the right hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the subject had been devoted to the great work intended to be accomplished by reformatory and industrial schools, and he, therefore, regretted that he was unable to accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. Not only was it the case that the conductors of industrial and reformatory schools were tolerably unanimous in their opposition to it, but the right hon. Gentleman himself even had given the strongest testimony as to the efficiency of these schools at the present time. If the children in such institutions rebelled against the law, for instance, what authority was so well fitted as the police to restore them to subjection? The right hon. Gentleman urged that the whole of the money devoted to educational purposes ought to appear under one head; but, surely, anyone

  621
  interested in the subject could easily ascertain the sum total with perfect accuracy. It was further admitted on all hands that these schools were extremely well managed, not under the operation of the law, but by means of voluntary efforts in a spirit of earnest Christianity and love; and he thought, therefore, that any legislative interference with them might weaken the interest of those who maintained the schools, and so diminish the usefulness of the schools. While he admitted that the discussion which had taken place would have a very wholesome effect, he was glad, for the reasons he had stated, that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to ask the opinion of the House upon his proposal.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he should support the Motion, believing that the view of his right hon. Friend was sound and just—namely, that the various schools throughout the country which were supported by public funds ought to be under different management. The hon. Member for Sunderland had alluded to the degree of Christianity and love in which these schools were conducted; but he did not suppose the hon. Gentleman proposed to draw an invidious comparison between the Christianity and love likely to be shown by his right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Vice President of the Council, either of whom might with equal safety and advantage be trusted with the management of the schools. As far as his personal opinion was concerned, he did not think the educational affairs of the country, which had grown immensely of late years, would ever be properly conducted until they were entrusted to a responsible Minister of Education.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that he was glad the subject had been introduced, because the country was beginning to forget the enormous amount of good that reformatory and industrial schools had done, and to look, he was inclined to add, in a rather less generous spirit than formerly upon these institutions. He was, however, opposed to the change proposed by the right hon. Gentleman; the mere suggestion of which, tending as it would to still more restricted grants, had already produced quite a panic in Scotland.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that as be had long taken a great interest in the question, perhaps he might be allowed to say a few words, especially as he had the misfortune to disagree with the conclusions of his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Adderley), which he did with great diffidence, there being few persons more entitled to speak with authority on such matters than he was. At the same time, he thought his right hon. Friend had done good service by raising the question; because, since the changes made by the Education Act, public opinion was looking for some guidance on the point, and it might be that the time had arrived for a fresh and closer definition, and even for a new and more complete classification of these schools. He should be sorry, however, to see any sweeping change in their management; for the simple reason that these institutions, especially reformatories, were doing excellent service, and, after many years of very uphill work, the managers and the country were beginning to reap the fruit of their labour and expenditure, as evidenced by the fact that, notwithstanding the increase of population, there had been a great diminution of juvenile crime. The commitment of boys had fallen from, in round numbers, 12,000 in 1856 to 8,000 in 1871; those of girls from 2,000 to 1,000; and yet there had been no increase in the number of reformatories for the last five or six years. On the contrary, there was some difficulty in filling existing institutions with the proper class of inmates, the supply having been cut off by industrial schools, owing to which reformatories had lately been taking in children who ought properly to be in industrial schools. Under these circumstances a statesman would, he thought, pause before disturbing arrangements which worked so satisfactorily. What was the origin of the reformatory and industrial schools? The former were intended to give a better classification than could be effected in prisons; the latter were instituted afterwards still further to extend the classification, for the language of his right hon. Friend's Resolution—"children of tender age convicted of minor offences"—could not apply to the hardened criminals committed sometimes to reformatory schools. Therefore, the original idea of both classes of institutions was quasi-penal,

  623
  and it might perhaps he broadly said that children were sent to reformatory schools for their own faults, and to industrial schools for the faults of their parents—it being necessary for the protection of society to visit the sins of the parents on the children. But he quite admitted that that definition was not entirely accurate, because the qualifying clauses in the Industrial Schools Act were too wide; and, consequently, many children were sent to industrial schools, not for their own faults or for the faults of their parents, but on account of the poverty of the parents. Hence arose a confusion of ideas in the minds of those who discussed this subject. One person would be thinking of children committed for their own faults or the faults of their parents, and would regard consequently the school as a quasi-penal establishment; the other would have in his mind the victims of poverty only, and would resent the idea that this should be punished as a crime. But what did that point to? Not to altering the character of true reformatory institutions, but to a fresh classification, from which they could eliminate altogether the penal element; and to a new kind of industrial schools for the very poor with no taint of criminality either in children or parents. Such schools would be purely educational, and might be properly placed under the control of the Education Department; but he felt sure that for the present institutions the Home Office was more appropriate. The inmates, if properly selected, had committed crime, or they were on the road to crime; the magistrate committed them, they were under forcible detention. The training was religious, moral, and physical, rather than intellectual. The police captured them when they escaped, and looked after the parents, who were under order to contribute to their maintenance. Again, the managers of the institutions themselves were almost unanimous against the change. They did their work in a rough, homely way which would excite the horror of the Education Department with its over trained masters and overdressed mistresses. The Home Office judged by general results, and did not trouble itself about the architecture of buildings, or shapes of desks and benches, which had imposed such an enormous, and in many cases such an unnecessary,
  624
  expense upon the country since the passing of the Education Act. For instance, there was a wretched hulk in Cardiff doing excellent service among a depraved population, which would not be allowed to exist for an hour under the Privy Council. That strong feeling against a change could not be ignored in a case where the ways and means were so largely supplied by voluntary contributions; and this brought him to the point of the source, other than subscriptions, from which these institutions were supported, mentioned in his right hon. Friend's original Motion. Like many other systems in this country which worked very well, it was neither logical nor symmetrical, and at first sight it certainly seemed strange that any institution should receive money from three wholly independent sources. Yet on examination they would find that the arrangement was defensible—
  "A mighty maze, yet not without a plan."
  The voluntary subscription presupposed local and individual interest in the management of these institutions. The contribution out of local rates insured local supervision, and the Treasury grant authorized central inspection, which they knew had been most efficient. The Education Act had merely substituted the school board for the town council in boroughs without altering the principle of the arrangement; but he would admit there was some omission with respect to counties. A very important question, however, especially to ratepayers, arose out of the present system. It was this—how far were they to carry the relief of parents from the obligation to support their children, and the transfer of that obligation to the rest of the community? Formerly, they confined such support to two classes only—criminals and paupers. They had recently extended it to the inmates of reformatory and industrial schools, whom he would call, for argument's sake, quasi-criminals. They now proposed to extend it to the poor other than paupers. The London School Board had been debating lately whether it should feed the children of improvident people; but if it was difficult to draw the line at which free education was to be afforded, how much more difficult to decide upon the point at which free subsistence was to be given? He quite admitted that they did this not so much for the good of the individual

  625
  as for the protection of society, and that it might be lawful and advisable in such cases—
  "To do a great good do a little ill."
  But, at the same time, they ought not to overlook the effect they might produce on the honest poor, who struggled to bring up their families without assistance, if they placed in so much better a position the children of the improvident, and that without any stigma, real or imaginary, such as that which might attach to institutions under the Poor Law or Home Office; for in this way they might be embarking on a very dangerous course. The boarding-out system recently introduced had already been the cause of much heart-burning among the poor in the country. He had heard of a man saying—"Here am I trying to keep myself and my family off the parish, and in the next cottage they have taken in a child at 5s. a-week, whose father drank himself to death after killing his wife by ill-treatment, and whose child has more than twice as much spent on him as I can spend on one of mine." He did not say that this was conclusive against the system, and he knew that in the case of industrial and reformatory schools they had a certain safeguard in the power of obliging parents to pay, which ought, perhaps, to be more rigidly exercised, though it was full of difficulty; but he did say, that if they not only educated but supported the children of improvident parents at the expense of the community, without attaching the stigma of crime or pauperism to that support, they ran the risk of giving a premium to improvidence, and of very soon making the rates, which were paid, be it remembered, not only by the rich, but by the provident poor, wholly intolerable.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that the question before the House was, perhaps, one of the most difficult which could be brought under the consideration of Parliament. Children who, either through the neglect of their parents or their own fault, got into the hands of the authorities were from that moment placed in a position infinitely better in every respect, material or otherwise, than in all human probability they would have been if they had remained in the hands of their parents. If they simply looked to the welfare of the poor children, so far as they were concerned, they ought to
  626
  be, and no doubt were, subjects of great interest and great care; but the House must be careful not to lead persons who were struggling under difficulties to get on to suppose that the children of the improvident were in a better position than their own, and from the wording of the Resolutions it was difficult to say to what extent they might go in that direction. The Resolutions were, in fact, much too general in their terms, and whether the children were under the management of one office or another was not of any great importance; but whichever it might be, the industrial training should be of the humblest kind; they should be taught to dig and cultivate land, and it was a serious question for consideration whether they should be taught trades, and thereby have an advantage over others. The authorities properly tried to recover the expenses from the parents; but in many cases it could not be done, and when it was obtained it was recovered at a great expense. The question, then, was surrounded with great difficulty and danger, and he was heartily glad the obligation to settle it rested upon his right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Vice President rather than upon himself.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, the debate had been conducted so ably that but for his official position he would be content to leave the matter as it stood. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Adderley) had done good service in bringing forward the question; and no one was better entitled, both from his long official experience and from the great attention he had paid to the question of prison discipline, to state his conclusions in Parliament. His main proposition was that the control of industrial and reformatory schools should be transferred from the Home Office to the Education Department; but the opinion both of that House and of the country generally seemed to be that the Reformatory Department had been well administered, and he was surprised to hear from the Conservative lips of his right hon. Friend a denunciation of the dogma "Let well alone." While he himself was content to be very much guided in the matter by the opinions of those excellent persons who for the last 20 or 30 years had attended to the subject, yet, at the same time, he was well aware that his right hon. Friend did not desire change for the sake of official

  627
  symmetry any more than he would deprecate change which would be beneficial, and that his main object was to relieve these children from the stigma which he held would attach to them during the remainder of their life through their being educated in a criminal school. That, no doubt, was a laudable object; but if there were any grounds for the belief that that stigma did attach to them in after life, surely those who would first hear of it would be those benevolent and experienced persons who managed these institutions. But the desire of these persons was that these institutions should remain under the control of the Home Office. And in dealing with this point he desired to defend the action taken by the Rev. Sydney Turner, for whom his right hon. Friend, in common with all who had anything to do with these institutions, had sincere respect. Mr. Turner, desirous of ascertaining the opinion of those in authority over these schools upon the question raised by the Motion, had made application to them in terms of the utmost impartiality for their opinion, and without giving any indication of the opinion entertained by himself. By an ambiguous use of the term "schools," these institutions were made to appear to have a character different from that which really belonged to them; but the fact was that they were not schools in the ordinary sense of the term; and the ground of distinction between these and ordinary schools was that they were not places of intellectual training, but of correction and of special industrial training suitable to their class. The inmates of the reformatory schools had committed offences, and it might be fairly assumed that a child convicted of one felony had committed several; and, although children for whom great sympathy would be felt, they were still a criminal class, and should be subjected to a special corrective discipline, under a set of rules different altogether from the ordinary rules of the Education Department for the control of ordinary schools. The children in ordinary schools entered at four or five, and remained until they were 12 or 13; the inmates of reformatory schools, on the contrary, were nearly all above 10, for in 1871, out of 1,575, as many as 1,547 were above 10 and four-fifths above 12 years of age; and 760, or about one-half, were above 14 years of age. The case was not quite so
  628
  strong in the industrial schools, where there was a different class of children, both with regard to age and ignorance. Out of 2,784 children admitted last year, 1,969, or two-thirds, were above 10 years of age; and 873, or nearly one-third, were above 12 years of age. It appeared, therefore, that in both classes of schools the children were rather advanced in life, and having been brought up in habits of total disregard for all the decencies of life, they required treatment very different from that which would suffice in the case of ordinary children; and powers of compulsion must be possessed by the superintendents far beyond those possessed by ordinary schoolmasters. The schools, indeed, were juvenile houses of correction, modified, by considerations of humanity and good policy, to meet the case of these unfortunate children, and so brought as nearly as possible to the condition of schools. The children were committed to them by warrant; the Home Secretary could remove them from one place to another by warrant; and he had power to remit any portion of their sentence, on being satisfied such remission would be for the good of the child; and, indeed, that power was often exercised in the case of children who had respectable parents. The Home Secretary, in fact, had the same power of control over these children as over ordinary prisoners. The system, however, was in many respects capable of improvement, and he should be very glad to see the Bill his right hon. Friend had promised; indeed, so strongly was he impressed with the necessity of some improvement, especially with regard to the desirability of distinguishing between the criminal and the merely outcast classes in industrial schools, that he had been desirous of introducing a Bill upon the subject that year. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) bad not exaggerated the danger, inherent in all these cases, of giving a better training to the criminal classes than was offered to the children of the honest poor; but, in truth, every prisoner sent to gaol was better clothed, fed, and housed than many members of the industrial classes, and a discharged prisoner often had abetter chance of finding employment than the honest artizan. That injustice, however, was inseparable from the system, and the question for consideration was, whether the injustice would be removed

  629
  or diminished if these criminal children were placed under the Education Department. His right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Adderley), however, did not pretend the institutions would be better administered if they were under the Privy Council Office; and it was questionable whether the stigma the right hon. Gentleman desired to remove from them in after life really attached to them. On the contrary, from information received from all parts of the country, he (Mr. Bruce) gathered that there was a positive competition among employers for these children upon their discharge, and that as agricultural labourers, colliers, artizans, and sailors, they had no difficulty in getting employment. There were, however, so many attractions to those schools—and especially the industrial schools—in the fact that the children in them were not only educated and specially trained for the battle of life, but were fed and lodged at the public expense and afterwards started in their careers, that it was essential there should be some distinction drawn between those schools and other schools so as to make them less inviting; and there he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire had hit the nail on the head, as he did in so many other matters. There ought to be some sort of stigma put on those schools, in order that the parent should feel the disgrace of having his child sent there, and that the well-disposed poor man might feel an honest pride in giving his child an education which, if not quite so good, was at least given at his own expense; and if that proper distinction could be maintained without injury to anyone, then he thought that the argument of his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Adderley), on which he based his Motion, entirely fell to the ground. In conclusion, he could assure his right hon. Friend who had called forth that discussion, that he should be glad to welcome any measure that he might bring forward for improving institutions which had done so much to reduce crime.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that as his Bill for giving prison authorities in England and Wales power to originate those schools had been pointedly referred to, he wished to say a few words. They had long desired in Kent to establish the industrial school system; the Home Office had kindly supported him in his
  630
  attempt to enlarge the powers given to local authorities, and his Bill had passed through the House at those hours when private Members' Bills only could pass. He thought it was no discredit to himself to have sat up for that purpose as late as he had done, because the Bill was one of a beneficent character; and if it had been as bad a measure as his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Adderley) said it was, it was the duty of his right hon. Friend to have sat up also and resisted it. The Memorial to the Home Secretary from the manager of the Redhill Reformatory—one of the best known and most successful of those institutions in the country—stated—
  "Your Memorialists desire to urge very strongly that the inmates of reformatory schools are very dissimilar to the attendants at an ordinary elementary school—e.g., the boys in this institution are as a rule:—1. Older: in the last three years 260 boys have been admitted, and of this number 138 were over 14 years of age. 2. They are more ignorant: of the above 260 admissions, 99 were totally unable to read, write, or cipher, and of the 138 over 14 years old, 46 (or one-third) did not know the alphabet. 3. They are criminal in character: as a rule no boys are admitted on first conviction, while many have been previously convicted four, five, six times, &c. In the case of 'children of tender age' (under 12 years old), who are exceptionally admitted here, it is found that their criminal character is so developed that ordinary school instruction would be altogether insufficient. 4. They are detained by sentence of law, and therefore require strict and expensive discipline, as well as ordinary educational appliances."
  That showed that the inmates were of a class entirely dissimilar from the children with which the Education Department attempted to deal, and that they must be treated as incipient, if not indeed as advanced, criminals, which many of them were. So much for the reformatories. Then, as to the industrial schools, he had a letter from Miss Greenwood, the lady manager of the Industrial School for Girls at Halstead, in Essex, in which she said—
  "This school has, through the police, recovered £10 during the last quarter (for ten children) from men who would not otherwise have made any contribution in relief of the Treasury charges.… A man came down here a short time since and demanded his children, and my power would have been vain without the Bench order of detention. They would have been taken back to a thoroughly criminal home. What compensation of power would a town without a school board have?"
  Therefore, although he thought the right

  631
  hon. Baronet had done good service by bringing forward the subject, he was unable to come to the conclusion to which he wished to lead them. On the contrary, he (Mr. J. G. Talbot) thought that was one of the most satisfactory parts of their legislation; and, instead of being afraid that they were making those children too comfortable, they ought rather to encourage the police to bring up more children, that they might be placed in industrial schools. If the House desired to put a stop to juvenile crime they must go to the fountain head—that was, they should visit the worst parts of the large towns, where might be found thousands of children not simply without education, but with an actual training in crime as a profession; and what the Home Office had best do was to exert the power of the law in order to counteract that evil, and make good citizens of these juvenile criminals, whose after offences cost so much to the country.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

BOROUGH REPRESENTATION (IRELAND).—RESOLUTION.
MR. DELAHUNTY, in rising, pursuant to Notice, to move—
"That, inasmuch as the manufacturing, commercial, and trading interests of Ireland are not sufficiently represented in Parliament, and it is not expedient that its borough representation should continue lessened by the disfranchisement of Cashel and Sligo, it is the opinion of this House that Her Majesty's Government should forthwith introduce and promote a Bill to authorize and empower the several towns of the county of Tipperary to elect and return one Member, and the several towns of the county of Sligo, in conjunction with the seaport towns of Ballina and Westport, to elect and return one other Member to the Imperial Parliament,"
said, that in England the principle pursued in giving representation was that large centres of population in the manufacturing districts should be fully represented; but Ireland laboured under great disadvantages, and it was necessary to take some steps to resuscitate the manufacturing industry of that country. It was on that ground that he wished to give some addition to the business representation of Tipperary by returning an additional Member, and giving Sligo, Ballinasloe, and Westport another—
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
House adjourned at half after Seven o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Church of England Fire Insurance* (102); Local Government Supplemental* (103); Consolidated Fund (£6,000,000)*; Petroleum* (104).
Second Reading—Metropolis (Kilburn and Harrow) Roads* (94).
Committee—Intoxicating Liquor (Licensing) (78–106).
Committee—Report—Party Processions (Ireland) Act Repeal* (87); Reformatory and Industrial Schools (No. 2)* (98).
Report—Pacific Islanders Protection* (100).
Third Reading—Prison Ministers (99); Pensions* (93), and passed.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
  TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA). THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.

    THE MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
    EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in reference to a promise I made the other evening—namely, that either on Monday next or before that day I would make a statement as to the progress of the negotiations with respect to the Alabama Claims, or present the Papers on that subject—I have now to state to the House that I am afraid we shall not be able to lay those Papers on the Table this evening, so as to have them distributed by Monday morning—that, I am afraid, will be impossible; but I shall adhere to my promise of making a statement on Monday evening, whether with or without the Papers.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What arrangements will be made as to the Adjournment of the House? Is the question of adjourning on Monday still an open one, as was understood?
    EARL GRANVILLE: I am not certain how that stands. I gave an assurance that I would do anything the House might desire and think necessary in order to give your Lordships an opportunity for discussing the statement I had made; but I see by the Minutes that Earl Russell has given Notice that he will move that the House adjourn to the 24th instead of the 31st.
    THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My impression was that the question of adjournment was to be left open till after a statement to be made by the noble Earl (Earl Granville) on Monday. If that statement should be considered unsatisfactory, then I think we were to have an opportunity of discussing the question between Monday and Friday. I think that was the understanding we arrived at.
    EARL GRANVILLE: I am not sure that was exactly the understanding; but my desire was, and is, to do whatever the House might consider most convenient. I think that if a discussion should be thought necessary after my statement it would be more convenient for the House, and more convenient for the public interest, that such discussion should be taken immediately. I do not see what is to be gained by our assembling again on the 24th rather than on the 31st.

INTOXICATING LIQUOR (LICENSING) BILL—(No. 78.)
(The Earl of Kimberley.)
INTOXICATING LIQUOR (LICENSING) BILL—(No. 78.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Preliminary.
  Clause 1 (Short title of Act) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Extent of Act) agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Commencement of Act) postponed.
  Illicit Sales.
  Clause 4 (Prohibition of sale of intoxicating liquors without license).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that as the clause must be taken in connection with Clause 29, he thought it might be convenient if he now stated the nature of an Amendment which he meant to propose on the latter clause, but which had reference to all those clauses of the Bill which dealt with penalties and forfeitures. By Clause 29 it would be enacted that on the third conviction for an offence which was to be recorded on the license, the license of the licensed person should be forfeited, and he should be disqualified for a term of five years from holding any license, and the premises in respect of which the license was granted should be disqualified from receiving any license for two years. The penalty, therefore, would operate both on the owner and the tenant of the house, although the owner might not even have known of what was going on, so as to have the opportunity of getting rid of a tenant who was injuring his property. Now, on a former occasion he had drawn their Lordships' attention to the hardship on the owner of a licensed house thus having his property taken from him, without giving him the opportunity of remedying the mischief—for to disqualify the owner from obtaining a license for his premises for two years was virtually to close his house. Now, he wished the owner to have an opportunity of knowing whether or not the tenant conducted the house in a proper manner. Moreover, he thought that to forfeit a license for three convictions, without reference to the particular circumstances or the penalty in each case, was too stringent a measure. What he should propose by his Amendments in Clause 29
  566
  was this—that whenever the amount of penalties imposed by the convictions under the provisions of the Bill should amount to the sum of £30 within a period of five years, the license should thereupon become ipso facto void; and that whenever the penalties imposed upon any holder of a license should amount to £15 in a period of three years, the holder of the license should be disqualified for a period of three years. This proposition was very similar to one contained in the Bill introduced by the Government last year, and a system of cumulative penalties had been advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. In order to pave the way for the Amendments on Clause 29, he should now move a verbal alteration in the present clause.
  An Amendment moved, page 2, fine 11, to leave out—
  ("In addition to any other penalty imposed by this Section, any person convicted of an offence under this Section shall, if he be the owner of the license, forfeit such license.")—(The Duke of Richmond.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he concurred with the noble Duke in thinking this was the most convenient time for raising the discussion on the question whether the plan of forfeiting the license on three convictions should be adopted. He knew that objection was taken to the system of accumulating penalties according to the convictions recorded on the license, on the ground that it would be too severe in its operation. He would admit that by the Bill in its present form that punishment was provided in cases where, perhaps, it was not required, and therefore he would himself propose to lessen the number of cases in which that record was enacted. The first case in which a record of the conviction was provided was that of selling any intoxicating liquor without being duly authorized by the license to sell the same, or selling such liquor in any unauthorized place—that was to say, the sale of liquor to be drunk on the premises, when the license was only for the sale of liquor not to be drunk on the premises. The second was the analogous case of evasion of the law as to drinking on the premises by the carrying of any intoxicating liquor from the licensed premises to other premises, there to be consumed, the license being only for selling drink

  567
  not to be drunk on the premises. The third case in which by the Bill it was proposed that there should be a record of the conviction was that of Clause 9, which provided that the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail should, with certain exceptions, be according to standard measure. Now, although this was undoubtedly an offence which ought to be liable to conviction and punishment, he thought it need not be recorded on the license, as it was not of a sufficiently serious character as to require such a record, and he would propose to amend the Bill accordingly. The next offence for which a record of the conviction was provided was that of the illicit storing of liquor. This was a serious offence, and he thought the punishment should remain as it stood in the Bill. The next offence for which there was to be a record of conviction was that described in Clause 12, which provided for the publication of the names of the licensed persons on the premises in respect of which the license was granted. He did not think so severe a punishment was required in this case, and he proposed to strike it out. In the cases of Clauses 15 and 17, the first of which applied to harbouring prostitutes, and the second to the harbouring of constables, the Bill provided for the record of convictions; that in the former case the conviction should be recorded, but in the latter case such a punishment might be dispensed with, and he proposed to amend the Bill accordingly. With respect to the owner of the premises disqualified, he would propose an Amendment that the disqualification of the owners should be left optional with magistrates; but there would be no option in respect of the occupier who held the license. The plan which the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) proposed was, that when the penalties amounted to a certain sum the license should be forfeited. He could not think that this would be so satisfactory as the plan in the Bill. There might be a great number of convictions before the penalties amounted to £50, because in the imposition of penalties the magistrate might have regard to the costs, and make the fines themselves very small. Moreover, there was much difficulty of obtaining convictions, even in cases where there could be no doubt that offences had been committed. It had been alleged that the system proposed
  568
  by the Bill was a sort of Draconian code; but this was not so, because many of the punishments which it prescribed were in substitution of, and not in addition to, the existing penalties for breaches of the liquor laws.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that some of the admissions made by the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley), coupled with the Amendments which he proposed, had diminished the objections to the plan of punishment provided by the Bill; but still he thought the plan of his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) was much sounder, and much more in accordance with the principles of our jurisprudence. The noble Earl proposed a forfeiture of the license for three offences of particular kinds, without reference to the particular circumstances of each case—without regard to the fact whether the offences were more or less mitigated by the circumstances. According to the Bill, therefore, whenever the magistrate thought it his duty to convict, though the offence itself might be perhaps venial, the offender would lose his license. Now, he thought a gradation of offences was a much preferable plan, because where there was an accumulated amount of penalties it showed that the person was a persistent offender. Under Clause 6, if from premises only licensed to sell liquor to be drunk off the premises a person conveyed away drink and drank it round the next street the publican must give proof that he did not know of this, or the offence would be recorded on his license. Again, under Clause 14, if the publican permitted a person to get drunk on his premises—an accident that might happen to any worthy citizen—he incurred the same severe punishment, and three records of convictions would deprive him of his license.
  EARL GREYregretted that his noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) intended to favour the owners more than the occupiers by allowing the magistrates an option in the case of the former. He thought that to make the law effective it was necessary that the owners should be dealt with as stringently as the occupiers.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, that all independent observers were of opinion that it was essential to restrict the liquor traffic. There were two modes of diminishing the number of public-houses

  569
  —one by regulating the number according to the population, the other by suppressing those which were conducted in an improper manner. He regretted that in this Bill, which was an honest attempt to remedy a crying evil, the noble Earl did not propose to effect a diminution by the former as well as by the latter plan. He believed the penalties proposed in the Bill were not too severe, and if the House retained them, those who entertained the hope of mitigating the evils which now prevailed would have some prospect of the realization of their wishes; but if the Amendment suggested by the noble Duke were adopted, those who hoped for successful legislation on the subject would cease to take an interest in the present Bill. It was very right that the brewers and publicans should have their advocates when a measure of this kind was under discussion; he should be sorry if it were otherwise; but as these two classes of traders enjoyed from the State the advantages of a monopoly, he thought it was not unreasonable that they should be dealt with more strictly than other classes of the community. The Government who granted the privilege were entitled to exercise a strict supervision; and offences should be uniformly visited by sufficient penalties—penalties not too severe, but sufficient to punish the offence or to prevent the repetition.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he should support the Amendment of his noble Friend. He objected to so severe a punishment as the forfeiture of the license for a single offence. The clause, in addition to very severe penalties for selling a description of liquor not named in the license, enacted the absolute forfeiture of the license; and it enacted the same punishment for selling intoxicating liquors in a place not authorized by the license. To suppose a case—which was not only possible but extremely probable—the potman of a public-house going round with beer, might sell some on the other side of the street, which would be an offence under this clause; but was it such as should entail upon the publican the forfeiture of his license? With regard to what had fallen from the most rev. Prelate, he was quite aware that if the Amendment of his noble Friend were adopted, there was a large class of persons outside their Lordships' House who would cease to look with any interest on
  570
  the Bill; but these were persons who would be dissatisfied with any measure which did not curtail the number of public-houses in proportion to the population. The difference between his noble Friend and the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) was simply one of degree; but it was another question whether the punishments proposed to be inflicted were not too severe. He (Lord Cairns) was as anxious as any Member of the Episcopal Bench to put down drunkenness; but he did not think it would be justifiable to diminish the number of public-houses by increasing the severity of the penalties.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, that what he had advocated was to diminish the number of offences by the certainty of punishment.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that the certainty of punishment and the severity of punishment came to much the same thing. Penalties were for one purpose, and for one purpose only—namely, to regulate the conduct and behaviour of those carrying on business in licensed houses; they were not for the purpose of diminishing the number of these houses. If they were to be diminished let it be done fairly and openly; at all events, let the question be argued; but do not let them bring the criminal law into discredit and disgrace by enforcing it for objects which it was never intended to subserve.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYadmitted the severity of punishment involved in the forfeiture of the license; but it would be for their Lordships to consider dispassionately whether it were too severe. He would remind their Lordships under the existing law the holder of any license who sold intoxicating liquor other than that for which he was licensed forfeited his license. This was the penalty properly inflicted on him, in addition to that which was inflicted on a person committing the same offence who did not hold any license at all.
  LORD PORTMANsaid, that in addition to other objections to the clause, he must point out that it contained a further most dangerous provision, giving power to any person without any warrant to apprehend any person found selling or exposing for sale any intoxicating liquors in contravention of the clause, and to detain him until he could hand him over to a constable. He could not be a party to giving such an arbitrary power to

  571
  anyone. As the Member who had moved to reject the Beer Bill of 1830 in the House of Commons, he was sorry to say that he had lived long enough to see all the evils he had predicted from its operation realized, and none of the predicted benefits realized.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDthought the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of York) had reflected unjustly on the course he was adopting; but he repudiated the notion that he was speaking in the interests of the brewers or the publicans. He spoke in the interests of the whole community, He, in common with, he believed, all their Lordships, was desirous of diminishing the evils arising from immoderate indulgence in spirituous liquors, but he did not think that the system proposed by the Bill was the best calculated to attain that object. The very severity of the penalties proposed was calculated to produce the uncertainty of punishment, which was one of the evils most diligently to be avoided in legislation. In offences of this nature it was obviously necessary to distinguish between the license holder and the owner of the premises. Taking the view he did, and holding that they must review the whole system of deprivation of license, which he proposed to effect by cumulative penalties, as distinct from convictions, he felt it necessary to divide on the Motion to strike out the three lines from the clause.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he had not said that the noble Duke spoke as the advocate of the publicans.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwished to recall their Lordships' attention to the point on which they were about to divide. The question was, whether a man should forfeit the license he held for the offence of selling liquors he was not licensed to sell.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that if in this respect the Bill did no more than re-enact the present law he should not think of opposing the clause; but if the Bill proposed a new law for which their Lordships were to be answerable, they ought to be made aware of the fact so that they might address their minds to the consideration of the question whether the penalties were or were not too severe. He wished to put the case of a license-holder selling a pot of beer to a man on the other side of the street opposite to the place for which he was licensed. For
  572
  such an offence, which might be an abuse of license, the prescribed penalties were too severe; but if this were the law at present, their Lordships would incur no responsibility by re-enacting it. If it were not the law he asked their Lordships to consider the proposal carefully.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, with reference to the question raised by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns), he might say that, under the present Excise laws, if a man sold anything he was not licensed to sell, he was for ever disqualified for holding a spirit license. He did not at all mean to suggest that the Bill did not propose an alteration of the present law; for although something analogous existed in the Excise law, it was not police law, which this Bill proposed to make it. Therefore, it would be misleading their Lordships if he were to say that this Bill merely re-enacted the existing law.
  On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 90: Majority, 5.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Occupier of unlicensed premises liable for sale of liquor) agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Seller liable for drinking on premises contrary to license).
  LORD PORTMANsaid, the clause ran thus—
  "If any purchaser of any intoxicating liquor from a person who is not licensed to sell the same to be drunk on the premises drinks such liquor on the premises where the same is sold or on any highway adjoining or near such premises, the seller of such liquor shall, unless he proves that such drinking was without his privity or consent,"
  be subject to certain penalties, and the conviction was to be recorded on the license. He entirely agreed to the first part of the clause, so far as regarded drinking on the premises; but he could not agree to the second portion as to "drinking on any highway adjoining or near the premises." He could not believe their Lordships would allow these words to stand, for they would have the effect of exposing a publican to those severe penalties if any person who had fetched half-a-pint of beer from the premises was to drink any portion of it on the high road on his way home. Moreover, if the publican wished to evade the law, all he would have to do

  573
  would be to tell his customers that they must not drink the liquor outside the house, but that they must find some convenient premises next door, or over the hedge, where they might consume it safely. This provision was introduced in the Act of 1870, but it had been found impracticable, and the magistrates in the part of the country where he lived had totally disregarded it. He would move to reject that part of the clause, unless the proof of consent should be thrown on the complainant.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the words were introduced to meet the difficulty occasioned by publicans who, being only licensed to sell beer to be drunk on the premises, managed to evade the law by placing a bench outside their houses, on which their customers drank liquor. It was extremely difficult to prevent abuses without some hard cases arising, which seemed to show that the proposal was one which could not be maintained. It might be that the words proposed to be omitted went further than the House would sanction; but they did strike at a real abuse, because it was exceedingly easy for a person not having a license to sell beer to be drunk on the premises to evade the restriction imposed by his license by allowing parties to drink the beer on benches at a little distance from the house, or along the highway. He thought that if the words as they stood seemed to be somewhat harsh, the magistrates might be trusted to carry out the enactment with discretion and mildness—unless, indeed, they resembled those justices to whom the noble Lord had referred as having come to the resolution to disregard the law of the land.
  LORD KESTEVENthought the penalties imposed by the clause were much too heavy, and that part of its enactments would be found to work with great hardship.
  LORD CHELMSFORDproposed to alter the clause so as to require that the drinking on any highway adjoining or near such premises had been "with the privity and consent of the seller." His object was to make it necessary, before a conviction could be obtained, to prove the privity and consent of the landlord, because it was obviously impossible that the seller could prove the negative fact that he did not know of such drinking. He proposed to insert the words—"If it
  574
  shall appear that such drinking was with his privity or consent."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas ready to accept the Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPput the case of the holder of an excise license, and the occupier of a beershop licensed to sell beer not to be drunk on the premises. If the person purchasing beer drank it on the highway adjoining or near the premises, the seller would be liable to the severe penalties imposed by this clause; whereas the purchaser of a bottle of gin at the shop licensed by the Excise across the road might carouse on the highway without the seller incurring any penalty whatever. So stringent a provision was, he thought, contrary to justice.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved to leave out the last line of the clause—namely—
  "Any conviction for an offence under this section shall be recorded on the license of the person convicted,"
  in order to clear the ground for the series of cumulative penalties which he had given Notice to propose in Clause 29.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he hoped the Committee would understand that they were now going to divide upon, and to decide upon, the scheme of penalties proposed respectively by the Government and by the noble Duke opposite. It would of course be quite open to any noble Lord to object to any one of the penalties moved by the Government, on the ground of its being either too low or too high; but the present Amendment affected the whole scheme of the Bill in respect of the conditions on which licenses should henceforth be forfeitable.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHsaid, he understood the point to be decided was, whether on the one hand they would adopt a system of self-acting penalties, or, on the other hand, give a certain amount of discretion to the magistrates with regard to imposing the penalties, which, on a certain amount of repetition, would have the same result as the self-acting penalties—the magistrates would consequently have a certain amount of discretion in deciding whether the license should be forfeited or not. Now, in connection with this point there was a fact that should not be lost

  575
  sight of. In the Beer Act of 1830 the power was given to the magistrates of sending to the Excise Commissioners records of the convictions under that Act, and the Excise Commissioners on receipt of such records were to refuse the renewal of the licenses of the offending parties. But it appeared in evidence before the House of Commons Committee in 1854–24 years afterwards—that in no instance had any record of a conviction been sent to the Excise Commissioners. It did, therefore, seem to him that while no one would dream of questioning the purity of the magistrates in respect to the convictions which they pronounced, yet there might be some question whether they would not allow their good nature to influence them too much as to the amount of the penalties they imposed.
  On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents, 84; Not-contents, 81: Majority 3.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  On Question? Clause agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Evasion of law as to drinking on premises contrary to license) amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Sale of spirits to children).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the clause proposed that any license holder who sold any liquor to be consumed on the premises to any person apparently under the age of 16 years should be subject to penalties of 20 s. for the first and 40 s. for every subsequent offence. He would suggest that the age should be fixed at 12 instead of 16, contending that a boy of the former age was sufficiently old to be responsible for his own action in such cases, and that there were comparatively harmless liquids, such as shrub, bishop, and negus, which came under the definition of spirits, which it would be absurd to prevent a man from selling to a person of that age. He thought their Lordships could say from their own recollection where these penalties would have been unjust to the landlord and inconvenient to youths of 16. The word sixteen must, he thought, have been inserted in the Bill by an oversight.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, it was owing to no oversight that the age had been fixed at 16. Such was now the
  576
  law in the whole of the metropolitan district, and it was simply proposed to extend that law to the whole country. They had the evidence of the police that in the metropolitan district the greatest possible evils had arisen from permitting youths of 16 to indulge in spirits. Boys or lads of that age ought to be placed under judicious and reasonable restraint. He had not the slightest objection that a youth should drink sound English beer; but it was by no means desirable, he thought, that he should drink spirits.
  On the Motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, the words "not being a traveller or lodger" were struck out.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Sale to be by standard measure).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved an Amendment to the effect that the clause should only be operative when the person applying for the liquor expressly desired, to be served in measures marked according to the Imperial standards.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that at present gross frauds were committed upon the public by the practice of serving them with liquors not in Imperial standard measures. There would be no difficulty whatever in getting glasses of the Imperial standard instead of pewter, if thought desirable.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Internal communication between licensed premises and house of public resort).
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHdesired to see the clause so worded as to create a complete severance, not only between licensed public-houses and unlicensed premises which were used for public entertainment and resort, but between the license for a public-house and the license for a dancing saloon. The representations he received led him to believe that great evils arose from licenses given to the latter class of house. He would move to insert after ("house") "or with any music hall or dancing room."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the Government had not attempted to deal in this Bill with the general question of music and dancing licenses. He admitted that there were evils in connection with them, but he should be

  577
  sorry to introduce into the Bill a single Amendment without dealing with the whole subject.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the words of the clause were very large, and imposed penalties on "every person who makes or uses, or allows to be made or used, any internal communication" between licensed premises and houses of public resort. He proposed to leave out the words—
  "In addition to any penalty imposed by this section, any person convicted of an offence under this section shall, if he be the holder of a license, forfeit such license."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the words "allows to be made" might touch the landlord.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYregarded the offence as a serious one, but promised to consider the points which had been raised, and, if necessary, amend the clause upon the Report.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Illicit storing of liquor).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the clause inflicted the heavy penalties of £10 and £20 on any license holder who should so much as have on his premises any description of liquor not covered by his license; and directed that the conviction should be recorded on his license. Now, he thought it would be hard if a beershop keeper were prevented from having for his own use any wine or spirits. He therefore proposed to insert the words "unless he shall account for the possession of the same to the satisfaction of the justices."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYaccepted the Amendment, regarding it as more effectual than the Amendment with a similar object of which he had himself given Notice.
  Words added.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDproposed to omit the latter part of the clause—
  "Any conviction for an offence under this section shall be recorded on the license of the person convicted."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas inclined to think the offence which the clause dealt with was a serious one. At the same time, this was a police not an Excise Bill, and believing that the
  578
  offence might be properly met by Excise penalties, he would not oppose the Amendment.
  Words struck out accordingly.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Publication of names of licensed persons) agreed to.
  Offences against Public Order.
  Clause 13 (Penalty on persons found drunk) agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Penalty for permitting drunkenness).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDproposed to omit the words—
  "Any conviction for an offence under this section shall be recorded on the license of the person convicted."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he could not possibly agree to this Amendment. Allowing drunkenness in the house, and supplying liquor to drunken persons, was a great offence, and to punish it severely was absolutely necessary in the interests of good order. He would, however, withdraw the words of the section which imposed a penalty if the publican were himself drunk.
  Words ("or is himself guilty of drunkenness") struck out accordingly.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Penalty for keeping disorderly house).
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he proposed to leave out the words "or reputed thieves." The object with which those words had been introduced was more adequately provided for in the Prevention of Crime Act of last year, which contained stringent provisions against the harbouring of thieves in public-houses. Those provisions had worked extremely well, and, as the harbouring of thieves was more properly a part of the criminal law and was already provided for, he proposed to strike out these words. The question between him and the noble Duke would then be narrowed to the harbouring of prostitutes.
  Words struck out accordingly.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDproposed to inflict the penalty only where the licensed person was convicted of permitting prostitutes, reputed thieves, or other persons of notoriously bad character to remain on his premises longer

  579
  than was necessary for the purpose of obtaining reasonable refreshment. He thought it would be inconvenient to deal with reputed thieves in the Act of last year and with prostitutes in this Bill. The object surely was to prevent publicans from harbouring those persons, but not to prevent them from obtaining reasonable refreshment.
  Amendment moved, to leave out all the words from ("person") down to ("be,") in line 19, and insert—
  ("is convicted of permitting prostitutes, reputed thieves, or other persons of notoriously bad character to remain on his premises longer than is necessary for the purpose of obtaining reasonable refreshment.")—(The Duke of Richmond.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, this clause was not so severe as the clause in the existing Act with respect to persons who knowingly harboured thieves. The clause to which he referred was no experiment, for it had been in operation for three years, and the police spoke of it as very valuable. He was ready, however, to accept the words of the noble Duke, if the Committee thought them preferable. But there was great difficulty, under the present law, in preventing prostitutes from assembling in night-houses in London. Attempts had been made again and again without success, and it was on that account that this severe clause was proposed. He was informed that the words proposed would not affect a woman who merely went casually into one of those houses to obtain refreshment.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he was not wedded to his own words, and if the noble Earl was satisfied that the clause as it stood would not prevent persons from entering a house for the purpose of getting refreshment, he would not insist upon his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he had considered the words of the noble Duke in no unfriendly spirit, and he had come to the conclusion that it would be necessary to retain the words "habitual resort of or place of meeting."
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Penalty for permitting premises to be a brothel).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYobjected to the severity of the penalty in
  580
  the latter part of the clause, according to which, not only was the licensed person to forfeit his license and pay heavy penalties, but, for a single conviction, the premises were to be disqualified from receiving a license for five years. It seemed to be assumed that these premises were always the property of licensed brewers who had, or might have, full knowledge of the way in which the house was conducted. He need not say that this was by no means the case. They were very frequently private persons who had very little means of knowing how the occupier was conducting it. Besides, such a penalty would enable the holder of the license to injure the owner, however innocent. For if the latter wanted to get rid of a bad character, or only threatened to distrain for rent, the license-holder might turn round on him and say—"You intend to ruin me, I will see what I can do to ruin you." He hoped this severe penalty would be struck out.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, the owner ought to receive notice before the house should be disqualified. The penalty for a third conviction of a publican would be easily avoided by bringing in a new tenant after the second conviction; but in this case one conviction would be ruinous to the owner, and it would be unjust to punish him if he was ignorant of the offence and had received no warning.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that very considerable difficulty arose with regard to the owner, and as this was the first proposal referring to owners they had come to in the Bill, he wished to point out that the principle of the clause was not entirely new, and that there was already, in more than one instance, a discretionary power for disqualification of this kind. In the case of permitting drunkenness or disorderly conduct there was already the power of disqualifying a house on the third offence; and the Wine Licenses Act of 1860 gave somewhat similar penalties. The objection to the penalty in this clause was, that it was imposed for a first offence, and was not discretionary with the justices. As to the gravity of the offence there could be no difference of opinion; but there arose a question as to whether the infliction of a penalty upon the owner was unjust. There were good reasons for calling upon the owner

  581
  to prevent a licensed house being used in this way, but there might be other modes of compelling him to do so that might not be open to the same objection as this clause. They might give the owner power, when he found that his house was improperly conducted, to give the tenant immediate notice to quit and to remove him. That, however, would be a forcible interference with contracts, and if such a practice were admitted to a large extent it would lead to difficulties. If, however, the clause was too strong, discretionary power could be given to the justices. He should be quite ready to introduce a system of notices to owners. They might also require owners to be registered, or perhaps it would be preferable to allow them to be registered if they thought fit. With such a register, whenever an offence was committed which was recorded upon the license, the justices could send a notice to the owner that his tenant was conducting his house disreputably so that he might have a reasonable opportunity of preventing it being so used.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDthought that if the owner was wholly ignorant of the abuse of his house no injustice would be involved in his terminating the contract, which ought not to be valid under such circumstances.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYagreed with the noble Earl as to the danger attending an interference with contracts, but remarked that the noble Earl did not feel that difficulty quite so keenly when the Irish Land Bill was under consideration. It seemed to be a more serious matter to punish a man for what he had not done; but if the slightest degree of complicity could be proved against the owner then he ought to be punished. There would be no difficulty about the register, for the name of the owner could be written on the back of the license; and as soon as a conviction took place notice could be sent to the owner, who might have power given him to terminate the tenancy thereupon, or to be exempted from punishment if he forthwith gave such notice as the contract would enable him to give for the purpose of terminating the tenancy.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, nothing could be more unjust than to enact with reference to existing leases where the landlord had no power over the tenant, that the misconduct of that tenant should entail a
  582
  forfeiture of property upon the landlord. With regard to future leases and contracts, it seemed to him that some system of notices was extremely desirable, because if a third conviction was to forfeit the license owners, for their own protection, would stipulate that two convictions should be, ipso facto, an avoidance of the lease, and it would be necessary that they should have notice of the second offence. Owners would thus be compelled to exercise a species of control over their premises and to secure good tenants; and as soon as a man had proved by his second conviction his unworthiness he would be superseded by a better tenant. But whatever might be done, nothing could be more unjust than to apply the penalty of this clause to the case of existing leases, where the landlord had no power over the tenant.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas willing on the Report to modify the clause, so as to provide that the owner should have notice of the first conviction, and that a second conviction should involve disqualification for a license. On this understanding he would consent to the words being now struck out.
  Words struck out accordingly.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Penalty for harbouring constables) agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Penalty for permitting gaming) agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 19 (Power to exclude drunkards from licensed premises).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDobjected to the proposal that a constable required to assist in expelling a disorderly person might "use force for that purpose without being responsible for the consequences of such force."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYbelieved "force" would be construed as "reasonable force," but would consent to use the term "such force as may be required."
  Clause amended and agreed to.
  Adulteration.
  Clause 20 (Adulteration of intoxicating liquors).
  LORD BUCKHURSTproposed that the punishment should not be confined to the use of "deleterious" ingredients, but should extend to any ingredients.

  583
  Nothing was more adulterated than beer before it reached the consumer, but he excluded from the charge the higher branches of the trade. He moved to insert the words "or other adulterating."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas anxious for stringent regulations to prevent adulteration, but was sure their Lordships would not desire to carry the clause too far. The proposed Amendment seemed to him to go too far. The Schedule enumerated cocculus indicus, copperas, opium, Indian hemp, strychnine, tobacco, darnel seed, extract of logwood, salts of zinc or lead, and alum. If anything further were needed it could be supplied by making additions to the list of adulterating ingredients, rather than use a general term, which might raise the question whether the ingredient was adulterating or not.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, the question was whether they would treat it as adulteration to put into drink things that were not deemed deleterious, but which were put in simply to provoke thirst, and to induce persons to drink more than they otherwise would.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the question also arose with reference to anything which would weaken the liquor. It seemed to him that the clause was sufficient as it stood, and that any necessary Amendment could be made by correcting the list of ingredients in the Schedule.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDagreed with the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley). The proposed Amendment would include water, and it would be unwise to accept it. He thought the words "deleterious ingredients," coupled with the list in the Schedule, would meet the case; and therefore he would advise the noble Lord not to press the Amendment.
  LORD HYLTONsaid, that much adulteration was produced by mixtures supplied to publicans by brewers. He thought that everyone who adulterated should be deprived of his license.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, it would be very hard that a man should forfeit his license for selling liquor that was adulterated without his knowing it.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he objected very strongly to the last paragraph of the clause, which required that a person convicted of any offence under this section should affix to any part of his premises prescribed by a public-house Inspector a placard stating his conviction, and should not remove it for two weeks. The offence of adulteration was no doubt a grave one; the penalty attached to it by the clause was very severe, and he was glad it should be so; but, if his Amendment to a later part of the Bill were carried, it would be necessary to qualify this clause. He objected to this additional penalty of compelling a man to placard his own guilt on his own house. It was a novel mode of punishing a man, though he understood it had been tried in New Zealand. He objected to it, and if he were encouraged, he should take the sense of the House upon it. The paragraph further directed that if any one were to pull down or deface the placard, the man should put it up again, and so, for the stipulated time, he would become a continual bill-sticker.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he hoped this clause would not be regarded merely as compelling a man to become a bill-sticker. He thought no more appropriate punishment could be inflicted than that of compelling a man to make it known to everybody that he had been convicted, and so to inflict the punishment upon himself. As to the penalty being novel in form, it did not follow that it was necessarily bad. At all events, he hoped that noble Lords on his own side of the House would not condemn the proposal because it was new; and if it was new, he believed it would prove to be a useful innovation, and that it would have a good effect on the keepers of public-houses. The very circumstance of a house being so placarded would attract a good deal of attention, and no doubt it would produce a good effect. They had passed laws to prevent adulteration, yet it was notorious almost everything they ate or drank was adulterated. He did not want to go too fast, and this was a small step in the right direction. The clause provided that the man who mixed with his liquors materials positively deleterious should be punished, not with the pillory as in the time of our ancestors—for in these days that would be deemed cruel and

  585
  barbarous—but with something very like it, by making him display to the whole world the fact of his conviction in front of his house.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought the provision was, on the whole, a wise one, and that it followed a sound principle in legislation. What was said to the publican was—"You shall not deceive your customer; if you do you shall be punished for it." The penalty proposed would be most effective, without being very cruel. He was bound to say that the objection of the publicans was that they were singled out from other tradesmen for this form of punishment; and if the objection were allowed to endure it would be a sound one:—but he trusted that it would not endure, and that the grocer who sanded his sugar would be punished in a similar manner by subsequent legislation.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEthought the clause, as it now stood, had in it something ludicrous. It proposed to say to the guilty publican—"You shall not only have capital punishment, but you shall commit suicide." Surely it was enough to enact that the placard should be affixed to the man's house without compelling him to affix it with his own hands. How were they to compel the publican to do so?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the publican would be fined 40 s. for every day that the notice was not exhibited or was defaced.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Possession of adulterated liquor or deleterious ingredients), and Clause 22 (Schedule of deleterious ingredients) agreed to.
  Clause 23 (Analysis of intoxicating liquor).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved to insert—
  "Any person required in pursuance of the foregoing provisions to furnish samples of any intoxicating liquor for the purpose of analysis may at the time of supplying such samples require the same to be sealed in his presence with his own seal, and a corresponding sample sealed by such superintendent, inspector, or officer, shall, if required, be left with the person for reference, in case of dispute as to the correctness of the analysis or otherwise. No sample so sealed shall be opened except by a public analyst, and such analyst shall give a reasonable notice to the person by whom such sample was furnished, in order to enable such person, if he shall think fit to attend at the time when such sample is opened."
  586
  He should presently propose that the person whose liquor was to be analyzed should be present if he should think fit when the analysis was made. When the Legislature was enacting very stringent penalties, it was but right that the party accused should be satisfied that the analysis was perfectly fair.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYfelt that the noble Duke had the same object with himself. He would consider if any further words were necessary to be inserted in the clause, and if they did not entirely carry out his view, the noble Duke might object to the whole clause. He would confer with the noble Duke how the provision could best be made. He should object to the appointment of a public analyst.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, it would be useless for the publican to be present when the analysis was made, as he would know nothing of the process carried on.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, it would be much less expensive to have a public analyst than to follow the clause as it stood; and the analysis of such an officer would command more confidence than an analysis performed by any gentleman appointed by the Excise. The public analyst need not be a salaried officer—he could be paid some small fee when his services were required. This year a public analyst had been appointed in Worcestershire at an annual salary, with great satisfaction to the ratepayers.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the plan proposed by the Bill already existed, and worked well. There were nine Acts of Parliament against adulteration, and they were enforced by the Excise, and were not ineffective; for in the 10 years from 1857 to 1867 there had been 106 convictions.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Closing Licensed Premises in case of Riot.
  Clause 24 (Power of justices to close licensed Premises in case of Riot) agreed to.
  Closing of Licensed Premises on Sundays and Holidays.
  Clause 25 (Times of Closing).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYhoped that the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill would not give too

  587
  Puritanical a character to the measure. The clause would not allow licensed houses to open till 7 o'clock in the morning. He supposed the object in view was to strengthen the hands of the police, and to prevent disorder and breaches of the law. But was there any danger of such things happening before 6 in the morning? If the object was to prevent the working man from taking his breakfast in a public-house and having beer with it instead of tea or coffee—there could be no doubt that beer was much less wholesome for him; but in the same sense pork was much less wholesome than mutton—yet Parliament would never legislate to force working men to eat mutton and not pork. Such a point as this, then, was entirely outside the purview of legislation, and to adopt it would be to apply an utterly false principle. There was also another point which he thought might be altered for the better. It was proposed to close public-houses at 12 at night—he thought that the time should be extended to 1 o'clock. There were many places of entertainment which did not close till 12, and it would be extremely hard upon those people who had been trying to obtain a little innocent amusement if they were to be prevented from going into a public-house after that hour. He thought the hours for week days should be altered so that these houses should be allowed to open at 5 A.M. and close at 1 A.M.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, it was difficult to fix upon what were the best times for opening and closing. No doubt the clause did propose a great increase of stringency over the present law, and he (the Earl of Kimberley) would at once admit that one object of the Bill, without being Puritanical, was to limit the extent of drinking by indirect checks. He was not disposed to advise the House to adopt the extreme views of those who would give power to the majority of a locality to prevent the minority using intoxicating liquors. At the same time there were considerable bodies of people, and among them a great number of the working classes, who entertained strong opinions on this subject; and it was necessary to take those opinions somewhat into account in dealing with the matter. There was a great difference of feeling in different parts of the country, and there might
  588
  be cases of hardship and inconvenience if there were no loop-hole in the Bill, and that loop-hole was provided by the 27th clause, which empowered the magistrates to make exceptions in particular cases, in which it might be desirable to provide accommodation for persons attending markets or engaged in certain trades. In Scotland the magistrates had generally in their discretion fixed the hour of opening at 7 o'clock in the morning, and the arrangement had been found to work well. He trusted the Committee would not agree to make 5 the general hour for opening. The Bill proposed a uniform system for public-houses, beerhouses, and winehouses, which were at present under different regulations, and though it would be more severe as regarded public-houses, it would make less alteration in the other classes. It would be as well that he should point out exactly what were the present hours of closing. Within the limits of the Public-houses Closing Act of 1864—that was to say, within the City of London, the metropolitan police district, and such corporate boroughs or districts as had adopted the Act—the hours were from 1 A.M. to 4 A.M. Beerhouses were under the statute of 1860, and were closed from 12 P.M. to 5 A.M. in London and the metropolitan district, and in other districts they closed at hours varying according to the population. The present Bill proposed to introduce a general law for closing—namely, 12 o'clock at night, for London within the four miles radius, which was one hour earlier than public-houses were compelled to close at present; 11 o'clock for the metropolitan police district, and towns with 10,000 inhabitants, and 10 o'clock elsewhere. It was during the hour between 12 to 1 o'clock that the greatest amount of drunkenness took place; and if their Lordships wished to introduce order into our towns, they could not take a more effective measure than to close the houses earlier. He hoped their Lordships would take up the hours of opening and closing separately, as they were separate questions.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETpreferred 6 A.M. to 7 for London; while in the country the case would be met by the clause giving power to the magistrates to relax the rule if they thought it necessary. He presumed that the clause proposed

  589
  no alteration in the existing law as to Sunday.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the alteration as regarded Sunday was this—The present hour of opening on Sunday afternoon was 12 30: the Bill proposed that it should he 1 o'clock, that was, half-an-hour later. The next hours for closing at present on Sunday were from 3 P.M. to 5 P.M., and the Bill proposed that the hours of closing should be from 3 P.M. to 6 P.M. Then, with regard to the closing on Sunday night, the hour of closing in London was left the same—namely, 11 o'clock, and the hour of closing in other parts of the country was made 10 P.M. for large towns, and 9 P.M. elsewhere.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETthought it hardly worth while for the sake of so slight a difference to re-open the Sunday question, which on a former occasion led to demonstrations in Hyde Park.
  LORD PORTMANthought 12 a better hour than 1 for closing, and 6 a better hour than 5 for opening.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYmoved the insertion of a regulation at the beginning of the clause, providing that all licensed premises should be closed on every weekday between 12 o'clock at night and 7 o'clock in the morning. This was the intention of the clause as at present framed, but in its existing shape there was some ambiguity.
  Amendment moved, p. 9, line 29, having inserted after ("Closed") ("on every day between") moved to insert ("twelve.")—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in order to raise the question, said, he should object to the hour of 12 in the noble Earl's proposal.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, his scheme of hours was as follows:—He proposed that the closing hours in the metropolis should be from 1 A.M. to 5 A.M.—which would meet the case of a number of persons employed in certain classes of occupation in London; he also proposed that in places with a population over 10,000 inhabitants the hours of closing should be from 12 at night to 6 A.M.; and with a population of less than 10,000 inhabitants the hours of closing should be from 11 P.M. till 6 A.M.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYremarked, that if houses were not opened
  590
  till 7 o'clock persons arriving in London by the early trains would be much inconvenienced.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYbelieved there would be no more difficulty than at present in the admission of travellers into hotels during the closed hours.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 31: Majority, 15.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET THE DUKE OF SOMERSET moved that the hour of opening be 6 o'clock, instead of 7.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that if this proposal represented the sense of the House, he would accept it.
  The word ("Six") was accordingly substituted, with consequential Amendments.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, they now came to sub-section 2, which applied to houses in the metropolitan police district, but outside the four-mile radius from Charing-cross, and to towns containing not less than 10,000 inhabitants. The sub-section now provided that they should close at 10 o'clock. He had already agreed that houses should open at 6 o'clock on week-day mornings, and if the House thought that the houses contemplated in this sub-section should remain open on Sundays till 11 instead of 10 he should not object.
  THE EARL OF BEAUCHAMPasked why the Bill should apply a different measure to people outside the four-mile radius from that applied to people inside? The East-end of London would not be included within that area, as the West-end would be, yet the people there had the same habits and the same mode of living.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, it was necessary to draw the line somewhere, but it was competent to the noble Earl to propose an extension of the limits.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwas sorry that the House was so given up to the fanatical party as to propose to close the public-houses in parts of the metropolitan district at 10 o'clock. The Bill was a piece of Puritanical legislation which he was sure would not work, for it was utterly opposed to the habits and feelings of the people, and he should be very much surprised if it were accepted by the other House of Parliament.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was willing to take the metropolitan police district, instead of the four-mile radius for sub-section 1. With regard to towns of more than 10,000 inhabitants, he proposed to amend the sub-section by fixing the morning hour at 6, the other hours remaining as they were.
  Amendments made accordingly.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 26 (Punishment of persons found on premises during closing hours) amended and agreed to.
  Clause 27 (Exemption from closing by order of local authority, in respect of certain houses) agreed to.
  Clause 28 (Amendment of law as to refreshment-houses) agreed to.
  Effect of repeated Convictions.
  Clause 29 (Forfeiture of license on repeated convictions).
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he proposed to mitigate the effect of this clause by inserting words making it discretionary, instead of compulsory, with the magistrates to disqualify the premises in respect to which there had been repeated convictions. He would therefore move in page 12, line 40, to leave out "shall," and insert "may if the Court having cognizance of the case in its discretion so thinks fit to order." With regard to the transfer of license, it had been complained that, except in the case of the transfer of the license to an other person, the convictions would run against the house, and that the owner of the house might suffer by the license being taken away without any fault on his part. No real hardship, however, would be inflicted if the owner had notice. If any owner came forward and said he should wish to be registered, notice might be sent to him. He should be willing to propose words in another part of the Bill to effect that object.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, it was impossible to judge what the effect of the Amendments would be until they saw the words which the noble Earl intended to propose. He would suggest that they should wait until the Report before anything more was done with regard to these Amendments.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he should feel himself bound to amend the
  592
  clause in the manner he had proposed with regard to giving discretionary power to the magistrates.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsuggested that an owner should not be punishable if he showed he had given notice to his tenant at the earliest possible moment after he became aware that an offence had been committed.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYproposed to take the suggestion of the noble Marquess into consideration.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 30 (Conviction after five years not to increase penalty) agreed to.
  Supervision of Licensed Premises.
  Clause 31 (Appointment of Public-house Inspectors in every police district.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDexpressed his belief that the clause was unnecessary, as the machinery now in existence was better adapted for carrying out the object in view than that proposed by the noble Earl. Under the existing system the magistrates could direct every police Inspector to lay before them a report concerning the character of all public-houses, beerhouses, and refreshment-houses in his district. The clause provided that one Inspector should be appointed for every 100,000 inhabitants; but the result of this would be that in some cases an Inspector would have under his charge a district of 40 miles by 30. In his judgment, an Inspector could not furnish the magistrates with trustworthy information as to the character of all the public houses in so large a district. He also objected to the appointment of officers whose special duty would be to find fault with a particular class of people. Believing, therefore, that the present machinery was superior to that now proposed, he begged to move the omission of the clause.
  Moved, "To leave out Clause 31."—(The Duke of Richmond.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the meaning of the clause was that there should be at least one Inspector to every 100,000 inhabitants; but there was nothing to prevent the appointment of additional Inspectors. The present inspection of public-houses by the constabulary no doubt worked satisfactorily

  593
  in certain counties; but, owing to various causes, that was not the case in boroughs, where the inspection was flagrantly neglected. Last year the Government proposed that special Inspectors should be appointed by the central authority, and that they should have a sort of concomitant jurisdiction with the police; but it was objected that such Inspectors would go about the country like spies. The Government thought there was some force in this objection, and to meet it they proposed to take by the present Bill the least power they could in order to insure that the inspection of public-houses should be complete. The Inspectors appointed under the clause would remain attached to the constabulary force, and if the duty of inspecting public-houses did not occupy all their time they might be otherwise employed. He attached great importance to the clause. It would impose only a slight additional burden on the ratepayers, and was necessary for the proper working of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it would rest with the Secretary of State to determine what the increased burden upon the rates should be, and that would depend upon his view of what was required to carry out the stringent provisions of the Bill; and it appeared from the speech of the noble Earl that he and the present Home Secretary intended to have a new police, which, of course, the counties would have to pay for. Surely, it was hard upon the counties to impose this additional burden on the rates so soon after the House of Commons had determined by a large majority that the money required for the administration of justice should be taken out of the Imperial Exchequer? They were told that the sum would be small; but the burden of rates that now pressed upon them so heavily was made up of small items. He thought it was clearly the duty of the Committee to divide upon this clause, and so mark their sense of a direct attempt to violate a Resolution which had been passed by the House of Commons.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETcomplained that the effect of the clause would be to treat the rural and the urban districts in a very different manner, with a balance of inequality and injustice against the rural districts. He thought the existing police arrangements were quite
  594
  sufficient to meet the requirements of the case.
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTONinstanced several northern counties in which the public-houses were regularly and efficiently inspected and reported upon to the magistrates by the present police force.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, all that was desired by Her Majesty's Government was to procure an efficient inspection. He was aware that a considerable section of the public objected to every proposal which could increase local rating; but he would ask their Lordships whether it was possible to allow all improvements not provided for by Imperial taxation to remain in abeyance until the question of local taxation had been settled—this last question being one which would touch the deepest questions, and which could not possibly be settled for one, two, or three Sessions to come?
  LORD KESTEVENsaid, the question of local taxation was now at a deadlock, and must be settled before any new system of taxation could be adopted in the suburban districts.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDagreed with those noble Lords who urged the importance of efficient inspection, but maintained that the existing police force was perfectly sufficient for the work.
  THE EARL OF POWISthought one effect of the clause would be to leave the towns under a supervision much more lax than that which would be the rule in counties. It would be better, instead of singling out special members of the police force to carry out the law, to leave it to the force generally, as at present; and the magistrates would see that the instructions contained in the Act of Parliament were carried into effect.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwished it to be understood that the effect of the clause would not be to create a new police force, but simply to add to the existing force in districts where it was not sufficiently numerous to ensure a proper inspection.
  On Question, That the said clause stand part of the Bill? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 36; Not-Contents 53: Majority 17.
  Resolved in the Negative; Clause struck out.
  Clauses 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 (Defining duties of Public-house Inspectors, &c.) struck out.
  Registers.
  Clause 38 (Register of Licenses) agreed to.
  Amendment of Law as to Grant of Licenses.
  Clause 39 (Licensing Committee in Counties).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDobjected to the proposal in the Bill, partly contained in this clause, with reference to the granting of new licenses. Last Session the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department expressed his deliberate and decided opinion that the local magistrates were the best judges who were eligible persons to receive licenses; and now the policy of the Government had been changed. He regarded the condition of obtaining the assent of the Secretary of State for the Home Department as not only unnecessary, but as tending to cast a slur on a body of men who had hitherto performed their duties honestly and well; in addition to which there was this further objection—that the Secretary of State could not possibly be acquainted with the wants of the locality, while to the magistrates they would be thoroughly known. That this point was not deemed of any great importance by the Government was evident from the fact that they proposed to confine it to the case of new licenses, and did not suggest the extension of it to transfers of renewals. It would be more simple to accept the proposal he had made that the present licensing body should remain as it was, with the right of appeal from the petty sessions to the committee appointed by the Quarter Sessions, to consist of not less than 3 members and not exceeding 12. There was no pretence for saying that the magistrates had exercised their power in granting licenses improperly; there was, therefore, no reason for depriving them of such power. Under such circumstances, he would propose the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  An Amendment moved, line 32, leave out from ("In") to ("expedient") in line 41 inclusive, and insert—
  ("every county the justices in quarter sessions assembled shall annually appoint from among themselves a licensing committee, or they may appoint more than one such committee, and assign to any such committee such area of jurisdiction as they may think expedient. "—(The Duke of Richmond.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYobjected to the Amendment, which he thought went to the whole root of the Bill, inasmuch that it practically left matters where they now stood. He could understand the proposition as being applicable to counties, but he could not see how it could work in boroughs. Independent of this objection, the plan suggested by the noble Duke provided none of the safeguards contained in the Government measure. He would not say that licenses had been granted by the county magistrates improperly or without due consideration, but it was generally admitted that the number of houses at present licensed was far too large, and Parliament, by the course it had adopted in reference to this subject, had shown a determination not to permit an evil already too great to assume still larger proportions. It was only last year that Parliament passed a Suspensory Act forbidding the granting of any fresh licenses without the sanction of the Secretary of State; and it was a mockery, and worse than a mockery, to attempt to legislate on this subject if they did not adopt some plan for the restriction of new licenses. The plan of the noble Duke opposite would be of no use whatever in this way, for licenses would be granted with just the same absence of discrimination, and deference to the public-house interest rather than the interest of the public, as they were now. The proposal of the Government was to make the concurrence of three bodies necessary to the granting of a new license. They therefore provided that in counties an application for a fresh license should receive the approval first of all of the authorities as at present constituted; secondly, of a committee of Quarter Sessions; and, finally, the assent of the Secretary of State. In boroughs where there was a numerous body of magistrates a similar process had to be gone through; but in smaller boroughs, where it would be impossible to form a committee out of the already small number of magistrates, the assent of the whole body, in the first instance would be submitted, without any intervention, to the Secretary of State. The

  597
  result of that system, he believed, would be that no license would be refused where it could be shown that any real want existed. The case of renewals and transfers stood upon an entirely different footing. He should have been glad to introduce in the Bill further restrictions in that direction, if it could have been done consistently with the interest of those already engaged in the trade. It was inexpedient, however, to deal with renewals beyond what was absolutely necessary; the main point was to introduce a very strict revision of the granting of new licenses.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, the Suspensory Act was passed under special circumstances. Parliament had indicated its intention to restrict the granting of licenses, and it was feared there would be a great rush of application for such licenses. For this temporary purpose nothing could be more proper than to give the Home Secretary a veto on the granting of new licenses; but what it was wise to do for a time, it would be unwise to do as a permanent arrangement. From present appearances it was certainly inexpedient to add to the duties of the Home Secretary—indeed, it was obviously impossible for the Home Secretary, overwhelmed already by the weight of his other duties, to determine in his office in Downing Street the merits of every application for a new license, or whether more public-houses were wanted in a particular district or not. The legislation on this point should be positive, and there should be no possibility of one Secretary of State undoing the act of another Secretary of State. And if the duty were thrust upon him, upon what principle was he to act? Was he to lay down a rule for himself that he would allow no more licenses, to be granted beyond a certain number, according to the population? That was a feasible rule, but different Secretaries of State might lay down different rules. If the Home Secretary were to decide the question upon the merits, how was he to gain evidence as to whether the premises of A. B. were properly constructed, or whether he was a trustworthy person? All the Secretary of State could do would be to resort to private inquiry, and the granting of licenses would degenerate into a party question, than which nothing could be more objectionable. If they wanted to
  598
  bring the Secretary of State into ridicule and involve the matter in inextricable complexity, they could not do better than place this power in the hands of that high officer.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETthought as regarded counties a revision of the decision of the eommittee by the magistrates of the county would be a very good plan; but did not approve the proposal to give the Home Secretary the power of refusing a license. If he exercised the right, questions would be frequent in the House of Commons on the subject, and perhaps direct Motions would be made—a course which would detract from the character of the office of Secretary of State.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he would have no objection to striking out the words conferring the power of veto on the Home Secretary, provided the other part of the clause was allowed to stand, the object of which was to control the number of new licenses issued.
  The words enacting "approval of Secretary of State" struck out.
  On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 53, Not-Contents 50: Majority 3.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 40 to 44, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 45 (Confirmation of licenses) struck out.
  Clauses 46 to 49, inclusive, agreed to.
  Legal Proceedings.
  Clauses 50 to 52, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 53 (Liabilities of aiders and abettors) struck out.
  Clauses 54 and 55 agreed to.
  Clause 56 (Power of justices to direct prosecution of offences) struck out.
  Clause 57 agreed to.
  Miscellaneous.
  Clauess 58 and 59 agreed to.
  Clause 60 (Appearance of justices to defend appeal) struck out.
  Clauses 61 to 65, inclusive, agreed to.
  Saving Clauses.
  Clause 66 (Saving of certain rights).
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET THE DUKE OF SOMERSET moved the rejection of sub-section 11, which provides for the sale of wine by retail, not to be consumed upon the premises, by a wine merchant in pursuance of a wine-dealer's license granted by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYobjected to the omission, on the ground that the grocers' license, which would be affected by the rejection of the sub-section in question, would take away the existing security for the sale of pure wines and spirits by retail.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the sub-section required at least amendment, and he would bring up an Amendment on the Report.
  Clause agreed to.
  Definitions.
  Clause 67 (Interpretation) amended, and agreed to.
  Repeal.
  Clause 68 (Repeal of Acts mentioned in Schedule).
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYproposed to insert—
  "And in particular there shall be repealed so much of the Wine and Beerhouses Acts as makes such Acts temporary in their duration, and the said Acts shall henceforth be perpetual."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  First Schedule ("Deleterious Ingredients") agreed to.
  Preamble considered and amended by inserting the words "and the better prevention of drunkenness," as one of the objects of the Bill.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday the 6th of June next; and Bill to be printed as amended (No. 106).

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND FIRE INSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill intituled An Act to amend the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act, 1871, and to provide for the Insurance against Fire of Buildings belonging to the Church of England—Was presented by The Lord EGERTON; read 1a. (No. 102.)

  PETROLEUM BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Petroleum Act, 1871—Was presented by The Earl of MORLEY; read 1a. (No. 104).
  House adjourned at half past Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, Twelve o'clock.