Commons Sitting of 21 May 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH.)
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—
  Plymouth, Stonehouse, and Devonport Tramways Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—

  Brewery and Commercial Investment Trust, Limited, Bill [Lords].

  Bristol Water Bill [Lords].

  Cork Electric Tramways Bill [Lords].

  Dearne Valley Railway Bill [Lords].

  Falkirk Corporation Bill [Lords].

  Glasgow and South Western Railway Bill [Lords].

  Neath Harbour Bill [Lords].

  Rawmarsh Urban District Council (Tramways) Bill [Lords].

  Rhymney Railway Bill [Lords].

  Taff Vale Railway Bill [Lords].

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.

  BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  HIGHAM FERRERS WATER BILL [Lords].
  Queen's consent signified; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES GAS BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  LANCASHIRE, DERBYSHIRE, AND EAST COAST RAILWAY BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL [Lords].
  Queen's consent signified; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
ABERDEEN POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  CHARING CROSS AND STRAND ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  CLEETHORPES GAS BILL [Lords].
  DUNDEE HARBOUR BILL [Lords].
  NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  SOUTH-EASTERN METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  BRAY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (BY ORDER).
  Read a second time, and committed.
  CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL (BRIDGES) BILL.
  "To transfer certain public bridges in the parish of Crosthwaite, in the county of Cumberland, to the Cumberland County Council and other authorities; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (PETERSHAM) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Eastbourne, Ilfracombe, Lowestoft, and Portessie, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Hanbury.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Gloucester, Northampton, and Torquay, and to the Walton-upon-Trent
  718
  Bridge, in the counties of Derby and Stafford, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Eastbourne, Ilfracombe, Lowestoft, and Portessie," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private. Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 225.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Gloucester, Northampton, and Torquay, and to the Walton-upon-Trent Bridge, in the counties of Derby and Stafford," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitioners for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 226.]

  BUCKINGHAM, TOWCESTER, AND METROPOLITAN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  Order [19th February] that the Buckingham, Towcester, and Metropolitan Junction Railway Bill be committed, read, and discharged.
  Ordered, That the Bill be withdrawn.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  LAMBETH WATER BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the table.

  CHURCH'S PATENT BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to the Spalding Urban District Council (Water) Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Hoylake and West Kirby Gas and Water, Manning-tree and Mistley (Essex) Gas, South Elmsall, South Kirkby, and North Elmsall Gas, and Steyning and District Water."

  719
  Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].

  GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION HILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 227.]
PETITIONS.
  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Greenock, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Petition from Dundee, in favour of proposed legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Scottish Temperance Federation; and Grand Lodge of Scotland of the Independent Order of Good Templars; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSED PREMISES (HOURS OF SALE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition of the Grand Lodge of Scotland of the Independent Order of Good Templars, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING ACTS AMENDMEMT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Edinburgh; and Scottish Temperance Federation; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS (WOMEN'S DISABILITIES REMOVAL) BILL.
  Petition from Hipperholme, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LUNACY BILL.
  Petitions for alteration, from Stow-on-the-Wold; Orsett; and Bradford; to lie upon the Table.
  MIDWIVES BILL.
  Petition from Liverpool, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (SCOTLAND) LATER OPENING BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Glasgow (two); and Grand Lodge of Scotland of the Independent Order of Good Templars; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Meopham; and Eastleigh; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL AND SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petition from West Lancashire, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND BILL.
  Petition from Dundee, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND), BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Largs; Glasgow; Grand Lodge of Scotland of the Independent Order of Good Templars; Aberdeen; Edinburgh (two); Downfield; Walkerburn; Greenock; Scottish Temperance Federation; Overtown; Peebles. Lochans; and Darvel; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Sheffield (two); Coventry; Grenoside (two); Penzance; Liverpool; Holbeck; Glasgow; Goole; Bradford; Eastleigh; and Chelmsford; to lie upon the Table.
  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOTLAND) ACT (1895) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Forfar, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL
  Petitions in favour, from Cambuslang; and Eastleigh; to lie upon the Table.
  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dundee, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Judicial Statistics for England and Wales, 1898, Part II. (Civil Judicial Statistics), edited by John Macdonell, esquire, C.B., LL.D., Master of the Supreme Court [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS).
  Copy presented, of Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary for the year ended 29th September, 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 181.]
  AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) ACT, 1899.
  Copy presented, of Rules made under Section 3 of the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS (ACCIDENTS TO RAILWAY SERVANTS OTHER THAN TRAIN ACCIDENTS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 14th May; Mr. Channing]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 182.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2426 to 2429 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSPORTS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 6th February; Mr. Weir]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OK THE HOUSE.
  1. Inquiry into Charities (County of Lancaster).—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 8th August, 1898; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 183.]

  2. Judicial Trustee Rules.—Copy of Rule made by the Lord Chancellor under the Judicial Trustees Act, 1896 [by Act].

  TECHNICAL EDUCATION (APPLICATION OF FUNDS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Return ordered, "showing the extent to which, and the manner in which, Local
  722
  Authorities in England, Wales, and Ireland have applied, or are applying, Funds to the purposes of Technical Education (including Science, Art, Technical, and Manual Instruction) during the years 1898–9 and 1899–1900, under the following Acts: Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890; Technical Instruction Acts, 1889 and 1891; Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889; and Public Libraries and Museums Acts."—(Sir John Gorst.)

  WAR CASUALTIES (NON-COMBATANTS).
  Address for "Return of the number of Casualties during the War, as reported to the War Office, among Non-Combatants serving with the Army, distinguishing those caused by wounds and by disease." —(Mr. Humphreys-Owen.)
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—KOORN SPRUIT DISASTER.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the name of the escort officer who is presumably the officer responsible for the surprise by the Boers of the British convoy at Koorn Spruit, and why has his name been held back; and why have not his explanations, with the comments of Lord Roberts thereon, been submitted, as in other cases, to the public.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I must refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave him on Thursday and on Friday last.†
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question has been answered, the hon. Gentleman declining to give any further information. Whether the answer is satisfactory to the hon. Member or not, it must be taken as conclusive.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I, of course, do not question your ruling, Sir, but my question has not been answered. If the hon. Gentleman will say he declines to answer the second paragraph, I shall be satisfied.
  † See pages 391 and 573 of this volume.
  MR. WYNDHAM: If the hon. Member does not understand my answer, I will explain that I said on a previous occasion that the publication of despatches was in the discretion of the Secretary of State, and until a despatch is published I am not prepared to discuss any subject that may be covered by that despatch.

  RETIRED OFFICERS RESUMING ACTIVE SERVICE.
  MR. FABER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether a retired officer who has resumed active service in South Africa has any, and what, deduction made from his pay, as compared with an officer of the same rank who is not a retired officer; and, if so, why such deduction is made.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No deduction is made.

  PROMOTIONS OF OFFICERS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is at the instance of Lord Roberts or of the authorities at the War Office that the officers in regiments engaged in active service have been passed over for promotion in the filling of vacancies by death in action in these regiments, and that the vacancies so caused have been filled by the promotion of officers serving in other regiments, who have never been engaged in action, and without recent experience of warfare.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I gave the information for which the hon. Member asks in reply to a question which he put to mo on Friday,† Selections for command rest with the Commander-in-Chief and Army Board.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it the Commander-in-Chief at home?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes; Lord Wolseley.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Who are the Army Board?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Adjutant General, the Quartermaster General, and the Inspector General of Fortifications.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: All Lord Wolseley's nominees.
  † See page 578 of this volume.

  BOER PRISONERS.—ACCOMMODATION ON THE "MONGOLIAN."
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any complaints were made by medical and other officers of the accommodation on board the "Mongolian" for the Boer prisoners; if the lack of space on board was productive of disease and death; that the water supply rendered ordinary cleanliness impossible, and that the sanitary arrangements were faulty.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer this question. No such reports have been received either at the Admiralty or the War Office.

  RESERVISTS' SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in consequence of the distress caused to soldiers' wives by the recall of men to the colours, paymasters may be allowed to make them, within seven days of rejoining, a payment on account of separation allowance up to the end of the current month, and further amounts as may be necessary until the full amounts due can be calculated.
  MR. WYNDHAM: As soon as a man rejoins, the name and address of his wife and the number of his children are sent to the paymaster concerned, who forthwith issues the separation allowance in advance for the period up to the end of the month, and thereafter monthly in advance. This arrangement appears to meet all the points raised by my hon. and gallant friend. As I have already stated, some regrettable delay arose from the pressure of work in October, and from the reluctance on the part of certain Reservists to supply the necessary information. If the hon. Member has more recent cases in his mind I shall be glad to inquire into them.

  COST OF THE WAR—TAX ON MINING PRODUCTS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to preventing loss to the public by the manipulation of mining values, the Government will announce at the earliest date what proportion of the cost of the South African

  725
  War, and of the compensations and pensions arising there from, will be met by a tax on the mining products of the territories where the conflict has taken place.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I think any such announcement would be altogether premature until we have entered upon possession of the country, and received the advice of those on the spot whose advice is eminently necessary. We do not yet know what will be the cost of the war, or the state of the mines at its close.

  ROYAL RESERVE REGIMENTS AND THE STANDING ARMY.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if, when the Royal Reserve Regiments are disbanded, any facilities can be offered to officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, within the age limits, and duly recommended for character and capacity, to rejoin the Standing Army, if in their respective arms and ranks vacancies exist.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir, if there are vacancies. But in the case of the officers it is not probable that there will be any vacancies, because the war has led to a large increase in the number of officers, and many of them will be supernumerary when it is ended. The conditions on which a certain number of non-commissioned officers and men may be retained in the ranks were published in an Army Order on the 28th April.

  NAVAL CONSTRUCTION — MESSRS. ARMSTRONG, WHITWORTH, AND COMPANY.
  MR. YERBURGH: I bog to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, and Company have state I that they could, if required, lay down three battleships and two large cruisers, giving delivery of the same within three years of receiving the order; and whether, seeing that in the last three years ending 1900 the sum of £3,500,000, or thereabouts, voted for naval construction has not been spent, and in view of his statement of 9th March, 1899, that his estimates were the lowest by which we can secure the objects which the people expect of the Navy, he will take advantage of the opportunity which now
  726
  offers to make up the ground which has been lost in naval construction.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square): The statement in the hon. Gentleman's question that £3,500,000 voted for naval construction has not been spent is completely misleading and incorrect in the sense in which it is used. The hon. Member has apparently added together the amounts unspent in succeeding years, not reflecting that a great part was simply a revote of the provision made in the previous year. What we could not spend we asked for again, and it was revoted. Amounts voted for particular ships with which less progress was made than estimated, or for armour and machinery not delivered, were included again in the next year's vote, and it is an error to add up votes and re-votes together. As to the statement attributed to Messrs. Armstrong and Co., I have only seen it since the hon. Gentleman's question appeared on the paper. It had not been made to the Admiralty. This firm is, of course, always invited to tender with others for ships to be ordered by contract. Four armoured cruisers are about to be put out to contract, and I shall be glad if some of them find their way to Elswick. It should be understood that Messrs. Armstrong do not construct machinery, nor, at present, make armour plates, and for their supply in this respect, they are dependent upon the same manufacturers as the Admiralty and other shipbuilders. It would be incorrect to gauge the power of firms to construct ships simply by the number of slips which may be vacant. There is comparatively little difficulty in getting the hulls built. The difficulty lies, in the main, in the provision of armour and machinery, often the deliveries of which must pro-coed pari passu with the work on the hull if the ships are to be completed within a given time.
  MR. YERBURGH: I regret if I have put the question down in a misleading form. I had no intention of doing so. I wanted to ask whether any of the money which has been voted by the House for naval construction has not been spent, or is not in course of being spent.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I will put all analogous case to my hon. friend. Suppose the House voted £1,000 for a

  727
  picture which was to be delivered at the end of the year; if the picture was not delivered, that £1,000 would be revoted in the next year; and, if the painter did not finish it, it might be revoted in the third year also. Surely it would in that case be incorrect to say that £3,000 had been voted for that picture by the House of Commons, and that the Government were responsible for not having spent the whole of the £3,000. That is a case exactly analogous to this.
  MR. YERBURGH: Arising out of the answer, may I ask whether, as the right hon. Gentleman stated on 26th February, in introducing the. Naval Estimates,✶ the output of ships is limited by what the naval authorities believe to be the shipbuilding capacity of the country, and whether, if he can satisfy himself that Messrs. Armstrong are in a position to supply these extra battleships and cruisers, the right hon. Gentleman will put himself into communication with them.
  MR. GOSCHEN: In the first place there are four cruisers for which tenders are asked in the general contract, and it will rest with Messrs. Armstrong whether they tender for those ships or not. I shall be very glad if that firm, for which I have the highest respect, are able to secure a large proportion of the ships that are being put out; but the hon. Member seems to have forgotten that we have a large number of ships building. It does not depend only on whether armour and machinery can be supplied to Messrs. Armstrong, for if the delivery of machinery and armour to Messrs. Armstrong interferes with the delivery of armour and machinery for our ships now under construction nothing will be gained. We have to look at the whole situation together, and to consider whether armour, machinery, and hulls can all be built pari passu.

  ADMIRALTY CONTRACTORS—R. P. HOUSTON AND CO.
  MR. MOSS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that, on the 19th of April last, the firm of Messrs. R. P. Houston and Co. informed their customers that the Admiralty were inviting tenders of steamers suitable for colliers for twelve
  ✶ See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxix., page 1111.
  728
  months service, and that the firm were constantly in touch with and had a representative in daily attendance at the Transport Department of the Admiralty, and further that the said firm invited their customers to tender through them; whether the firm of R. P. Houston and Co. are in constant touch with the Transport Department of the Admiralty, and have a representative in daily attendance; and whether, inasmuch as the hon. Member for the West Toxteth Division of Liverpool is a member of the firm of R. P. Houston and Co., their conduct is in accordance with the provisions of 22 Geo. III., cap. 45.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY, Antrim, S.): The Admiralty was not aware of the action referred to until the circular dated 19th April was sent to the First Lord by the hon. Member. In common with other firms, Messrs. R. P. Houston and Co. are in the habit of sending a representative very frequently to inquire as to the wants of the Transport Department, but no special facilities or advantages are accorded to them, and so far as this is suggested in the circular, it is incorrect and. misleading. The firm of R. P. Houston and Co. act as managers of the British and South American Steam Navigation Company, Limited, from which company two transports and a number of freight ships for mules have been taken up. So far as the Admiralty is aware, Messrs. R. P. Houston and Co. have not contravened the provisions of the statute referred to.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has the First Lord seen the circular?
  MR. MACARTNEY: Yes, Sir, my right hon. friend has seen it and so have I.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Then I am sorry for you. [Cries of "Order!"]

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL SPECIAL PENSIONS.
  MR. THORNTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, seeing that the funds placed at the disposal of the Admiralty are not sufficient to discharge their obligations to certain sailors retired from the Royal Navy who are entitled to a Greenwich Hospital special pension, which became assured to them after serving in the Crimean War,

  729
  whether, in justice to these fast a going claimants, he will undertake that their case should be considered with the view of provision being made for them.
  MR. MACARTNEY: The funds at the disposal of Greenwich Hospital do not admit of a special pension being awarded to every man who becomes eligible for it. By Order in Council of 31st December, 1886, all men who have been granted a war medal are eligible for Greenwich Hospital special pension, and it may be assumed that every survivor of the Crimean War who had genuine service in the Navy, is in possession of a medal, and is thus eligible for a special pension—these pensions were not, however, assured to men who served in the Crimea any more than to other men who have had war service, and are in possession of medals. As a matter of fact, the majority of the eligible men who have applied have been awarded special pensions before they have reached the age of sixty, but the main factor in deciding the award is the extent to which a man is incapacitated from contributing to his own support, and his circumstances generally.
  MR. THORNTON: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to submit to him the special case on which this question is based?
  MR. MACARTNEY: Most certainly.

  SAMOA — THE ANGLO-GERMAN CONVENTION.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information in reference to the proclamation of German and American sovereignty in Samoa, and the practical working of the new system of government established by the recent Anglo-German Convention.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): The German flag was hoisted at Apia on the 1st of March. Under an Imperial decree of 17th February jurisdiction similar to that prevailing in other German Protectorates has been applied to the German Samoan Islands. All persons residing in those islands are subjected to this jurisdiction. A court of first instance and a tribunal of appeal have been instituted. By a
  730
  further ordinance the judicial officer is vested with various powers under the laws of the Empire, and he will also discharge duties as a Seamen's Board of Control under the Mercantile Marine Code. We have no information as to the arrangements made by the United States Government in the Island of Tutuila.

  RUSSIA AND KOREA—NEW RUSSIAN COALING STATION AT MASAMPHO.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to the effect that the Korean Government have granted Russia a site for a coal depot and naval hospital at Masampho Harbour commanding the straits between Korea and Japan, and that Masampho will be the headquarters of the Russian fleet in the Pacific.
  The following questions also appeared on the Paper on the same subject:—
  MR. MACLEAN: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Russia has acquired the exclusive right to establish a coaling station at Masampho, in Korea; and whether this proceeding is in accordance with Russia's explicit pledge not to acquire any territory whatever in Korea.
  MR. YERBURGH: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has received information to the effect that an arrangement has been arrived at between Russia and Korea, under which Russia obtains certain concessions at Masampho Harbour; and, if so, whether he can say what those concessions are.
  MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government understand that the Russian Government have acquired by lease a site for a coal depot and naval hospital at the treaty port of Masampho. The port is open to the navigators of all countries, and the ground acquired is within the limits within which foreigners are permitted to acquire land. Her Majesty's Government also understand that the landing and storage of supplies for the Russian fleet within the site so acquired is to be governed by existing treaties. There is therefore no exclusive right conceded to the Russian Government, and the treaty rights of British subjects are not limited by any arrangements with the

  731
  Russian Government. Her Majesty's Government also understand that an agreement has been concluded by which the Russian Government bind themselves never to apply for their own use or for the use of Russian subjects for any laud on the island of Koje, or on the opposite mainland, or on any of the surrounding islands; and the Corean Government engages not to allow any other Government to rent or purchase land in the localities indicated. Her Majesty's Government are not at present in possession of the text of these agreements, and I must, therefore, suspend any reply to the latter part of the question of the hon. Member for Cardiff.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the Government maintain the view now given of that transaction?
  [No answer was returned.]
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: He has no official information.

  INDIAN GOLD CURRENCY.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any progress has been made with the introduction of a gold currency into India beyond the limits of the Presidency towns; and whether frequent demands are made by the people of India for the coinage of large amounts of silver money in addition to the rupees already in circulation
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Baling): According to the latest report, the amount of gold coin issued from the treasuries up to the 15th of May was £872,003, but I have no information as to the extent to which those sovereigns have been sent into the interior of the country. A large amount of gold has been imported into India, and of this gold a considerable number of sovereigns had been presented at the Treasury to be exchanged for rupees. This has necessitated fresh coinage.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: Has the coinage of sovereigns begun in India?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Not yet.

  CEYLON—SIR WEST RIDGEWAY'S REPORT ON CRIME.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies
  732
  whether the alleged increase in murder and crime in Ceylon has been investigated, and what explanation can be given by Sir West Ridgeway and his advisers in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The Governor has investigated and alleged increase in serious crime in Ceylon, and in February last stated that between 1897 and 1899 (inclusive) cases of murder and homicide had dropped 7 per cent., cases of grievous hurt 32 per cent., hurt with the knife 15 per cent., robbery 45 per cent., and cattle stealing 23 per cent.

  CEYLON—PLUMBAGO CURING SHEDS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if due attention will be paid in Ceylon to the plumbago curing sheds, and to the trouble and disease they confer when improperly supervised, as reported from Colombo; if Sir West Ridgeway will be asked to explain how Mr. Price has transferred his responsibility upon Mr. Charles Pareira; and if he will take stops to remedy the alleged evil.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The subject referred to by the hon. Member has been under my consideration for some months, and I will call the further attention of the Governor of Ceylon to it. I have no information as to the point raised in the latter part of the question.

  AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH BILL —SIR SAMUEL WAY'S VIEWS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the printed paper marked confidential, containing observations by Sir Samuel Way, Chief Justice of Australia, in favour of the power of appeal to the Privy Council from the decisions of the Supreme Courts of Australia under the provisions of the Commonwealth Bill, was sent by the Chief Justice to the Imperial Cabinet without the knowledge of the Premier of South Australia or any member of his Cabinet; whether, when the Chief Justice sent this document to the Privy Council, he was Acting Governor of South Australia, a Colony with responsible Government; and whether it is usual for a Colonial official in whom are united

  733
  judicial and executive offices to enter into communications of this nature with the Colonial Office.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. As to the second I am not aware that the document was sent to the Privy Council. When it was sent to the Colonial Office Sir S. Way was not Acting-Governor. In reply to the third, I have to say that the communication was in strict accordance with Colonial Regulations, Chapter VI. I may add that I am informed that Chief Justice Way's observations on the Appellate Clause were published in Australia on 14th May. There is, therefore, no objection to their publication here if it is desired.

  AUSTRALIAN CURRENCY.
  SIR BRAMPTON GUEDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the powers of the Commonwealth of Australia, with reference to currency and coinage, will include the right of issuing subsidiary coins, the seigniorage thereon forming part of the revenue of the Commonwealth; and, if so, what will be the financial loss to the Exchequer.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The powers of the Commonwealth Parliament as regards currency and coinage will be the same as those of the Dominion Parliament and the Legislatures of other self-governing colonies. The question of subsidiary coinage will be one for arrangement with Her Majesty's Government. As to the second part of the hon. Member's question, I am informed by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the profits on the Imperial silver supplied to the Australian colonies amounted to about £30,000 on the average of the last five years.

  JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL — AUSTRALIAN REPRESENTATION.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether there is any system of rotation regulating the appearances of the representatives of Australia, Canada, and South Africa on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and whether he can state the number of sittings of the Judicial Committee that have been attended by these colonial representatives since their appointment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): No such system of rotation has been established. Sir Samuel Way, Chief Justice of South Australia, attended eleven sittings in 1897. Sir Henry de Villiers, Chief Justice of the Cape of Good Hope, nine sittings in 1897, and has regularly attended the meetings during the present sittings, which commenced on 8th May. Sir Henry Strong, Chief Justice of Canada, has attended twenty-eight sittings— namely, four in 1897, eleven in 1898, and thirteen in 1899.

  PRIVY COUNCIL APPEALS FROM AUSTRALIA.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General what has been the usual nature of appeals from Australia to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, whether they have had for the most part a public or a private character, and whether these appeals have raised many questions of constitutional or Imperial importance.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I am informed that among the appeals from Australia there have been a considerable number of cases of a public character. Before expressing any opinion as to whether they have raised many questions of constitutional or Imperial importance, it would be necessary to examine the Reports in more detail than has been possible since notice of my hon. friend's question was given, but I shall be happy to communicate with him on the subject if he desires more detailed information.

  LONDON GOVERNMENT ACT—LISTS OF VOTERS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General if he can state whether the lists of voters in the newly formed London boroughs will be similar to those of the municipal boroughs throughout the country for school board purposes.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The London Government Act makes no change as regards the lists of voters in London for school board purposes.

  LONDON MAGISTRACY —BOROUGH BENCHES.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General if he can state whether

  735
  there will be borough benches of justices in connection with the new London borough councils.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The answer to this question is in the negative. The Act makes the mayor a J.P. for the county of London, but the London magistracy will not be otherwise affected.

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE REGULATIONS IN NORFOLK.
  MR. PRICE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the letter of the 9th inst. from the Secretary of the Board to the Norfolk County Council is to be taken as an expression of the intention of the Board to altogether prohibit, for a time, the movement of live stock out of the whole county of Norfolk unless the local authority and the police under their control are able to give full effect to the Board's regulations in the limited district which is scheduled under the Foot-and-Mouth Order; and whether he will consider the effects of such action to a number of persons entirely innocent of any offence.
  MR. SOAMES: I beg at the same time to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings before the Loddon Bench, on the 16th inst., at which a letter from the Secretary of the Board of Agriculture to the local authority was read, stating the Board's intention to prohibit altogether under certain circumstances the movement of live stock out of the county of Norfolk; and whether that letter of the 9th inst. was sent under his authority and with his approval.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): There is unfortunately no doubt that the orders which we have made in connection with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease have not been carried out in Norfolk with the same completeness and success as have obtained elsewhere. I fully recognise the stringency of those orders and the loss they occasion, but I have felt justified in imposing them in order to prevent what would be a great national disaster, and I have on several occasions considered what course should be taken in the event of their not being efficiently
  736
  enforced. My views on the subject were therefore well known in the Department, and although I did not personally see the letter referred to before it was dispatched, it was in entire harmony with my feelings and wishes in the matter.
  MR. SOAMES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, seeing that twenty-eight days have now elapsed since the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the county of Norfolk, and in view of the fact that the Loddon and Clavering Union is separated from the infected district by a broad river with no bridges across it, whether he can now remove all restrictions upon the movement of stock in that union.
  MR. LONG: I do not think that it would be safe for me as yet to further contract the area of the scheduled district, which is not now a very large one, and I regret therefore that I am unable to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION—REORGANISATION COMMITTEE.
  MR. HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.): I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he can now state whether the Report of the Departmental Committee on the reorganisation of the Board of Education will be presented to the House, and when the reorganisation is likely to be completed as regards secondary and technical education; and if it is proposed to make any Orders in Council transferring further powers to the new Board during the present session.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): The President of the Board of Education proposes to make a statement shortly as to the proposed reorganisation as regards secondary and technical education. It can then be considered whether there will be any advantage in laying the Reports on the Table. The draft of an Order in Council transferring powers to the Board of Education was laid before Parliament on Friday last.

  DAMAGE TO CROPS FROM RAILWAY ENGINE SPARKS.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of

  737
  Trade whether he is aware that damage is done to growing crops and plantations by fires caused by sparks from railway engines; and, seeing that the existing law imposes upon railway companies the duty of adopting precautions to prevent the escape of sparks from their engines, whether any steps are taken from time to time by the Board of Trade to insure the adoption of such precautions.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): No, Sir, the Board of Trade are not empowered to ensure the adoption of precautions. The railway companies are entitled to use locomotives, and, as I understand it, they are not liable unless guilty of negligence. Whether there is negligence or not must depend on the circumstances of each case.
  MR. JEFFREYS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the Board of Trade make any inspection to see that the engines are provided with proper spark guards?
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir. It is for the managers of railways to see that the engines and other machinery used are in compliance with the law. It is not the duty of the Board of Trade to inspect.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether there has not been a great increase in the number of fires and in the damage done in recent years owing to the larger number of fast trains and their enhanced speed?
  MR. RITCHIE: I do not see where I am to get such information. I have no doubt that the increased speed of trains adds to the possibility of fires occurring from the sparks from railway engines, but I do not see where I am to get information with regard to the increase of such accidents from that cause. I have no means of bringing pressure to bear on the railway companies, who are themselves responsible for the cost of damage resulting from negligence.
  MAJOR RASCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of introducing fresh legislation on the subject?
  MR. RITCHIE: It would really be quite impossible for me to attempt to
  738
  introduce legislation in order to teach the railway companies how to carry on their ordinary traffic.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then will the right hon. Gentleman abandon his attempt to teach fishermen how to catch fish?

  VACCINATION EXEMPTION CERTIFICATES—CASE OF HOLDSTOCK, OF LYDD.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the action of magistrates sitting at the monthly petty sessions at Lydd in refusing to grant certificates of exemption from the Vaccination Acts; whether he is aware that an applicant named Holdstock, who stated that he conscientiously objected, on the ground that vaccination had proved injurious in his own family, was questioned as to alleged membership of an anti-vaccination society, and refused a certificate on the ground that two justices had to be satisfied; whether this questioning and the refusal are consistent with the requirements of the Vaccination Act, 1898; and, what steps he will take to ensure to applicants their statutory rights under the Act.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I have inquired as to the facts of this case and am informed that a certificate of exemption was refused to the applicant because he failed to satisfy the justices that he had a conscientious objection to vaccination. This is in accordance with the Act; and it seems to me quite natural and right that justices should question an applicant with a view to eliciting the grounds of his belief, as to which they have to be satisfied before granting a certificate.

  THE EXAMINER OF PLAYS.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the principle acted upon by the Examiner of Plays in the execution of his duties is that he is in no way a censor of morals, but that his duty is solely to road all plays submitted, and, in reporting to the Lord Chamberlain whether such plays should be licensed or not, to advise that

  739
  every play which can possibly be approved shall be passed; and, whether, if this is a correct definition of the present duties of the Examiner of Plays, he will consider the advisability of establishing a stricter supervision.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: No, Sir. The terms of the question do not correctly define the present duties of the Examiner of Plays. Those duties were accurately defined by Mr. Pigott, the former Examiner of Plays, before a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1892, and were considered satisfactory by that Committee. The present Examiner has instructions to follow the rules then approved.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question is drawn from a statement of the present Examiner of Plays in the columns of the Daily Mail last week?
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: It may be that the Examiner made indiscreet remarks in the course of an interview of an unexpected character, but I have asked the Lord Chamberlain and am informed that the instructions are in strict accordance with those set before the House of Commons Committee of 1892 and approved by them.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the Examiner be rebuked for his indiscreet remarks?
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I believe he has already been.

  TELEGRAPHIC ARRANGEMENTS IN MONTGOMERYSHIRE.
  COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the report has been received of the inquiry into the telegraphic arrangements at Welshpool, Montgomery, Berriew, and Chirbury, in the county of Montgomery, and, if so, whether it is proposed to improve the facilities, and when.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): With the view of improving the telegraph facilities at the places named by the hon. Member, the Postmaster General has authorised the erection of a new wire between Welshpool and Shrews-
  740
  bury. The work will be proceeded with as quickly as possible, and it will, the Postmaster General hopes, be completed next month.

  DENBIGHSHIRE POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. MOSS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the districts of Little Mountain, Wheatsheaf, Bradley, Glanllyn, Brynissa, and Rhosrobin, all in the parish of Gwersvllt, in the county of Denbigh, contain an aggregate population of 2,041, and have only one delivery of letters each day; and whether, seeing that representations have been made to Her Majesty's Postmaster General by the Gwersyllt Parish Council as to the desirability of having a second delivery, having regard to the population of the parish, he can promise that arrangements will be made for a second delivery of letters in the districts named.
  MR. HANBURY: The application of the Gwersyllt Parish Council for a second delivery of letters in the day at certain places in that district is being considered, and the result will be communicated to the hon. Member shortly.

  RATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY—SEPARATE ASSESSMENTS.
  MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in respect of the estimated payments for rates and contributions in lieu thereof for the current year, can he state how many separate assessments make up the total of £445,000 put down in the Estimates; how many of these items have been altered since last year's Estimates; how many items are paid as rates fixed by the local authorities; and how many are contributions in lieu of rates.
  MR. HANBURY: The number of separate assessments in the books of the ' Rates Department of the Treasury is about 5,000. Of these 5,000 about 500, or 10 per cent., have been altered since last year's Estimates. About 100 are cases rateable under special Acts of Parliament; but as the amounts actually paid are no longer limited to the statutory liabilities, the whole 5,000 are now treated as contributions in lieu of rates.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS IN SCOTCH PRISONS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the work performed by the Roman Catholic chaplains to the Scotch prisons, whether he will consider the advisability of equalising their salaries with the salaries payable in England; and whether any representations or applications have been made to the Scotch Office on the subject.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): Since the administration of prisons in Scotland was taken over by the Prison Commissioners in 1877 the provision made for Roman Catholic visiting clergymen has been largely increased. In that year provision was only made for one such visiting clergyman, at a salary of £70, and in 1885, when the Scottish Office was established, the number had only increased to three, with salaries aggregating £200, whereas, on the Estimates for the current year, there is provision for ten such clergymen, with allowances amounting to £560. The Secretary for Scotland from time to time considers the salaries of the prison staff, having regard to the merits of each case and the amount of work done, but their salaries cannot be simply regulated by the salaries fixed in England, as such an adjustment has never in practice been admitted by the Treasury. I may add that no representation has, within recent years, been received at the Scottish Office on the subject, and the Secretary for Scotland is not aware of any dissatisfaction existing at the present moment in regard to the matter.

  IRELAND—DUBLIN POLICE AND THE SALVATION ARMY.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that several members of the Salvation Army were arrested on Sunday the 6th instant, in Abbey Street, Dublin, and brought before Mr. Mahony, the divisional magistrate, who, in sentencing them to fines, accused them of profanity; and that, on Sunday the 13th instant, two members of the Salvation Army walking up and down at the same place were surrounded by a mob who struck one of them three times; and whether steps will be taken to protect the Salvation Army in Irish towns.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): My attention has been directed to the proceedings referred to in this question. I understand that counsel acting on behalf of the accused has applied to the magistrate to state a case for the decision of a Superior Court, and this being so, my hon. friend will concur with me in the opinion that it is undesirable to further discuss the matter at the present stage. With reference to the last paragraph, it would be the duty of the police to afford such protection; but it does not follow from this that Salvationists, or other open-air preachers, are entitled to carry on their services in such a way as to cause an obstruction of the public thoroughfare, or to endanger the preservation of the public peace.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it not the fact that the proceedings of the Salvation Army disturb the services of a number of Protestant and Presbyterian churches in the street in which they assemble, and was it not for their protection that the police intervened?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I understand they intervened because they considered the "army" were causing an obstruction of the highway.

  COUNTY WICKLOW MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the fact that mails despatched from Euston at night are not delivered in Roundwood, County Wicklow, until the day after their delivery in Dublin, although the distance from Dublin to Roundwood is only about twenty-five English miles; whether he has received a memorial in reference to this matter; and whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to the people of Roundwood by a delay of twenty-four hours in the delivery of the English mails and of the Dublin daily papers, he proposes to alter the present arrangements.
  MR. HANBURY: No memorial for improved postal accommodation at Roundwood, County Wicklow, appears to have been received at the General Post Office, London. Inquiry is being made with the view of ascertaining whether the wishes

  743
  of the inhabitants can be complied with, and an answer shall be sent to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  REMOVAL OF DOGS FROM IRELAND.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will have the Dogs (Landing from Ireland) Order so amended as to allow dogs to be temporarily sent from Ireland to England for stud purposes, and to pass through England from Ireland to the ports of embarkation for transport to the United States, in view of the inconvenience and loss caused to the breeders of dogs in Ireland by the operation of the Order as it is at present enforced.
  MR. LONG: It would not, I fear, be practicable to make arrangements for the landing of dogs sent from Ireland to Great Britain for short periods for stud purposes, without endangering the success of the Order to which the hon. Baronet refers. The regulations already provide for the issue of licences, under certain conditions, in cases in which dogs are intended for exportation. I am glad to say that a material improvement in the position of Ireland in regard to rabies has recently taken place, and I hope, therefore, that before long any danger of the re-introduction of disease into this country may have disappeared, and that I may be able to withdraw the existing restrictions with safety.

  BELFAST LUNATIC ASYLUM—CASE OF ELIZA CLINGAN.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the death of Eliza Clingan, an inmate of Belfast Lunatic Asylum, who in her lifetime was removed to the asylum from the Belfast workhouse, whether he is aware that the verdict of the coroner's jury found that she had died from phthisis, and deplored the curtailment of the open-air space at Purdysburn Asylum; whether, in view of the fact that the cases of death in England from phthisis have been reduced owing to the open-air treatment, and considering the finding of the jury, he will take into consideration the question as to the curtailment of the open-air space at Purdysburn Asylum, near Belfast.
  MR. G. W. BALFQUR: I have not yet completed my inquiries in this matter; perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the question to-morrow.

  BELFAST BOARD OF GUARDIANS—CONTRACTS.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the Board of Guardians of Belfast has recently paid to a contractor, without any contract in writing, a sum above the lowest amount which they are by law entitled to make without written contract; can he state the amount of the payment, and is it his intention to take any steps in the matter.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The lowest amount of expenditure which a Board of Guardians is legally entitled to make without a contract expressed in writing would appear to be the sum of ten pounds, but I would refer the hon. Member to the provisions of Articles 16 and 17 of the General Regulations of the Local Government Board, dated 18th December, 1882, in this matter. With regard to the second and third paragraphs, an inquiry has recently been held into the question of the execution of works by the Guardians of the Belfast Union without contracts having been entered into, but the report of the inspector who held the inquiry has not yet been received.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY JUBILEE FUND.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to the table of subscriptions which has been framed for every rank in the Royal Irish Constabulary in connection with the Jubilee Fund, whether steps have been taken, or will be taken, with a view to ascertain the opinion of the force as to whether the fund shall retain its present form or be converted into a provident fund, in which all widows and orphans would be entitled to participate.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The table referred to in the first part of the question is evidently that contained in the printed rules of the fund. The fund is one over the administration of which the Government has no control. The Inspector General is not aware of any reason why

  745
  such steps should be taken as are suggested in the second part of the question. The subscribers generally appear to be satisfied with the present scope and objects of the fund, but any suggestions as to changes in rules should be made to the secretary of the fund at the depot, who will submit them to the committee of management for their consideration.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Have any steps been taken to ascertain the opinions of the force in this matter?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am not aware of any.

  MUNSTER—INSPECTORS UNDER THE SEED SUPPLY (IRELAND) ACT, 1898.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the names of, and the amount of remuneration paid to, the inspectors who served in Munster under the Seed Supply and Potato Spraying (Ireland) Act, 1898.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The inspectors employed under the Act mentioned were not assigned to districts, but were employed as occasion required in various parts of the country. A list of the names of the inspectors so employed will be found at page 62 of the 26th Annual Report of the Local Government Board. The inspectors were paid at the rate of three guineas a day when on duty, together with travelling expenses.

  TRANSFER OF PAUPERS FROM CARDIFF TO RATHDOWN, CO. DUBLIN.
  SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to an order of the justices of Glamorgan, dated 30th April last, under which Ellen Webster, the widow of an American sailor but a native of Ireland, which country she had left many years ago, was with her three children, aged respectively eight, seven, and three years, transferred from the Cardiff Union to the union of Rathdown, in the county of Dublin, she not having acquired a settlement in England; and whether he would take steps to have the Bill for the Removal of the Poor to Ireland, which has not as yet been passed by the House of Lords, so amended as to meet the hard-
  746
  ship of such a case and prevent its recurrence.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL, Tyrone, S.): I am informed that Mrs. Webster was born in Ireland, and lived there until the age of eight, when her parents emigrated to America. She was married to an American in that country, and remained there till about seven months ago, when she came to Liverpool. She arrived at Cardiff only two days before her admission to the Cardiff' workhouse. I could not undertake to suggest any amendment of the Poor Removal Bill to meet such a case as this.

  COOTEHILL (CO. CAVAN) URBAN COUNCIL CLERKSHIP.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Urban Council of Cootehill, county Cavan, duly elected Mr. Peter Smith as clerk of the council on 26th March, and notified the appointment to the Local Government Board, to which after two applications there has been no reply; and whether there is any reason for this delay on the part of the Local Government Board.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Local Government Board have informed the Urban District Council that their approval of the appointment of clerk to the council is not necessary. There was, I understand, some delay on the part of the Board in conveying this intimation to the District Council, but the delay was due to a misunderstanding of the minute of the Council.

  CORK COUNTY GAOL—DEATH OF A PRISONER.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the evidence given at an inquest recently held at the Cork County Gaol in connection with the death of a prisoner named Andrew Cull, and to the comments of the coroner upon the occasion; and whether, in view of the circumstances of the case, it is proposed to institute a further inquiry.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative.

  747
  The deceased had been committed to Cork Prison on the 9th April under sentence of one calendar month, with hard labour, for insubordination in the workhouse, and he died in the prison on the 7th May. The coroner observed that the medical officer of the prison should have discharged the prisoner. The medical officer has no such power, and the Prisons Board are of opinion that the medical officer did not fail in his duty in not recommending the prisoner's discharge for the consideration of the Lord Lieutenant, in whom alone is vested the exorcise of this power. The illness of the prisoner became suddenly so critical that he could not have been discharged, and no advantage would have been obtained by ordering his discharge from prison, when, in all probability, he would have been retransferred to the workhouse. Upon the information before me I see no sufficient grounds for directing a further inquiry into the matter as suggested.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how long the man had been in custody when he died?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Loss than a month.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: His sentence was but a month, but how long was he in gaol before he died?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: He was committed on the 9th April and died on the 7th May.
  DR. TANNER: Was there any special medical report?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Only that of the medical officer.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Did the medical officer of the Prisons Board visit the prison after the conviction of the man and before his death?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I cannot say.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the man first complained of being ill?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: No. If any further information is wanted I must ask for notice.

  REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS BILL.
  MR. COGHILL (Stoke-upon-Trent): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury
  748
  whether the Government, in spite of the assurances they have given that a Redistribution of Seats Bill would be brought in and passed before a General Election takes place, have abandoned all intention of dealing with the question of redistribution in the present Parliament.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I do not think it possible or desirable to give a programme of legislation beyond the session in which we are engaged.
  MR. COGHILL: That is not an answer to the question on the Paper.

  ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will arrange for placing in the library the Ministerial answers to all questions which have appeared on the Notice Paper, as answers to questions relating to foreign affairs are now placed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The obstacles in the way of carrying out such a suggestion are insuperable. I have answered this question more than once, and if the hon. Member will refer to the answer I gave on 17th February last year✶ he will find in some detail the obstacles which render the scheme impracticable.

THE RELIEF OF MAFEKING—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE WHITSUNTIDE HOLIDAYS.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question as to which we are all very anxious—whether he can now relieve the anxiety of the House in regard to the Whitsuntide holidays. [Cries of "Mafeking!"]
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As Mafeking has been mentioned, although in a somewhat irregular manner, I may say that my right hon. friend the Secretary for the Colonies informs me that he has heard from Sir Alfred Milner, who has himself heard from General Barton, who, as the House knows, is not very far from the scene of action, that Mafeking was relieved on Thursday, the 17th. This information, though, has not yet reached
* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxvi., page 1290.

749
us from Lord Roberts. As regards the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs, I have to say that the holidays, I think, should begin on Tuesday of next week, and will last, I hope, until Thursday, 14th June.
SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: And what will be the business next week?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On Monday next the Report stage of the Railways (Prevention of Accidents) Bill will be taken.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: Will the House sit on the Tuesday?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, to move the adjournment. Whether we sit for anything else is doubtful; I should think probably not.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to give notice that if the right hon. Gentleman moves the adjournment of the House on the Tuesday, and thereby cuts out the very important Protestant question (Church of England Elementary Schools) I have upon the Paper, there will be a very wide protest made both in and out of the House.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will the Shipbuilding Vote be taken before Whitsuntide?
MR. GOSCHEN: Not till after.

NEW BILL.
  POST OFFICE SITES.
  Bill to enable Her Majesty's Postmaster General to acquire Lands in London, Bristol, Ilford, Sheffield and Southampton for the public service; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hanbury and Mr. Akers Douglas.
  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  "To enable Her Majesty's Postmaster General to acquire Lands in London, Bristol, Ilford, Sheffield, and Southampton for the public service; and for other purposes," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 228.]

SEA FISHERIES BILL (NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE).
Mr. Vanghan - Davies, Mr. George Doughty, and Mr. Harry Foster nominated Members of the Committee.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That General Goldsworthy be another Member of the Committee. " — (Sir William Walrond.)
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I hope it will not be thought it is from any want of respect for the hon. and gallant Member that I propose to vote against this resolution. But I wish to make a short explanatory statement of the reasons why I think he should not be a member of the Committee. The House is aware that this Committee is to sit upon a Bill which proposes to regulate the number of inches a sole shall measure before it is capable of being sold. It must be, I believe, eight inches. The House is also aware. I presume, that there is no provision enabling the Committee to send for persons, Papers, etc., and I believe it is intended that the Committee shall take no evidence whatever, but shall simply have the Bill before it as it is. That being the case, it becomes extremely important that the Committee should be a fair one, and that it should be composed of persons who have some knowledge of sea fisheries. It is proposed that it should consist of thirteen members, and only three of these are known to be against the Bill. The Government will therefore have a majority of ten. As regards the hon. and gallant General, he is, we know, a gallant soldier, and he is also Member for Hammersmith; but as I am credibly informed that there are no sea fish to be found at Hammersmith I cannot understand how he can be expected to have any local knowledge of sea fisheries. He occupies a useful position as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, and I am bound to say that under his auspices there has been some amelioration of the complaints as to the supply of food to Members of this House. But even that would not render him competent to deal with sea fish, until at any rate they arrive at the boiling stage. Consequently, Sir, I do think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not the sort of Member to be placed upon this Committee. He would necessarily be favourable to the Government. I will not say that he would vote pre-

751
cisely as they wish, but I do think it highly probable that he would do so. There are other Members of this House who have a certain knowledge of sea fisheries who have not been invited to join the Committee. I shall mention no names, but I have observed that almost all those who have taken a prominent part against this Bill, and who have some knowledge of sea fisheries, have been eminently distinguished by the Government by being left outside the Committee. I end my remarks by repeating the hope that it will not be supposed for one moment that I am taking this action because of any want of belief in either
the military or Parliamentary capacity of my hon. and gallant friend, who I am sorry to see is not in his place. I do it solely because I think there are too many Government Members in favour of the Bill on the Committee, and because I hold that there ought to be more Members who have a knowledge of sea fisheries. The hon. and gallant Member possesses no such knowledge, and I shall therefore be obliged to take a division against him.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 212;Noes, 77. (Division List No. 130.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Courtney, Rt. Hon Leonard H.

Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley (Staffs.)

Aird, John

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Curzon, Viscount

Hobhouse, Henry

Arnold, Alfred

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Houston, R. P.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Donelan, Captain A.

Howell, William Tudor

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Doogan, P. C.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Jacoby, James Alfred

Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)

Drage, Geoffrey

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Baird, John George Alexander

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Baldwin, Alfred

Evans, Sir F. H. (Southampton)

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

Balfour, Rt Hon A. J. (Manch'r)

Faber, George Denison

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

Kay-Shuttle worth, Rt. Hn Sir U

Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith- (Hunts)

Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r)

Kimber, Henry

Beach, Rt Hon Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Finch, George H.

Lafone, Alfred

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Bethell, Commander

Fisher, William Hayes

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

Lecky, Rt Hon William Edw. H.

Biddulph, Michael

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swan.)

Bill, Charles

Flower, Ernest

Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Liverpool)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Lowe, Francis William

Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Brassey, Albert

Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Broadhurst, Henry

Fry, Lewis

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Galloway, William Johnson

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

Macaleese, Daniel

Burt, Thomas

Gilliat, John Saunders

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Butcher, John George

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Macdona, John Cumming

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St Geo.)

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glas.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

M'Ewan, William

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Graham, Henry Robert

Malcolm, Ian

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Causton, Richard Knight

Gunter, Colonel

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Milbank, Sir P. Chas. John

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord Geo.

Milward, Colonel Victor

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Charrington, Spencer

Hardy, Laurence

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Chelsea, Viscount

Haslett, Sir James Horner

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hazell, Walter

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Commins, Andrew

Helder, Augustus

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute)

Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Myers, William Henry

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Rutherford, John

Wanklyn, James Leslie

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sandon, Viscount

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Pease, Joseph A. (Northmb.)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

Pease, Sir Joseph W.(Durham)

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Percy, Earl

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Pierpoint, Robert

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon

Smith, James Parker (Lanark.)

Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh, N.)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Purvis, Robert

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

Rankin, Sir James

Spencer, Ernest

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Redmond, William (Clare)

Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

Wrightson, Thomas

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Wylie, Alexander

Rickett, J. Compton

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)

Wyndham, George

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

Thornton, Percy M.

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Round, James

Tritton, Charles Ernest

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Sir William Walrond and

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Ure, Alexander

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Hogan, James Francis

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Allison, Robert Andrew

Horniman, Frederick John

Pickard, Benjamin

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Baker, Sir John

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Reckitt, Harold James

Barlow, John Emmott

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Billson, Alfred

Kilbride, Denis

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Blake, Edward

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

Labouchere, Henry

Souttar, Robinson

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Leng, Sir John

Spicer, Albert

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Lloyd-George, David

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Caldwell, James

Lough, Thomas

Stevenson, Francis S.

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Maclean, James Mackenzie

Strachey, Edward

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Cawley, Frederick

M'Cartan, Michael

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Charming, Francis Allston

M'Crae, George

Weir, James Galloway

Clark, Dr. G. B.

M'Ghee, Richard

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Colomb, Sir John Chs. Ready

M'Kenna, Reginald

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Crombie, John William

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Wills, Sir William Henry

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk)

Evans, Sam. T. (Glamorgan)

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid.)

Fenwick, Charles

Moss, Samuel

Wilson, John (Govan)

Garfit, William

Norton, Captain Cecil Wm.

Woods, Samuel

Gold, Charles

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Gull, Sir Cameron

O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

Harwood, George

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE NOSE—

Hayden, John Patrick

Oldroyd, Mark

Mr. Gibson Bowles and Mr.

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

Perks, Robert William

Price.

Sir Cameron Gull, Sir Brampton Gurdon, Mr. Seale-Hayne, Mr. Graham Murray, Mr. Pretyman, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Rothschild, and Captain Sinclair nominated other Members of the Committee.—(Sir William Walrond.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That five be the quorum of the Committee."—(Sir William, Walrond.)
SIR J. COLOMBhad the following notice on the Paper—
"That the Committee have power to send for persons, Papers, and records. That seven be the quorum."
754
He said: I understand that I am unable to move that the Committee "have power to send for persons, Papers, and records," and my hon. and gallant friend is not permitted to move that the evidence of the Royal Commission and Select Committee be referred to this Committee. In fact, there is no provision for the Committee taking any evidence at all, and under these circumstances I think the quorum should be raised. I propose to take out the word "five" and put in "seven."
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot move that Amendment to a Motion

755
under Standing Order XVI. He can only vote against the proposal that five be the quorum.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 184; Noes, 116. (Division List No. 131.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

Aird, John

Flower, Ernest

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fry, Lewis

Murray, Ht. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Galloway, William Johnson

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Arnold, Alfred

Garfit, William

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Gilliat, John Saunders

Myers, William Henry

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)

Goschen, Rt. Hn G J (St George's)

Percy, Earl

Balcarres, Lord

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Pierpoint, Robert

Baldwin, Alfred

Graham, Henry Robert

Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

Gunter, Colonel

Purvis, Robert

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Rankin, Sir James

Barry, Rt. Hn A H Smith-(Hunts)

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon Robert Wm.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Beach, Rt. Hon Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Hardy, Laurence

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Bethell, Commander

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Round, James

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Biddulph, Michael

Helder, Augustus

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Rutherford, John

Brassey, Albert

Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley (Staffs.)

Sandon, Viscount

Broadhurst, Henry

Hoare, Edw Brodie(Hampstead)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Savory, Sir Joseph

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Hobhouse, Henry

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Butcher, John George

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A (Glasgow)

Houston, R. P.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

Howell, William Tudor

Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire)

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Spencer, Ernest

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Charrington, Spencer

Kimber, Henry

Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Ox, Unv.)

Chelsea, Viscount

Lafone, Alfred

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Thornton, Percy M.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. E. H.

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Commins, Andrew

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

Lowe Francis William

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)

Curzon, Viscount

Macaleese, Daniel

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Macdona, John Cumming

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

Williams, Joseph Powell- (Birm)

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

M'Ewan, William

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

Drage, Geoffrey

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

Malcolm, Ian

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

Faber, George Denison

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Fardell, Sir T. George

Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Yorks.)

Wrightson, Thomas

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Wylie, Alexander

Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Manc'r)

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Wyndham, George

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Finch, George H.

Milward, Colonel Victor

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Monckton, Edward Philip

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Fisher, William Hayes

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Sir William Walrond and

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry

Baker, Sir John

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Barlow, John Emmott

Allison, Robert Andrew

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Bartley, George C. T.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Billson, Alfred

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Perks, Robert William

Blake, Edward

Hogan, James Francis

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

Horniman, Frederick John

Pickard, Benjamin

Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Reckitt, Harold James

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jacoby, James Alfred

Redmond, William (Clare)

Burt, Thomas

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jones, David Brynmor (Swan.)

Rickett, J. Compton

Caldwell, James

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn Sir U

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Kilbride, Denis

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Cawley, Frederick

Labouchere, Henry

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Channing, Francis Allston

Leng, Sir John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Clark, Dr. G. B.

Lloyd-George, David

Souttar, Robinson

Crombie, John William

Lough, Thomas

Spencer, Ernest

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Spicer, Albert

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Maclean, James Mackenzie

Stevenson, Francis S.

Doogan, P. C.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Strachey, Edward

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

M'Cartan, Michael

Ure, Alexander

Evans, Sir Francis H (South'ton)

M'Crae, George

Weir, James Galloway

Fenwick, Charles

M'Ghee, Richard

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Maddison, Fred.

Wills, Sir William Henry

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Wilson, Hy. J. (York, W. R.)

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Gold, Charles

Moon, Edw. Robert Pacy

Wilson, John (Govan)

Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Gull, Sir Cameron

Moss, Samuel

Woods, Samuel

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Harwood, George

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Sir John Colomb and Mr.

Heaton, John Henniker

Oldroyd, Mark

Price.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday, 18th June.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): In moving the Second Reading of this Bill I want to call the special attention of the House to the amendments which we have embodied in the Bill and which constitute the difference between our Bill and the Bill as it was originally presented to us by the delegates from Australia. I mentioned, in introducing the Bill,* that there were a certain number of drafting alterations of no serious importance to which the delegates had agreed, and I do not propose to refer to them again. They are very trifling in extent, and, as I say, of no serious importance. But there were two points of very considerable importance. The first was the application of the Colonial Laws Validity Act to the legislation of the Commonwealth Parliament.
*For discussion on Introduction and First Reading of the Bill, see page 46 of this volume.
758
We considered that a doubt had been created as to whether that would apply to the work of the Commonwealth. That doubt arises entirely from the introduction into the Commonwealth Bill of a definition of the word "colony" as "a colony or province," which seemed, therefore, specially to exclude "commonwealth." But having had the advantage of further discussion with the delegates, Her Majesty's Government and the delegates from Australia are now entirely agreed that the best way of meeting this difficulty and of removing any doubt will be to omit from the Bill the words defining a colony. When those words go out the doubt which they raised will cease to exist, and it will be unnecessary to make any further alteration. So far, therefore, as this point is concerned, we have come to a perfectly satisfactory agreement. Perhaps I ought to say here that when I speak in future of the delegates from Australia I refer specially to the delegates from New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and Tasmania. It is well known that the delegate from Queensland differed from his colleagues in regard to the important point of the

759
appeal. The question of the right of appeal is undoubtedly one of very substantial importance, and I have explained the principles upon which Her Majesty's Government proposed to deal with it. I stated, in the first place, that we had come to the conclusion that, whatever our opinions might be as to the value or advantage of any particular provision in the Australian Bill, so long as it dealt exclusively with Australian interests, it would not be wise or desirable that the Imperial Parliament should interfere. We might make suggestions, as indeed we have made suggestions, but if they were not accepted on behalf of the Australian colonies we did not think it was our duty to interfere or to insist upon amendments against their settled convictions. On the other hand, I also ventured to lay down as an important principle that wherever the interests of Her Majesty's subjects outside Australia or of Her Majesty's possessions outside Australia or our relations with foreign countries were concerned—in those cases we were acting as trustees for the Empire, and we had a right to claim that the existing power of appeal should in no way be lessened or affected. I confess that in the discussion which I have had the honour of having with the delegates I have never seen that there was any very real difference of opinion between us. It is quite true that Clause 74 as it stood in the Bill violated the essential principle which I have laid down. It did propose to limit the right of appeal in cases in which other than Australian interests were exclusively concerned. But even in Clause 74 as it was originally drawn there was an exception made. The clause read—
"No appeal shall be permitted to the Queen in Council in any matter involving the interpretation of this Constitution or of the Constitution of a State unless the public interests of some part of Her Majesty's dominions other than the Commonwealth or a State are involved."
It is perfectly evident to me from the introduction of those limiting words that the framers of the Constitution at the convention themselves recognised a distinction between matters which were Australian and matters which were extra-Australian. But the distinction in that clause did not go far enough. The phrase "public interest" was so ambiguous that
760
it rendered it uncertain whether the private interests of investors, for instance, or of any body of Her Majesty's subjects would be held to be the public interest of any portion of Her Majesty's possessions, and a very large class, therefore, of British subjects interested in Australia would be shut out from their full right of appeal by the clause as it was originally drawn. I pointed out, also, what perhaps from the Imperial point of view was of even greater importance, that questions of foreign relations which might arise in many subjects which were permitted to the Federal Parliament to legislate upon would also be excluded from all possibility of appeal to the Privy Council. It seemed to mo that that was a matter of so much importance to the United Kingdom especially and to the Empire at large that we could not, in consideration of the duty and responsibility imposed upon us, agree to the Bill as it stood in that respect. We endeavoured to meet these objections, which we ourselves felt, and to make what we believed was the intention of the Australian people and of their representatives more clear by amendments which have been embodied in the Bill and which are made certainly not in our interest alone, but in pursuance of that trusteeship to which I attach so much importance. I ventured to say, when I was introducing the Bill, that the proposal of these amendments by Her Majesty's Government was not likely to be in any way resented by the people of Australia. I repudiated altogether the notion that they would be construed as a flouting of their representatives or an open rebuff to themselves. I said there was no fear whatever, in my opinion, of any serious conflict between ourselves and our kinsmen in Australia, and that the discussions had been, and would be, conducted throughout in a friendly spirit. My confidence has been, I think, wholly justified. These proposals of ours have been before the people of Australia now for a full week, and anyone who has taken the trouble to read the reports which have come home to us will be convinced, as I am, that our proposals have been favourably considered in most cases, and in all cases generously considered, by the people of Australia. The evidence shows that the people of Australia recognise thoroughly the spirit in which we proposed these amendments, and that they ridicule the idea that any

761
insult was intended or was conveyed by these amendments; and they have shown their willingness to give the fullest consideration to those arguments which we have put forward in their support. But this treatment of the subject has not, I am glad to say, been confined to the people of Australia. The delegates to whom I have referred, and who, no doubt, differed from us in the first instance in regard to this matter, have treated it subsequently in precisely the same considerate spirit. They also have been willing to recognise that we have a duty thrown upon us which we cannot ignore, and they have endeavoured in every possible way to meet our wishes and to prevent any disagreement. No doubt they came to this country in the belief that they had a mandate to secure, if possible, the passage of this Bill intact; and I do not for a moment doubt that they would have preferred, if we had been able to agree with them, that the Bill should have been passed exactly as it was produced in Australia; but, finding that to be impossible, they have, as I have said, treated the matter in a most considerate spirit. They have discussed with us various methods of meeting the objections which we took to the original Bill, and, so far as the four delegates are concerned, I am happy now to be able to inform the House that we have come to an absolute agreement. This agreement follows exactly the principles I have laid down. That is to say, it leaves Australia absolutely free to take its own course where Australian interests are solely and exclusively concerned, and it makes provision in all other cases, in which other than Australian interests are concerned, that the right of appeal shall be fully maintained. The delegates pointed out to us that their desire, and what they believed to be the desire of the people of Australia, was that where differences arose as to the interpretation of the Constitution between two States or between any one State and the Federal Parliament, and where, therefore, Australian interests were exclusively concerned, they should have the right of dealing with such questions finally in Australia, and I at once admitted, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that that was entirely in accordance with the principle which we had constantly laid down—that if it could be shown that in questions of that sort Australian interests were exclusively
762
concerned, we claimed no right whatever to interfere with their decision. Accordingly we have agreed to exclude that particular case from the clause in which an appeal lies to the Privy Council. But we asked that, inasmuch as experience has shown, in the case of Canada, that an appeal in such cases was valued by both parties, and that experience might show in Australia that it would be in the future a desirable thing to have a Court free from all prepossession, to which both parties could appeal, words should be inserted giving this right of appeal in every case in which both parties consent. The effect of this understanding will be that Clause 74 will be exactly reversed; that whereas, in the original clause, appeal was to cease in all cases except where the public interests of some portion of Her Majesty's dominions outside Australia were concerned, in the clause as we now propose to insert it an appeal will lie in every case, except in the cases where Australian interests alone are concerned. That, I think, is a form of clause which gets rid of practically every one of the difficulties which I anticipated when I referred to the original clause in introducing the Bill. There was another point to which we also took exception. It was a provision in the Bill which gave the Federal Parliament the right to pass laws amending or limiting the right of appeal. The delegates pointed out to us that this right is inherent in the powers of every Parliament in Australia. The Parliament of every single State in Australia has, in its general powers to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the country, the power, if it pleases, to make laws limiting the right of appeal, and that power is subject to the right of Her Majesty to disallow or to have reserved any Bill dealing with the subject. The delegates contended that, as their Constitution specifically refers to the subjects which alone can be treated by the Federal Parliament, it was necessary specifically to mention this subject, or else the Federal Parliament would have less power than the Parliaments of the constituent States. The reasonableness of that we fully acknowledged, but we felt that if we specifically gave this power by this Constitution we might be assumed to be giving away the right of reservation with regard to this subject. It appeared to us to be quite possible

763
that hereafter we might be accused of breach of faith if, when the Federal Parliament had legislated, we had reserved a Bill under the powers given to us in another clause of the Constitution. The House, probably, is aware what the power of reservation is. When an Act passed by a self-governing colony is reserved it is treated as a dead letter, and it does not come into operation at all unless in the course of the next two years Her Majesty formally signifies her assent. She has not, however, to announce her disallowance, or to veto the Act; she has only to refrain from allowing it. Now, the delegates have agreed that if the power to deal with the subject is maintained in the Bill there shall be added this proviso:—"Provided that in every such case such Act shall be reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure." So that, whereas all other legislation of the Commonwealth comes under the general rule that it may be reserved, if the Commonwealth should deal with this specific and delicate subject then the proviso is that it must be reserved, and, of course, Her Majesty's Government for the time being will have a full opportunity of considering what the nature of the legislation is and what advice they should give to Her Majesty in regard to it. I may say at once that these suggestions which have been worked out in the friendly discussions that have been going on entirely meet the views of Her Majesty's Government. They give us all that we ever asked for, and they have the enormous advantage of being equally satisfactory to the delegates of the colonies concerned. I have received this morning the following letter from the four gentlemen named—
"Whitehall Court, May 21st.
"Commonwealth of Australia Hill.
"Sir,—In relation to our interview of last Thursday, we have no hesitation in accepting your offer to substitute the amendments then discussed in place of the amendments at present proposed in the Bill, and thus secure its passage without further alteration. We thank you heartily for so far meeting our request that our Bill should be accepted with-out alteration.
"We have the honour to be, Sir,
your obedient servants,
"EDMOND BARTON.
"ALFRED DEAKIN.
"C. C. KINGSTON.
"P. O. FYSH."
I will read to the House the form in which the amendment with regard to the Court
764
of Appeal now stands, but I wish to guard myself against being supposed to be absolutely pledged to the exact words. All this business has had to be conducted under a certain amount of pressure, and it may be that, by mutual agreement, we may find that some alteration in a particular word may hereafter be necessary and desirable. As it stands it is as follows—
"Appeal to the Queen in Council.—No question howsoever arising as to the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States, or as to the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of any two or more States, shall be capable of final decision except by the High Court, and no appeal shall be permitted to the Queen in Council from any decision of the High Court on any such question unless by the consent of the Executive Government of the Governments concerned, to be signified in writing by the Governor-General in the case of the Commonwealth and by the Governor in the case of any State.
"Except as provided in this section this Constitution shall not impair any right which the Queen may be pleased to exercise by virtue of her Royal prerogative to grant special leave of appeal to Her Majesty in Council. Parliament may make laws limiting matters in which such leave may be asked, provided that any proposed laws containing any such limitation shall be reserved by the Governor-General for Her Majesty's pleasure."
I have spoken entirely of the four delegates, representing four colonies, whom. I have named. There are two other colonies that were concerned in this matter. One is Western Australia, which has not, of course, up to the present time agreed to enter the federation, but to whose Parliament and people the question is very shortly to be put. From the officer administering the Government of Western Australia I have received the following—
"In reply to your telegram from Mr. Barton, forwarded to my responsible advisers through the Premier of New South Wales, my responsible advisers prefer the amendments proposed by the Imperial Government to those suggested in the telegram of Mr. Barton. They consider that there should be no power in the Federal Parliament of limiting matters of appeal to the Queen in Council, and are of opinion that in all matters there should be a right of final appeal to one tribunal for the whole Empire."
I communicated, of course, to Mr. Dick-son, the delegate of Queensland, the proposals which had been made, and which appeared to Her Majesty's Government to be satisfactory. He telegraphed accordingly to his Government, and he has

765
received from them, late this afternoon, the following reply—
"Do not approve of modifications suggested by Mr. Barton in Imperial amendments. Our great anxiety with regard to the retention of the plenary appeal to the Privy Council has been to ensure that constitutional disputes shall be referred to an impartial tribunal free from local bias. It is out of the question that the successful party in the Federal Court would consent to appeal to Privy Council. Hope Secretary of State for Colonies' original proposal will be given effect to; public opinion within colony strongly in favour of it."
Of course it is evident from these two; telegrams that the two colonies concerned greatly prefer our original proposal. We appreciate very much this support of the views which we expressed. We have not altered those views in the slightest degree. We think that in the interests of Australia herself it would be most desirable that the plenary right of appeal should be preserved, but we cannot, in accordance with the principle to which we have committed ourselves—namely, not to interfere where exclusively Australian interests are concerned—we cannot take sides with the two colonies as against the four. If even yet it were still possible to persuade the representatives of the four colonies to make a further concession, nothing would give greater pleasure to Her Majesty's Government. But that is a matter which, in our view, must be discussed between the colonies themselves. Probably it would be better discussed by them in Australia, and we shall be prepared to register their decision, whatever it may be. I hope that, after the statement which I have been able to make, the House will not think it necessary to delay the progress of this Bill by any considerable discussion. Immediately the Bill has passed a Second Heading, I propose to lay upon the Table the form which the amendments will take in order to carry out this agreement. I hope that its very early passage may then be confidently anticipated. I hope that the Bill will be passed unanimously, and I firmly believe that in that case, even without any such further alteration as Queensland and Western Australia desire, the House may pass the Bill with the full conviction that in sanctioning the union of Australia they have in no way impaired or weakened the unity of the Empire, and we shall be able to contemplate the consummation of this great achievement without the slightest drawback to the pride
766
which we feel in the wisdom and the patriotism of our Australian kinsmen.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.)
MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.): I cannot but express the gratification which I am sure will be shared not only by the people of this country, but by Her Majesty's subjects throughout the length and breadth of the Empire, at the welcome but not wholly unexpected announcement which the right hon. Gentleman has made. This is not an ordinary occasion. This is a measure which transcends by reason not only of its intrinsic importance but of the influence which its adoption must exercise on the future of the Empire—a measure which, I venture to say, transcends in interest and magnitude almost any legislative proposal of our time. Therefore it would have been unfortunate if it had not been most cordially welcomed by all sections of opinion in this country, and received the unanimous assent of all parties in this House. The several Australian States have grown from infancy to manhood almost within living memory. Each of them has developed a character and individuality of its own. All alike have contributed to the strength and vitality of the Empire. But the Australian Commonwealth, the Commonwealth of the future, is a whole which we believe is destined to be greater than the sum of its component parts, and which, without draining them of any of their life, will give to them, in their corporate unity, a freedom of development, a scale of interests, a dignity of stature which, alone and separated, they could never command. This great constitutional instrument, itself a most characteristic product of the methods and spirit by which the English-speaking races work out for themselves their own political salvation —this great constitutional instrument was certain, as I have said, to receive, as it has received, a cordial welcome from all shades of opinion in this country. During the last few weeks it has appeared as though that welcome might be marred by one discordant note. But I am sure I am speaking the unanimous opinion of this House when I say that we all rejoice that, by a wise exhibition of tact on the one side and the other, whatever

767
differences may have emerged are now forgotten in a settlement which reflects equal honour on the Colonial Secretary and the Australian delegates, and that this great fabric, which has been so skilfully and laboriously built, may now be launched without friction or delay on a voyage in which it will carry with it, not only the fortunes of the Commonwealth, but the hopes of the Empire. After the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made it would be only a waste of time to pursue in any detail matters which have been the subject of controversy during the last few weeks. At the same time, I do not think it would be right to let the occasion pass without saying one or two words—which, as far as I am concerned, will not be couched in a controversial spirit—both on the character of the difficulties which have arisen and the nature of the settlement by which they have now been happily overcome. I accept to the full, and I believe everyone in the House accepts, the two canons which the right hon. Gentleman laid down last week, and has repeated to-night, as to the principles which should govern the action of Parliament in a matter of this kind. What are they? On the one hand this Bill—being as it is the mature outcome of nearly a generation of agitation and discussion; having run, as it has, the gauntlet of debate in the representative Conventions and in the Legislatures of the separate colonies; having been, finally, solemnly ratified by the voice of the vast majority of the Australian people—comes before us with the almost overwhelming presumption that it represents their deliberate judgment on the form of their future government. That is a presumption which ought not to be lightly displaced. On the other hand, I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman that we, in this Imperial Parliament, are by the necessities of the case the ultimate custodians and trustees of Imperial interests; that that; is a duty we cannot abdicate without being false to the mandate which sent us here; and, however wide and authoritative may be the representations made to us from any part of the Empire, we are bound to interfere—we have not only a right, but a duty to interfere—if those plans should be inconsistent with the welfare of other parts of the Empire, or offer menace or danger to our Imperial interests. As to the cogency of those two principles, I do
768
not think there is the slightest difference of opinion in this House. But, again, there must be clear and unmistakable proof that proposals which have received the unanimous assent of a large section of the Empire (such as these proposals have received) are inconsistent with Imperial interests, before the Imperial Parliament would be either disposed, or think it its duty, to interfere. As we know, traces of such danger have been discovered, in the case of this Bill, in the 74th clause in the form in which it was passed by the people of Australia, and in which it was originally presented to us. Expressing my own opinion, which, I think, is widely shared, I say those dangers have, in my judgment, been greatly exaggerated in some quarters. I am not complaining of the action of the Government, because I think they were bound, by the necessities of their position and by the duty they owed to the country, to exercise a most scrupulous and, if I may use the phrase without offence, an almost jealous vigil ance before, on their authority, they submitted them to the Imperial Parliament. But there has been in some quarters a certain amount of unnecessary exaggeration. In my judgment if there ever were any danger—I do not myself think there is—of the people of Australia using the powers given to them by this Act in a manner hostile or injurious to the interests of any other part of the Empire, this danger would arise far more from the clauses that confer legislative powers upon their Parliament than from the clauses which confer the power of interpretation upon their Courts. I am not saying that these dangers are real dangers, but the right hon. Gentleman in his speech last week instanced in his category of subjects in which possible injustice, or at any rate disagreement, might arise, maritime jurisdiction, the Pacific Islands, foreign enlistment, and external affairs. These are all among the cluster of subjects as to which the power of legislation is given to the Federal Parliament of the future, and, in my judgment, we are, on the whole, better protected against any possible abuse of those powers by the right which is conferred upon the face of the statute itself upon the Imperial Government either to veto, or still more to reserve them for Her Majesty's approval, than by any provision limiting the powers of the Courts, or

769
providing for appeal on questions of interpretation. It is quite obvious that you may have a statute as to the interpretation of which no Court could be in doubt, and the 74th Clause would be no protection to Imperial interests in the case of a statute of that kind, whereas the power given to the Government to reserve it before it received approval is an ample and sufficient safeguard against any danger of that sort. That being so, may I add that I am one of those who look forward to the constitution of a real Imperial Court of Supreme Appeal, a Court not to be forced on the colonies against their will, but a Court of such character, having such attributes, as would appeal to every part of the Empire, and under such arrangements that the prerogative of the Crown and leave to appeal to the Queen in Council upon fit questions and upon proper conditions would not be regarded as a fetter that would be dangerous, but as a safeguard to liberty. I think that the House will agree—and the matter is not foreign to the discussion on this Bill—that the constitution of such a court is desirable, not in order, as is sometimes stated, to have a uniform interpretation of the laws of the Empire. You cannot have a uniform interpretation of diverse systems of law. One of the great glories of the Roman Empire was that the system of jurisprudence which we know as the Roman law extended in its application practically throughout the Empire. Napoleon will be remembered by the only beneficent act of his life which remains, and which still influences the lives and the actions of the vast Continent of Europe over which his dominion was once overspread. Napoleon, by sweeping away all the separate systems of local law which prevailed in Europe, and substituting the Code Napoleon, with its comparative simplicity and reasonableness, did undoubtedly introduce a uniformity of law throughout his empire. That has not been the method of the British Empire. Our method has been totally contrary. We have always proceeded on the principle of jealously preserving and maintaining local laws and usages. Go into the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for a single week and watch its operations. You will see it deciding on one day a question according to the Roman Dutch law; on another question the same according to the French law
770
as it prevailed before the Revolution modified by subsequent Canadian statutes; and on another day according to the common law of England as modified by Australian or New Zealand legislation; and at the end of the week according to the customs of the Hindu or Mohammedan law. It is one of the great glories of our jurisprudence and one of the great links that have kept our Empire together that our Courts have maintained, most jealously and scrupulously, the integrity of those different systems of law which conform to the historical traditions and local necessities of the different parts of the Empire, and have prevented, as far as they can, any filtration of ideas from a foreign source of law which might permeate and corrupt another system. It is not because we want a uniform interpretation of law that we desire this great Imperial Court, but because we wish there to be here, at the centre of the Empire, a Court so authoritative and weighty from its composition and the attainments of its members that all our different colonies and dependencies, when questions arise, such as are certain to arise even in Australia among the different States that constitute the Commonwealth, will look upon it as a tribunal of unsuspected impartiality and possessing that authority which no local Court, of however high a character, could attain to. I am certain the constitution of such a tribunal as that will be one of the best links by which we can maintain the unity of the Empire as a whole. But it is only fair to our Australian fellow-subjects to say that, at the time when this Bill was framed and submitted to the judgment of the Australian people, not only was no such Court in existence, but, so far as we know, there was no such Court contemplated. If they had at that time a knowledge that it would form a part of the scheme of the Government or the Imperial Parliament to constitue a tribunal of that kind, I doubt whether Clause 74 would ever have appeared in the Bill. It is said you have the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I desire to speak with the utmost respect of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It would be invidious to mention the names of living members, but I do think that an opinion upon any question of law to which the late Lord Herschell and the late Lord Watson assented is as likely to be right

771
as any proposition can be, in a sphere in which there is so much of what used to be termed "contingent" matter as the field of practical jurisprudence. But for some reason or other the Committee of the Privy Council have been very little resorted to by our Australian fellow-subjects. The Attorney General gave us the other night the figures, and I think there is something less than an average of twenty cases in the year; and when we remember what Australia is, its area and population, the growing complexities of its industrial and commercial interests, and, above all, that healthy zeal for the pursuit of justice according to law, which is engrained in the British temperament, and not changed by sky or climate —putting all these things together, it does show, in my judgment, a certain want of confidence in the tribunal, a certain disinclination to resort to it, that we find appeals from Australia so few year after year. I believe that tendency will be reversed, and an exactly opposite current of feeling created, if such a change were made as I have ventured to suggest in my last few sentences. I come now to the difficulty alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, and his method of solving it. I confess if I had been drawing up a Constitution for Australia I should very much have preferred to have loft this question of appeal as it was left in the Constitution of Canada, because it appears to me there is very good ground for the contention that a distant court removed from local prepossessions, and even, perhaps, from local knowledge, may be said on constitutional questions to be a more impartial arbiter. But I cannot see in the proposal Australia made and approved—namely, that they should keep their constitutional questions for home consumption, and not export them from time to time for decision in this country—I cannot see in that anything that in the least degree militates against our Imperial unity, or constitutes any danger to other parts of the Empire. I quite agree that the provision ought to be confined to matters purely Australian, and as I read the clause in its original shape that intention seemed to be given effect to; but if that intention is made more clear, as the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers think it is, and as the Australian delegates appear to believe it is, by reversing the form of the clause into an affirmative from a negative shape, I am
772
quite sure nobody will make the least objection to the change. There is one other point I think more serious—namely, the proposal to reserve to the Federal Parliament of Australia the power still further to limit the right of appeal to the Privy Council. That is a point on which, in my judgment, we were already sufficiently protected against any real grievance by the Governor's power of veto or reservation, as the case may be, expressed on the face of the statute. If, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, ambiguity has been suggested in the construction of the statute as a whole, so that it might be left open to the contention that the power of reservation does not apply to this case, I agree with him that it is most desirable and prudent to place it there in connection with the clause itself, so that we may avoid all future complications. What is the conclusion of the whole matter? I have come to the conclusion that there was never any very great gulf of difference between the opinions of the Government and the Australian delegates. I do not wish to use language of recrimination, and I have not, I think, indulged in it; but I think we must all regret— and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman more than any of us—that at the time when negotiations were going on in Australia, when proposals were submitted to the various Australian legislatures, discussed, and put to the referendum of the whole people—I am sure we must all regret that more attention was not paid to this particular point, and that what I am certain would have been a friendly and fruitful interchange of opinions, thereby avoiding misunderstandings, did not take place. I can quite understand, and I give the right hon. Gentleman full credit for it, that he may have felt indisposed to obtrude the Imperial factor into a purely domestic discussion, and that he may, perhaps, have been over-scrupulous in abstaining from anything even in the way of suggestion which might seem to bias the opinion of the Australian people or the Conventions. I have only to say in conclusion that I believe men of all parties in this House, now that these difficulties have been got rid of, will join in welcoming this measure as, perhaps, the most signal illustration in our history of the successful development of that process of reconciling local liberty with Imperial unity which is the strength and safeguard. of the British Empire.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I simply desire, as one having considerable interests in Australia, to express my high gratification at the settlement of the question that has been arrived at. The arrangement will be received with great rejoicings throughout that important Southern land. Before concluding these brief remarks, I wish to compliment the Secretary of State for the Colonies on his tact and wisdom in inviting to this country the brilliant band of Australian statesmen—the delegates here—who not only have helped to arrive at an amicable settlement, but by their eloquent speeches have enlightened the people of this country on the resources of Australia, and its patriotic regard for the mother land.
MR. BLAKE: I have heard with a glad heart the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies; for I was pained by the reflection that in the condition in which this question was left after the First Reading of the Bill, agreement on a question of transcendent importance should be marred by a seeming disagreement on a wholly insignificant point. The difference was almost microscopic when we analysed on the one hand the principles of action laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, and on the other hand the methods by which those principles were to be applied in dealing with this Bill, I think that, under the circumstances, it is our duty—at any rate I think it mine —to omit all consideration of how Clause 74 stood in the Australian draft, and how it stood in the Bill as introduced into this House, and, in fact, how it stands to day; because as it stands to-day I think that it has practically received the assent of Australia herself. If I may make an observation, it would be that there are one or two points in the view of expediency laid down by the Colonial Office in the course of the discussions with the Australian delegates in which I would have agreed with the Office, and questioned the arguments of the delegates, while there were many considerations in which I think the Colonial Office were wrong and the delegates right in these details. But I would add that while I was prepared to affirm, as I now affirm in the strongest sense, the absolute right of the Australian people to ask that there should be no appeal here in matters wholly internal and affecting their own constitution as between the
774
States and the Commonwealth, if they so please, I am not sorry that, by the free communications which have taken place, there have been elicited some slight modifications in the expression of that view in the Act of Parliament. I speak from experience; because I know that in the country whence I come, while a different set of circumstances obtains and there are different provisions, there is yet a written Federal constitution; and it was found with us that where bitter controversies had been excited, where political passions had been engendered, where considerable disputations had prevailed, where men eminent in power and politics had ranged themselves on opposite sides, it was no disadvantage, but a great advantage, to have an opportunity of appealing to an external tribunal such as the Judicial Committee, for the interpretation of the Constitution on such matters. Therefore I rejoice at two things: first of all, at the indication that there may be, under certain circumstances—I agree not very probable circumstances, for it is part of human nature to suppose that litigants successful in Australia would hardly consent that their action should be re-tried elsewhere —resort should be had to such a tribunal; | and, in the second place, that an increase in the effective strength of that tribunal is also recognised as essential. And so I pass away altogether from that phase which might have been, but for the settlement which has been arrived at, the centre of discussion; and I turn to that which has become—as, in my opinion, it ought always to have been—the only subject of debate here, the great work which has been achieved and its immediate and remoter possible future effects. Now, some words upon that larger aspect might reasonably be expected from these benches to-day. It is natural that we, the representatives of the great bulk of the Irish people, should desire to express our cordial congratulations to that large proportion of the population of Australia which is of our race and blood; aye, and to that still larger proportion of the population which, though not of our race or blood, has extended to us a steady and important sympathy in the interest of our Irish national aspirations—that we should extend our cordial congratulations to Australia at large, and especially to those Australians with whom we are kin, on the achievement of their great end. It is natural that we, the representatives of an

775
ancient nation, claiming here, though as yet failing to obtain, the recognition which is our due, should express our earnest good wishes for the unending duration and increasing magnitude and unmarred prosperity of that new nation which is to be recognised by the Act we are now passing. And we rejoice, we who some years ago accepted upon high invitation from this Island the federal system and principle as a plan for the settlement of the Irish question, as a plan for the substantial recognition of our nationality and freedom, consistently with the ideal of a united and reconciled Empire for common concerns —we, I say, who accepted that view, naturally rejoice upon every occasion on which, here or elsewhere, the federal principle receives striking exemplification and is successfully applied. We hope, indeed, that some day you will deal with Ireland, whose case is in some important aspects far easier, in the same spirit in which you have dealt with other communities. You have dealt with them in the full belief that local freedom means Imperial unity. I regret that at this moment, called auspicious for Ireland because of the Royal visit and the ordered wearing of the green, that at this moment, called auspicious for the Empire because it celebrates the inauguration of a new federal sister nation amongst the communities of the Empire in Australia— a nation founded by the wholesome process of long deliberation and popular consideration, and sanctioned by overwhelming majorities yonder and by unanimity here; that at this moment, called auspicious by some authorities for the Empire because in another corner of it you believe you are laying the foundation, in an unhappy soil moistened by blood and tears, and shaken by force and arms in South Africa, of a new—shall I say?—of a federal sister nation in distant days to come. I regret that, at this auspicious moment, personages most conspicuous in the counsels of the party opposite should have thought it fitting to intermingle with these elements audacious travesties of the facts with reference to the terms and conditions of the Home Rule settlement, and of the sentiments, feelings, and pledges upon which that settlement was accepted by the Irish people. To mix small things with great, may I add one phrase of regret that at this moment, said to be auspicious, because you recognise the importance of reorganising your Imperial tribunals of
776
final judicature upon the principle of the representation here at home of the great communities abroad; when you are persuading and have ceased to coerce the people to try their cases here, you make the opportunity, for some trumpery purpose of mere Ministerial convenience, to deprive Ireland of the right granted by understanding and sanctioned by custom, the light which for several years she has enjoyed, of that same principle of representation in the Court of final judicature in which her concerns are to be determined. I pass from these subjects of regret with this word, that the great transaction in which we are engaged contains encouragement in all its elements far higher than those trivial causes of discouragement, and gives us heart to persevere in the effort to press upon the minds of those to whom we have to look for relief the conviction which we ourselves entertain, that it is not merely in Australia or Canada, or the remote corners of the earth, that the principles of liberty lead to Imperial unity, reconciliation, and common action. They would do so with even greater force at the heart and centre of the Empire. What is strong in those principles, though oceans may roll between, is strong also—aye, stronger still—if applied to the centre and core and heart, or what ought to be the heart, of this Imperial realm; and we shall get hope that you may some day give liberty to Ireland in order that you may make that country reconciled to union upon the federal principle. May I touch one personal note? I feel it a great privilege to speak in this House to-day on this question. Colonial born myself, I have witnessed the birth of the Canadian, the first great federal constitution in the Empire. Engaged for thirty sessions in two legislatures, in Government and in Opposition, in working and developing, and making practical the paper forms in which the constitution is written, and that in both its provincial, federal, and imperial aspects, and for ten sessions here a humble labourer in pursuit of the recognition of the federal principle as a means of consolidating the Empire at home through justice and freedom to its parts, I rejoice to be able to say some words of cheer and congratulation to my fellow-colonists on the other side of the globe upon the work they have accomplished The Colonial Secretary the other day entered very

777
naturally into some historical and critical considerations with reference to the Canadian as contrasted with the Australian plan. Into these I will not follow him. I will only say that I cannot wholly agree with everything he said with reference to the Canadian Constitution. I do, however, agree that that constitution, owing to circumstances which it would take too long to detail, has more of a centralising element than is to be found in the Australian Constitution, and that from those circumstances and the form of its clauses arose long and bitter controversies, now happily settled; and that very largely by what is the main element even in a written constitution for settling controversies—the common sense, the discretion, the determination, and the decision of the people at large; but also, as is sometimes essential where there is a written constitution, by the decisions of the Courts. In many respects the people of Canada manifested the need of compromise in the structure of their constitution. The Canadian Constitution contains many propositions which arc, to my mind, quite illogical, and some of which I have never seen a defence; nor I must own, as a humble student of written constitutions, have I been able to observe absolute perfection in this Australian draft now before us. But, after all, that is not necessary or even common here. After all, in all constitutions the great and saving elements are in the men who work them—in their spirit, patriotism, moderation, and good sense, and their determination to work for the best interests of the people. Although we ought, no doubt, to make the best theoretic constitution we can, it is upon those saving elements, after all, that we shall have to depend; for a very inferior constitution, well worked, is very much better than the best you can conceive if not worked in the right spirit. To these elements it is that I trust when I survey this draft. The Colonial Secretary has stated in terms not too large the magnitude of this achievement. My right hon. friend has followed him in the same vein. Yes, Sir, this is one of the greatest things that has been done. But remember it is not we who are doing it. Thus and thus only can we justify ourselves when we are intending in the course of an hour or two to pass the Second Reading of this great and transcendent Bill. I will undertake to say that from those who made this constitution and are really
778
responsible for it, it has received quite different treatment. It has demanded weeks of debate and years of deliberation from those who are to live under it; it furnishes almost interminable topics of discussion; and yet we are rightly asked by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and by my right hon. friend, to agree that we have nothing to say about it. Then who has? The Australian people! I might, as I have said, as a humble student of constitutions, throw out suggestions with reference to some of the most important elements of this work; but I will not even name those elements on which I doubt; for where we cannot amend, it is needless and harmful to assault. And the constitution, whatever may be its drawbacks, is, and I hope it will stand, a noble fabric fit for the habitation of such men as those who have made it and defended it. It is a noble fabric, fit for noble ends. Yet it may not be useless to touch for a moment upon the genesis of these two great instruments of Parliament, so as to find and to follow our duty here to-day; and to recognise clearly what a difference thirty-three years has made in our methods, and in the advance of popular rights. Thirty-three years ago the Canadian Constitution was passed. At that time in my country, save in one province where local circumstances made it necessary, there was. no general election on the question. At that time there was no elected convention to prepare the constitution. At that time there was no textual preparation of a Bill. At that time there were but Ministerial delegations speaking in conference, resolutions framed by them, resolutions submitted to the Assemblies, addresses to the Crown for legislation not at all in the form of a Bill, correspondence with the Ministry at home, and Ministerial representatives despatched to Westminster to confer as to the framing of the measure. It was framed for introduction here with some few provisions in the supposed Imperial interest, and with a few others which these colonial delegates thought themselves authorised to insert, and so it passed. Yet even then misfortune followed from the non-adoption of more popular methods; for this Parliament was appealed to by one of the smaller provinces—the province of Nova Scotia, where a moribund Legislature, elected before the question was on the horizon, had passed an address for the Union—this Parliament was appealed to by the people declaring

779
that they were opposed to confederation. You did not recognise that protest. You determined to accept the voice of the Legislature, and the Act was passed. I should have dilated upon this subject but for this settlement, because it shows the vast importance of obtaining and acting upon recognised popular opinion when expressed in the genuine manner by the people concerned. The circumstance that Nova Scotia had not had the opportunity the Australian States have had of speaking injured the success of federation for at least twenty years, and has been got over only within a recent period. But even then Parliament passed that great Bill as you intend to pass this Bill. It regarded the measure as a treaty or convention between the provinces, and passed it, if I recollect aright, without any substantial alteration. Now all the elements lacking then are present here. You have the march of popular government and administration shown here. You have the methods by which the popular sanction should be obtained laid before us. You have popular resolutions and authority from legislatures. You have freely elected conventions framing the constitution. You have Acts authorising popular referenda, and you have popular sanction thereupon. You have the text of the Bill so framed and so approved; and it is upon that we act. There never was an instance of such long consideration and such deliberate sanction, and thus the case for absolute acceptance here in all domestic affairs is infinitely stronger even than it was in the case of Canada. I join in the regret expressed by my right hon. friend, a moment ago, that at quite an early stage of these Australian discussions the Imperial Government did not come to a conclusion as to what they thought vital to Imperial interests, and did not communicate what they thought absolutely essential. I believe that discussion initiated, as I think it ought to have been, on the other side or here, at an earlier period, would have prevented that which might have been an unhappy circumstance connected with this measure. Now I quite agree that a vote on a referendum does not and cannot imply the same measure of assent to all the proposals contained in the measure. There is no opportunity for separate expression. It is yea or nay to the whole. But the people knew, as we know, that this con-
780
stitution was the fruit of compromise and concession. They knew that it was created as the best that was feasible by their trusted leaders whom they had commissioned to do their work. They may have had even a distaste for some of its provisions. What, after all, the people had to determine was whether they would take it all or leave it all. And by what you rightly call overwhelming majorities in every colony— though not at all so overwhelming as those you refuse to recognise every day in Ireland —this constitution was actually passed and accepted. In this great transaction in all matters exclusively Australian, and that is as regards almost all in the Bill, we are not in any sense its authors. The decision may be right or wrong, it may be fortunate or unfortunate for Australia; but it is their affair, not ours. This creature has not been conceived in the womb of this mother of Parliaments. We do but take her on our knees for adoption. We give her a name and place, and title, and a blessing. But we know that she was begotten, fashioned and born on the other side of the globe. Nor is this attitude of ours a humiliating attitude for the mother of Parliaments. It is but a wise, temperate, and dignified recognition of the march of events, of the spread of popular government and popular control. It is indeed a recognition of the fact that this is rather a daughter who is coming of age than a child new born; that she is able to speak for herself, that she has become in truth, as has been said, rather a being now grown up, and is now rather a sister than a daughter nation. Indeed on this view only can the links of empire be maintained. But I may be asked what links are left if on this principle we deal with this great transaction. You may say, "Are we mere registrars of Australian plebiscites? May we not discuss and decide?" I agree in the principle laid down on both sides as to matters exclusively Australian—that we are but the registrars of the Australian will. As to these we are trustees for her of our legislative power, and should use it according to her wish. But as to matters touching the public interests of the Empire, or of parts of the Empire beyond Australia, we are the trustees for the whole Empire, including Australia. We should give her wishes full consideration. We should weigh fully her views

781
on matters which, though they may extend beyond her bounds, are yet mainly her own concern. We should yield what we may. We should choose between the evils of concession, and the perhaps greater evils of dissent. But in the last resort we must decide in the general interest of the whole. You see I go a long way with the Colonial Secretary's general principles of action, which, truly followed, settle the late difference, and conclude points of infinitely greater moment than that on which for a time he broke with the delegates. I rejoice that our attention is no longer fastened on a minor point which would have obscured the magnitude of this great transaction, which would have exaggerated the importance of that minor point, which would have aggravated the character of the very difference, which would have lessened enormously—and this is a most important practical consideration—the chances of a favourable result as to the utility of the jurisdiction you were asserting. If you had the Australian people against you, how many appeals would you have, and how much respect would your tribunal secure? On that ground alone it was of the greatest consequence to those who most value the retention of the tribunal that a settlement should have been reached. What, then, most marks this great achievement? It is the application by the free and well-considered judgment of the Australian people of the federal system of government to that immense continent, thus giving the best chance of good government and contentment to each of the states of which that continent is composed, and to the nation in which they are united as one Commonwealth. So much for Australia by herself. Now what of Australia as part of the Empire? The effective and unified government which will be set up for the nation through the medium of the Commonwealth will make easier of accomplishment all the present pressing Imperial problems as to Australia. That is the point to which my mind now most turns. Agreeing in the principle of leaving to the Australians all the details from the local aspect, I ask myself whether by this transaction in which we are engaged we are really facilitating the management of Imperial problems between ourselves and Australia. I say we are; and why? Because this transaction entered into at their instance strengthens the only real ties of union between the
782
great colonies and this kingdom—the ties of goodwill, the sentiments of affection and contentment, pride and patriotism, springing, no doubt, in great part from common blood, but really maintained and strengthened, mainly everywhere and exclusively in very important quarters, where the tie of blood does not exist, by virtue of the local freedom they have obtained, by virtue of the autonomous growth of their nationalities, by virtue of the development, the peace, security, and progress, enjoyed under local self-government by these great communities within this Empire. Again, it is helpful to the disposition of the Imperial problems between us and Australia, because the Commonwealth, with a greater area, larger and more varied interests, wider views, and unified political powers, will obviously deal with Imperial matters in a higher and broader spirit than could be expected of smaller and separated States, and will thus greatly ease Imperial negotiations. I would appeal only to successive Ministers concerned in this country as to whether that has not been the case with regard to Canada. I know it to have been the case from the colonial side. I know the spirit that has prevailed when questions arose of this description, and I know how far that spirit was due to the consideration I have referred to. I have said Imperial negotiations, because for many years I, for my part, have looked to conference, to delegation, to correspondence, to negotiation, to quasi-diplomatic methods, subject always to the action of free Parliaments here and elsewhere, as the only feasible way of working the quasi-federal union between the Empire and sister nations like Canada and Australia. A quarter of a century past I dreamed the dream of Imperial Parliamentary federation; but many years ago I came to the conclusion that we have passed the turning that could lead to that terminus, if ever, indeed, there was a practicable road. We have too long and too extensively gone on the lines of separate action hero and elsewhere to go back now. Never forget—you have the lesson here to-day—that the good will on which you must depend is due to local freedom, and would not survive its limitation. Never forget what has passed in the course of this brief controversy. It is another evidence that the real link is good will, and that the root and foundation of that link is the local freedom,

783
which you give so freely everywhere except in one small part of the Empire. I do not think Pan-Imperial Parliamentary federation is within the bounds of possibility. And this conviction it was which made it impossible for me, with every sympathy, to join in the efforts of the late Imperial Federation Leagues. I do not in the least degree think this Bill is a step towards Imperial Parliamentary federation. On the contrary, I believe it is distinctly a step the other way. Because the greater the power, the greater the success, the higher the ambition of united Australia, the less the likelihood of her surrendering to a Parliament sitting on the other side of the globe, in which her representation would now be scanty, the powers you give to her to wield at home. That great problem of finally reconciling the national aspirations, as they may develop, of these distant communities with British connection, the great problem of reorganisation remains inscrutable. Let us maintain, at any rate, the essential element of good will. I believe the condition to be not as the Colonial Secretary said in his speech on the First Reading. I do not believe, as he said, that the links that bind you to your colonies are slight and slender. I do not believe, as he said, that they could be snapped by a touch. I believe them to be strong and real. But I believe them to be absolutely impalpable, not founded on costly appeals, not on your clauses of reservation, not on your powers of disallowance, and not on the paramount legislative power of this Parliament. I am not complaining of these things. But they are not the real links that bind the whole. You frankly agree that if the great colonies say "Let go," you will let go. Thus your coercive powers, useful in their little measure, are useless here. What then are these impalpable links on which alone you can depend? I warn you once again, from the deepest conviction of my soul, that while these links are strong and real, they are links of good will, founded on local freedoms. That this is so is exemplified to-day in the concessions you have freely made to the principle of nationality, the principle of self-government and of local freedom, which will enable this people, under the ægis of the Empire, to go their own way according to their own view in all chose matters which concern their own interests. Let us then guard that essential element. Let us deal as best we
784
can with the problems of the hour, taking care above all things to keep a free hand for those of the future, for grave problems there are which certainly loom before us. Let us give a warm welcome to the Australian Commonwealth, and hope its glorious fate may be to set
"The bounds of freedom wider yet,"
and that West Australia now, and distant New Zealand later, may find adequate common ground to justify their accession to the Union. May I repeat as a last word the hope that the day may come when the eyes of Her Majesty's Government will be opened, and that they may see fit to apply at home the principles which have ruled their treatment of Australia to-day.
MR. BRYCE: The statement made by the Colonial Secretary has relieved some among us of the necessity of offering remarks which would have been in order had the Bill remained in the form in which it was introduced. There are very few words that I intend to say, and they will certainly not be of a controversial character. May I recall to Members of the House what passed when, in 1885, this House considered the Bill which established a Federal Council for Australasia. There were many of us then who were impressed with the narrowness of the scheme laid before the House for the joint action of the Australasian colonies, and seeing how narrow was that scheme, and how little prospect, apparently, that the colonies of Australia should be brought together with larger powers under a common body, we scarcely hoped that we should live to see so great an advance, and that now in 1900 the House should be asked to pass the Second Reading of a Bill for uniting those colonies in a great federal community. It is a great event and a great-work. Very rarely in history are such constitutions framed, and those who know with what interest and sympathy and curiosity countries living under a written constitution, like the United States, look back upon the days and the men by whom that constitution was framed, may form some conception of the interest with which generations to come will look back to the circumstances which surround us, and the negotiations that have been proceeding recently, to the Australian conventions and votes of the past nine years, and to the Parliamentary proceedings on this Bill to-day. It is, I

785
believe, the only occasion in history on which an instrument of government had been framed which is intended to operate for a whole continent. I hope that one may be permitted to say that even to the British Parliament, with its long and famous record, it is a new honour to be invoked for such a purpose and to exercise its power in passing an enactment like this. This Federal constitution has been made with much difficulty and after long delay. Nine years have been spent in debates, and in the course of these debates many occasions have arisen when the difficulties seemed almost overwhelming, but the perseverance, the hopefulness, the public spirit, and the patriotism of the statesmen of Australia have overcome all those difficulties, and they have come to us with an instrument which, I believe, will be of the highest possible interest to the students of all constitutions, because it has many elements of novelty. It is based upon the lines of our British Constitution. It embodies its most ancient and valuable principles, it proposes to carry out a system of responsible Cabinet Government, and yet at the same time it has borrowed many features from the constitution of the United States. It has taken from it and from the constitution of Switzerland the federal principle, and it has adopted, unlike the constitution of Canada, the principle of delegating the powers of the central authority and reserving the powers of the local Parliaments. In these respects it is a unique creation, and I am persuaded that the students and the statesmen of all civilised countries will watch with the greatest curiosity and interest the progress of government under this new constitution. May I add one or two words on the general subject? The progress of the negotiations and the debates which have led to the enactment of this constitution have coincided with the constant growth of the belief in the colonies themselves that it will tend to strengthen the ties that bind them to the mother country. When the project was first mooted I well remember that there were some who said: "This is the beginning of the end. Australia desires to be a nation, and when she is a nation she will have little need of the mother country." These ideas have been singularly falsified by the result, because, I believe, every year these debates have gone on has strengthened the feeling in Australia, which has now happily spread to our-
786
selves, that the ties can be closer, and the co-operation can be better between the mother country and a united Australia than with an Australia composed of diverse and unconnected colonies. There is also another thing we ought not altogether to forget, and that is how much we owe, in the drawing closer of the ties between the Australian colonies and ourselves, to the fact that our institutions are monarchical. The prolongation, by the blessing of God, of the life of our present sovereign, the reverence and affection for her entertained alike in all parts of the Empire, have been a very powerful influence in drawing all parts of the Empire together. That is all the more reason why nothing should come in to mar the harmony of the proceedings when enacting this constitution, and I am bound to say it was with the greatest feeling of relief and satisfaction on this side of the House, as has been so well said by my right hon. friend, that we heard the statement made by the Colonial Secretary. I do not for a moment deny that Her Majesty's Government had an absolute right to scrutinise most closely the propositions laid before them by the Australian colonies. As trustees for the Empire it was their duty to examine any proposition affecting the Empire as a whole. That duty was just as clear as is the legal right of Parliament to enact that which commends itself to the judgment of Parliament. But considering that this constitution had had not only the approval of the Australian conventions, but had had the solemn sanction of a popular vote taken in five colonies, incomparably more important than any private and unauthorised opinions which could possibly be collected from the colonies, such as those that were put forward by the Colonial Secretary last Monday, I think it is immensely to be desired that we should not vary in any way from the substance of what that popular vote has approved, and I am happy to think that the Bill in the form in which it is passed by this House will in substance, if not in the very letter, carry out what the popular vote in Australia has approved. As far as I can follow the effect of the amendments read by the Colonial Secretary, I agree with them. They do not really differ from what the Bill, as approved by the Australian people, contained; and that is why we on this side of the House are satisfied with them. We have argued that the Australians should obtain what they asked

787
for, and the Government have now con- ceded it. I venture to say for my own part, speaking with the greatest possible deference, I somewhat regret the final decision, arrived at by a majority of twenty-one to eighteen, in the Convention, by which one class of constitutional questions were declared not to be appealable to the Privy Council. I was one of those who thought it would on the whole have been better if the absolute and complete right of appeal to the Privy Council from the High Court of the Commonwealth upon all constitutional questions had been left subsisting. I quite admit that there is much to be said on both sides of this question. One of those very interesting and thoughtful memoranda submitted by the Australian delegates argues that the difficulties arising on the working of local constitutional laws can be better determined by a court in Australia familiar with the needs of the country than they could possibly be by any court sitting here in England, 10,000 miles away, and not con- versant with the motives which had led to the enactment of a law, or the reasons which had suggested the executive acts whose constitutionality might be called in question. I do not for a moment mean to deny that there is great force in that argument. Perhaps it was an argument not easily appreciated by us in this country because we are not accustomed to have the construction of our statutes reviewed in this way by Courts of law. But it may be observed that in the United States matters have frequently arisen which indicate and illustrate the force there may sometimes be in the argument advanced by the Australian delegates. Cases sometimes arise in which the words of a Constitution are so vague or difficult to apply that it becomes necessary to have regard to what may be called the general spirit of an instrument, and to the policy which is most likely to keep it in harmony with the needs of the time and to promote the welfare of the community. Thus where it has been doubtful whether some particular statute was in consonance with the State Constitution or the Federal Constitution (as the case might be), it became necessary for the Courts to give a decision on points not expressly covered by the language of the Constitution itself, and for the purpose of such a decision to examine and weigh the causes which led to the enactment of the statute and the evil it was meant to remedy. Such
788
cases must always be expected as possible under the construction of any constitution, and we may be quite sure that under the construction of this Australian constitution cases of that kind will arise. If any case of the kind arises, it is quite true, as the Australian delegates have argued, that a Court upon the spot which is in possession of the views that led to the enactment of the law, which knows the circumstances and understands what are the evils that the law was meant to meet, is in a better position for giving a liberal and practically useful construction to the provisions of the constitution, and for applying the spirit of these provisions to the questions raised by the law, than is possible for a Court which does not know these local circumstances. There was one very remarkable group of cases which arose in the United States some years ago—the cases which would be known to lawyers as the Granger cases—in which questions arose as to the validity of certain legislation, in regard to which there was really very little in the constitution to enlighten the Courts, and in which the Courts took a very large and liberal construction of the powers of the Legislature, and so averted difficulties and struggles which would otherwise have arisen—a course which, I think, the general opinion of the profession there and of the community subsequently approved, and yet which it must be admitted might have been decided in the opposite sense by a Court which had no knowledge of the local conditions and which was anxious to adhere very closely to doctrines that had been laid down in earlier decisions, rendered before the problems involved had been fully considered. That seems to me to be an illustration of the worth and importance of local knowledge for the purpose of interpretation, and I have adduced it to show how much weight there is in the view which the Australian delegates have put forward. But, on the other hand, we have the important fact to bear in mind that it is eminently desirable to keep courts of justice out of all questions of a partizan character, to prevent their decisions being even suspected of political bias, to secure for them that respect and deference which can be secured only when there is a certainty that no political motive can affect their judgment, and to prevent the suspicion that the appointing authority, which, of course,

789
must be the Ministry of the day, could be actuated in any way in its choice of persons to be placed on the Bench by any considerations of their political views or of the sort of decision they are likely to give in a question in which political motives might enter. Bearing that in mind—which, after all, is a consideration of the highest moment—most of us in this House will conceive that, on a balance of arguments, it would be better to let Australian Constitutional questions be settled by an Imperial tribunal removed from all local proclivities, and will feel that if we had sat in the last Australian Convention we should have been found amongst the eighteen who voted to reserve the appeal to the Privy Council in all cases whatsoever. I have ventured to refer to this point for the sake of expressing the hope that when the whole matter conies to be fully considered in Australia by its Commonwealth Parliament there will he a feeling that, even in the purely Australian cases which, under the amendment indicated by the Colonial Secretary, are to be left to the High Court, it may often be in the interests of Australia herself that an appeal should lie to the Privy Council. If I understood properly the words read out by the Colonial Secretary they mean this, that, while the final decision upon constitutional questions would remain with the High Court of the Australian Commonwealth in cases where only Australian interests were involved, there would be a power, even in those cases, to let these appeals come to the Privy Council in England. Did I understand that correctly?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: By the consent of both parties.
MR. BRYCE: That is to say, that when both parties consent, these appeals may still, under the amendment pro- posed to be introduced, come home to the court in England for adjudication. I welcome those words, although the instances in which the provision will be used may not be frequent. In cases where it is felt that the peculiar gravity of the question or the fact that it may be complicated with political issues makes it desirable to have an adjudication from an absolutely impartial and unconnected body—1 ought not, perhaps, to use the word "impartial," because I do not want to suggest that an Australian Court would not be impartial, but a body which cannot be even suspected of poli-
790
tical partiality—it is very desirable that this possibility of sending constitutional appeals, even such as are purely Australian in their issues, to the Court of England should be preserved. I echo the hope that the Imperial Parliament should proceed with the creation of a Court which may be fitted, in some respects even better fitted than is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to inspire confidence in our colonies and India, a Court whose composition and external dignity may be found even more worthy of the functions it is called upon to discharge than the Judicial Committee has been, though I am bound to say that for many years past, indeed ever since the days of Lord Kingsdown, the Privy Council has, by its diligence, its learning, and its acumen, placed the colonies and India under the greatest obligations. If there be any Members in the House who, still disquieted at the idea that questions affecting the interests of other parts of the British Empire may be left to be finally decided by an Australian Court, let me remind them that wherever there arises a doubt, as to whether or no those interests are touched, that doubt will be resolved by the action of the Imperial tribunal, the Privy Council. The party which alleges that the question does affect extra-Australian interests will be entitled to argue this preliminary point before the Privy Council, and if they decide in his favour the appeal will lie, and that Imperial tribunal will deal with the issue it raises. Therefore we may feel the amplest confidence that there will exist a complete protection for the interests of any other part of the Empire under the provision which it is the intention of the Government to insert, a provision which was all along contained in the Australian scheme, though in words not quite so explicit. One word more I will venture to say with regard to the question of the competence of an Australian Court. Although I do not suppose that the Government have been actuated by any distrust either of Australia or of the Australian Judges, there is a parallel between the case of Australia now and that of the United States a century ago which deserves to be recalled because it may re-assure those who imagine colonial tribunals to be necessarily inferior to our own. Australia has now a population of nearly 4,000,000. When the Supreme Court of the United States entered upon its functions at the end of the last century,

791
and when in particular Chief Justice Jay was succeeded in 1800 by the great Chief Justice Marshall, one of the first constitutional jurists of modern times, or indeed of any times, the population of the United States was almost exactly the same as the population of the Australian colonies now. Yet it was found possible from that population of 4,000,000 to secure a Court which was in every way worthy of the momentous functions that devolved upon it, and which from that time until now has succeeded in giving the fullest satisfaction, so far at least as learning and ability and purity are concerned, to the people of the American Republic. Why should we not hope that the Australian population, of our own blood, and trained under our own traditions, should be capable of furnishing Judges for the Federal High Court of Australia who will be equal in their capacity and in the spirit which will animate them to those whom America was able to find with a population no larger a century ago? I have nothing further to add except to express once more the warm satisfaction which we feel that the difficulties which seemed to threaten the harmony of our proceedings have been removed by an admission of the reasonableness of the Australian demand. I believe that the creation of this Federation in Australia will facilitate co-operation between that great group of colonies and ourselves in all political questions—and there are not a few political questions affecting the Pacific in which Australia, equally with ourselves, is interested—and I join in the hope which has been expressed by everyone who has spoken in this debate, and by none more eloquently than my hon. friend who last addressed the House, that the creation of the new Commonwealth, and the welcome which has been given in this country to its establishment under a federal scheme, will strengthen the ties which unite our Australian kinsfolk to ourselves. The unity of the British race over the world, that unity which makes us here and in the colonies one people in many States, is however based upon something deeper and more enduring than any political arrangements. It rests on the foundations not only of a common interest in the defence of our Empire and of all that the Empire secures for us, but also upon community of ideas, of habits, of institutions and traditions, and on the pride
792
which we all take in the long and glorious history which we share with the Englishmen of Australia and of Canada. This constitution is a product of that history, and witnesses to the vitality of the principles by which England had begun to be guided as far back as the days of Magna Charta.
MR. EVELYN CECIL: I should like to say a very few words in praise of the tact, friendliness and insight with which the Colonial Secretary has carried out these negotiations, and of the reciprocal goodwill with which the suggestion of Her Majesty's Government has been received by the Australian delegates. The Bill is one of the highest importance, and I think we recognise our position in regard to it by abstaining from criticising greatly or even at all the provisions in which Australia alone is concerned. There are questions involved which might perhaps very well afford some ground for friendly criticism. I notice, for instance, that in Clause 47 it is suggested that disputed elections are to be determined by the House in which the question arises. We have had considerable experience in times past in regard to the deciding of disputed elections. From the days when the House itself, and afterwards its delegated Committees, endeavoured always by a party vote to settle disputed elections to the time in 1868 when we found it necessary to transfer that power to the Judges of the Queen's Bench—all that period of history has taught us that it is not very wise to give to Houses of Parliament the right of deciding disputed elections. That, however, is a matter which concerns Australia and does not concern us. All that concerns us is such a question as the appeal, which, no doubt, is a matter that every trustee of the Imperial interests ought carefully to look into. As regards that I feel we ought to give our cordial support to the Government which has jealously looked into the matter of the right of appeal and arrived at a successful compromise. I did not quite gather whether it is intended in that new amendment now proposed by which appeals are always to lie to the Queen in Council, except when Australian interests only are concerned, that the Privy Council is to be the body which is to decide whether or not only Australian interests are concerned. That is a point of some

793
importance which I feel sure will be agreed upon and settled in as friendly and satisfactory a spirit as has been shown in all the negotiations of the past, but upon which I hope we shall have a clear explanation before the debate is concluded. As a result of the recent negotiations we shall have an alteration of the appeal clause. That alteration is one which might be required in the future to apply to other colonies than Australia, and if we frame the amended clause in a particular form it may be that South Africa and Canada will also ask to be granted similar privileges in like cases. I trust that that will be borne in mind in coming to any compromise in regard to this matter, but I have no doubt, in view of what has already passed between the Colonial Secretary and the Australian delegates, that this point, like others, will be met in a spirit of friendship and compromise. We cannot too strongly insist upon the importance of up- holding the Supreme Court of Appeal for the whole Empire. It maintains the scales of justice between the various portions of the Empire; it has the important advantage that it is free from local influences; and in my humble opinion it is one of the chief links which bind together the different portions of the Empire—a limb which I should be very sorry to see broken. In view of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary to-day, I do not think he can possibly be accused with any show of commonsense of having wished to flout or to give a rebuff to Australia. That is a contemptible accusation, and one which we feel keenly in the Unionist ranks. The right hon. Gentleman's past—not only his speech of to-day, or his speech of last Monday, but his reception of the Colonial delegates at the time of the Queen's Jubilee in 1897—has shown how much he has the interests of the colonies in his thoughts, and how much he desires to strengthen the links which bind them and us. It is far from a question of rebuff. If we did not offer any intelligent criticism on such an important Bill as this we should not be doing our duty. Criticism is intended as a compliment, not as a rebuff, and we all have criticised entirely in that spirit. I trust that this Bill, through the management of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary and Her Majesty's Government, will be the means of setting on a firmer foundation the good relations which
794
already exist between ourselves and Australia, that those relations will long continue, and result in the pushing forward of that great cause of Imperial Federation which both the Australians and ourselves alike have so much at heart.
MR. S. T. EVANS: The termination of the controversy between the Colonial Office and the delegates from Australia, which has been announced to the House by the Colonial Secretary, brought a feeling not only of gratification but of great relief to this side of the House, because we were greatly afraid that the negotiations which were being carried on were such as to cause friction in Australia and to make it very difficult for us to give graciously that which we ought to give graciously if we give it at all. We on this side of the House have always been ready and willing to give to Australia what Australia demanded in this matter, because we recognise that Australia, moving entirely in allegiance to England and from feelings of devotion to England as well as to her own people, desired to have a federation of the Australian colonies. And when we knew, as we did, of the great work which had been done in Australia for very many years by its statesmen and people, by full and free discussion, by conventions, by two separate and distinct referendums, we were very much afraid at one time that it was possible that such a degree of friction might be created between Australia and the Colonial Office that the federation of the Australian Colonies would have been, at any rate, for the time imperilled. Fortunately that time is over. We gladly recognise the ability of the Colonial Secretary, and I quite as gladly recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is able to give in when he knows he ought to give in. That spirit which the Colonial Secretary has shown upon this occasion by acquiescing, and properly acquiescing, in the demand made by the delegates from Australia is a spirit which perhaps might have been extended in other negotiations to which it is possible to refer. There never was any question at all of limiting any existing right of appeal from the State Courts. There was a demand made by Australia that she should be allowed to limit further the right of appeal from the new High Court. The real, solid, and only ques-

795
tion at issue between the Colonies and the Colonial Office finally was, whether or not Australia was to be allowed in her own courts to decide matters of internal constitutional law. That matter has at last been conceded to Australia, and we are all very rejoiced at the fact. The Amendment which I placed upon the Paper was conceived entirely in the spirit of the result of the negotiations. Our desire was, when it had been clearly shown, after the fullest discussion and all possible care, what was the will of the Australian people, that that should be considered and met. Australia now, or, at any rate, those portions which have contracted to come within the scope of the Bill, will have a Constitution which we on this side of the House would be very rejoiced to have in this country. The Constitution is the same in Australia as in England in that the Queen is at the head, but there are other matters now conceded to Australia which we on this side of the House would be very glad to see conceded nearer home, and we readily thank hon. Members opposite who have done their very utmost to prevent these reforms being granted to other portions of the Queen's dominions, for being willing to give them to Australia, which is at the very antipodes. Australia is now starting with a Constitution under which she will have triennial Parliaments, one man one vote, payment of members, and direct elections to the second chamber, and a Constitution under which the second chamber will not be able in the long run or permanently to defeat the wishes of the people as expressed in the Lower House. We gladly give credit to hon. Members opposite for showing their wisdom in agreeing to concede these rights to Australia, although they are not willing to extend that wisdom to other portions of the Empire. Western Australia and New Zealand have not yet agreed to come into the federation, but I hope that both those colonies will in the very near future join the federation of Australia, which is hailed by everybody in this country as being the greatest thing which could happen to that continent. Even as late as to-day, I believe, Western Australia and New Zealand have telegraphed to the Colonial Secretary that they still adhere to their opinions with regard to Clause 74, but when they hear that the Government have given way to the dele-
796
gates on this matter, I think they also will see that their true wisdom is in accepting federation, and giving the fullest power and freedom to the people of Australia to work out their own political salvation. Under the circumstances, it will be entirely unnecessary for me to move the Amendment which I had placed upon the Paper.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): Almost every speaker to-night has expressed gratification at the tone which has characterised this debate. It is a tone which has given unmitigated satisfaction in every part of the House, and I think I may say that not a single jarring note has been struck. I desire to express in the fullest manner my appreciation of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife opened the debate on the part of the other side of the House. I am sure that every one feels that there are subjects which far transcend all the interests of party, and on which both sides of the House are thoroughly in agreement. This debate, if that is the proper word to apply to it, has not only given satisfaction to the House, but it will give satisfaction throughout the whole of the Empire and to the friends of the British Empire in every part of the world. I think events have vindicated the wisdom of the course that was taken by my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary in not intervening in the earlier stages of these negotiations. It was suggested, in a not unfriendly spirit, that by interfering some years ago even the possibility of a divergence of views might have been avoided. I would only remind friendly critics who expressed that view that nothing could be more difficult and delicate than to intervene at an early stage of the negotiations that were being carried on in Australia upon points of this description. The happy result at which we have now arrived seems to show that, whatever other course might have been possible, the right course has been taken throughout. I find myself in agreement with a great deal that has been said by my right hon. friend the member for South Aberdeen as to the necessity for a Court of undoubted authority to interpret the constitutional power to make certain laws. He truly says that in this country we are not familiar with such functions

797
on the part of the Courts of Justice; that our Courts are concerned almost entirely in the interpretation of laws when made, and are not concerned with the authority of the body which has made them. But as he pointed out, under the American Constitution, and as has been seen in regard to other parts of the British Empire, questions are certain to arise with regard to the authority of legislative bodies to pass certain laws, and I recognise in the amplest terms the necessity of having a Court of supreme authority and influence for the determination of such momentous questions. The principle which has guided the conclusion that has been happily so far arrived at is this. All that concerns Australia alone, if the Australians desire it, will be decided in their own High Court. What concerns other parts of the Queen's dominions, or the British Empire as a whole, will be subject to an appeal to an Imperial Court. It will be obvious to the House that the question of the delegation of powers may be a matter of Imperial concern. It may be of the utmost moment to the Empire to know whether or not a certain power has been delegated to the Colonial Legislature. On the other hand the question as to how such powers are to be distributed as between the general Legislature of the Central Government of the Australian Dominion of the Queen and the Legislative Governments of the States is a matter which concerns Australia. The extent of the delegation may be an Imperial interest, but the question of distribution must necessarily be an Australian interest only. With regard to the question of distribution, the question as to the limits of the powers of the Commonwealth and States infer se, questions of the limits of the powers of the Legislative Governments of the States as between themselves—even on those questions there may be a great desire, under certain circumstances, to appeal to the Privy Council. Her Majesty's Government have found it their duty to safeguard and secure the possibility of a right of appeal to an Imperial tribunal in every case where the interests of the Empire hold, or the interests of Her Majesty's subjects in any other part of the dominion are affected. It is a matter for congratulation that the course of events has resulted in the discussion to which we have just listened.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: After what has taken place, and
798
especially after the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Longford, I should not have felt justified in intervening for even a very few moments, but for the fact that I have taken an exceptional interest in matters connected with Australia, in view of the fact that I have been there and I have a good many friends there. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen said very truly that occasions such as these in the life of a nation like Australia will be in future of great interest. In generations to come the people of Australia will look back to this day as marking a great advance in their national existence. That being so, I would like to have it said of the Irish people that they had the satisfaction of being able to point to the fact that whatever little assistance their representatives in Parliament could give to. the development of the continent of Australia was freely given in this House. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary said, I only desire to make one or two observations. He pointed out quite truly that the representatives of four of the States and the Government of Western Australia had taken a different view in the controversy which is now happily closed. In this controversy Queensland and Western Australia have backed up the view of the Colonial Office and of Her Majesty's. Government. But in connection with this matter I think it should be borne in mind that all through this Australian Federation movement the colony of Queensland has undoubtedly acted as a sort of deterrent and a brake. All through this agitation the colony of Queensland held back, and it is not going too far to say that if the colony of Queensland had had its way the question of federation would never have been in its present position, and we should never have been able to pass unanimously—as I am sure we shall do—this great measure of the Commonwealth of Australia. With regard to Western Australia there is this much I will say—and I believe it will be approved by a great many hon. Members in this House and out of it, and in Australia as well. Whether Western Australia ultimately enters into this federation or not, I think it is the duty of the Colonial Office and of the other Australian colonies to see that Western Australia puts her own house in. order and extends to her own citizens within her own borders a broader system of

799
enfranchisement, which will give proper representation to all the people in the colony. At the present time we hear of the grievances of the Uitlanders in South Africa and the Transvaal; but there are thousands of British subjects in Western Australia who are more completely deprived of the franchise and representation than the British subjects ever were in the Transvaal. In the gold districts of Western Australia the representation of the people is a mockery and a farce, and if I were an Australian connected with any other colony and having any influence in this matter, after Western Australia has hung back so long, I would make it a condition upon the entry of this small colony into the Government Federation that she should, by a proper measure of representation, do away with an undoubted scandal which exists at the present time, and give full and fair representation such as other colonies do to the whole of the people within her borders. I will say no more than this. A great portion of the people of Australia are of Irish blood, and upon this occasion I think an Irish Member like myself cannot be found fault with if I remind this House and the people of this country, who are all interested in Australia at the present time, that a great deal of the present proud position of Australia is attributable to the genius, the talent, and the industry and labour in every walk and position of life of the Irish in that country. And I must say that it is a sad reflection to Irish Members, anxious upon this occasion to do everything they can to forward freedom in a great new country, to think that exactly one hundred years ago this Parliament was engaged in destroying the ancient Parliament of Ireland. And now one hundred years afterwards you are giving a great nation beyond the seas what you have deprived us of. It is certainly a strange and a sad thing to some extent to an Irish Member to witness here with what cordial readiness the Colonial Secretary and his colleagues accede to the wishes of the majority of the Australian people in almost every possible respect. He tells us that two of the colonies hold one view, but the delegates of the other colonies hold a separate view, but at once the opinion of the representatives of the four colonies is allowed to prevail, and the opinion of the two colonies is put upon one side.
800
Here in this House there are eighty Irish Members holding one view, and that view is discarded, and our country is governed not in accordance with the views of the majority, but in accordance with the views of the minority. There will be no class of people throughout the length and breadth of Australia who will feel more pride and gratification when they read that this Bill has been unanimously passed than the Irish section of Australia. The Irish section of the Australian people, I venture to say, are as loyal and contented, and as much respected, as any other section of people throughout the length and breadth of Australia. But why are they contented? Why will they be proud and grateful when they read of the passage of this measure? Why are they satisfied and why are they loyal? Because they enjoy those things which Parliament has given them—those measures of freedom which you deny to the Irish people at home. When you see on occasions like this Irish Nationalists and Irish Catholics in Australia loyal and contented, and living in cordial brotherhood with their fellow countrymen of other religions— when you see that spectacle, ought it not to induce you to try with the same methods to bring about those happy results in Ireland which make Englishmen, Scotchmen, Irishmen, Protestants and Catholics live in harmony and goodwill together in Australia? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Glamorganshire said there were many things in this Australian Constitution Bill which we would be glad to have here at home. There is one portion in particular which might be applied in that direction, and that is the portion of the Bill in which you lay down that there should be no Church establishment in Australia, and that there should be no possible disability upon religious grounds in any sense in Australia. If it were for nothing more than that I would cordially support this Australian Bill. Surely, it is an anomalous state of affairs that we, this afternoon, should pass a Bill laying down that religion shall be no bar of any kind throughout the length and breadth of Australia, while in Ireland and in this country, to some extent, religion is a bar and obstacle to promotion and other things. Under this Bill the governor or the chief ruler of the Australian colonies may belong to any religion, but in Ireland we have the stigma upon us that the chief governor,

801
the Viceroy, must be of one particular religion and may not belong to the ancient faith of the great bulk of the Irish nation. We Irishmen cordially support this Bill, and it is with some degree of envy that we give our poor assistance to our countrymen beyond the ocean in supporting this measure of justice and freedom which we want so badly at home. I hope that in years to come, when this great historical occasion is recorded, future generations of this great historical nation may derive some satisfaction from the fact that the representatives of Ireland gave everything they could in the way of freedom and liberty to their countrymen beyond the ocean. In conclusion, I cannot refrain from saying that the one drawback on this occasion, the one thing which to my mind mars the greatness of this Act in setting up a great and a new free Parliament in Australia, lies in the fact that while the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary is giving freedom with a free hand to the Australian people, while he is giving them freely a great central Parliament, at the same time he is spoiling and marring that great work of liberty by endeavouring by force and by cruelty to destroy the free Parliaments of people who are as much entitled to freedom as any section of the British people.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I and other Irish Members seem to night like penniless beggars, enabled suddenly to give away large estates abroad. I marvel at the terms of this Bill. Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, his private secretary, and all his friends who took so large a part in endeavouring to defeat the Home Kale Bill, do not think it necessary upon this occasion to move any of the Amendments which they considered were so absolutely vital seven years ago? I have had the curiosity to take up this volume of Amendments they moved against the Irish Home Rule Bill of 1893 [holding up a large book]. This is only one of them, but there are seven more outside full of Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary along with his friends moved to that measure seven years ago. I have reckoned up the number of times he spoke as nearly as I can during that brief period. I examined the index to Hansard, and I calculate that against the
802
Home Rule Bill the right hon. Gentleman spoke nearly 300 times. Is it therefore not a most astonishing thing that the right hon. Gentleman does not find it necessary now to move any Amendments to this Australian Bill, prepared at the Antipodes by beginners in statecraft, when he so distrusted the proposals of a veteran British statesman, so lately his leader? If it was absolutely vital and essential then that the right hon. Gentleman should lay down all these safeguards in regard to setting up a subordinate Parliament in Ireland, why is it that now, when he has supreme power in the matter of this Parliament of Australia, he does not attempt, in any single degree, to give us the benefit of the great knowledge which he then displayed? I look at these 1893 Amendments, what do they demand? The first thing which it was then stated by the right hon. Gentleman was absolutely necessary in passing any measure granting a subordinate Parliament was that you should assert the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. But where is the assertion of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament in this Bill? For over a week upon that occasion we were engaged in opposition to the tremendous eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman in struggling to show that, after all, the unhappy Irish might be trusted in small matters; but now it appears that an Irishman cannot be trusted with Home Rule unless he has first been transported. By some extraordinary means the moment you send an Irishman 10,000 miles away, that moment he becomes entitled to be equipped with all the liberties which a very large measure of self-government can give to him. I do trust that, as the right hon. Gentleman has changed his opinions so much on the question of yielding to Australia, we maybe encouraged in the hope that on some future occasion we shall have the right hon. Gentleman coming forward and saying that all those safeguards which he found so necessary to propose in the case of Ireland were mere figments of the imagination, and that he will see that what he is now giving to Irishmen 10,000 miles away from the central Imperial authority he may safely give to Irishmen when they are only separated from the Imperial authority by some sixty or seventy miles of salt water. In regard to the Amend-

803
ments he has now proposed we must say, at all events, that they are bonâ fide. We can see that the heart of the right hon. Gentleman is in them. He believes that he is acting as the trustee and custodian of the Empire and as a patriotic Englishman, and however much we may think he was mistaken no one can deny that he is absolutely sincere in his view as to , this question of appeal. The right hon. Gentleman has done a great work, and he has put, I think, into his work a great deal of that genius which undoubtedly he has shown in the management of these affairs. If that be so on the present occasion, what are we to think of this miserable bundle of old amendments to the Bill of 1893? Even the Irish Secretary proposed then that the Irish Parliament should not have a right to give a salary to its members, but in this Bill the Government propose that the members of the Australian Parliament should have £400 a year. These amendments proposed seven years ago imposed restriction upon an Irish Parliament to prevent payment of members, the giving of any Irish titles and dignities, dealing with the criminal law, the law relating to intimidation, the regulation of trade and commerce, the regulation of flags and colours for merchant vessels, bounties to Irish industries, and we were not to be allowed to deal with the laws of marriage and divorce and many other matters. Even it was proposed we should be forbidden to deal with telephones. What a noble work that was for the right hon. Gentleman in this mother of Parliaments with all these Colonial Parliaments surrounding him, with Parliaments in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, not to speak of Parliaments abroad, to show such distrust of Ireland, while now the right hon. Gentleman, without the smallest reference to the debates in which he was then engaged, gives to these colonies this great blessing! I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon giving these colonies these immense powers of sovereignty, which we believe will result so beneficially to Australia and will redound to the benefit of the Empire at large. However, I did not rise to make a speech upon this question, but merely for the purpose of asking a question. I understood from the First Lord of the Treasury and from the right hon. Gentleman himself that this occasion would be availed of for the
804
purpose of explaining the position with regard to the final Court of Appeal. I am very glad to hear that a compromise has been arrived at, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is to be attacked for the attitude he has taken up, nor do I agree with the criticism which has been passed upon him that he should have entered into this dispute at an earlier stage. I think he has taken up a reasonable line by submitting his proposals to the Australian delegates, and they together have come to a conclusion which this House can ratify. But the greater the importance which attaches to this question of an Appeal Court the greater is the necessity of fully explaining it to the House. If it be essential to set up this Court of Appeal for the consideration of Australian or international difficulties, why are we not told exactly what the nature and the duties of that Court are to be? We observed on Friday last some slight conflict between the views of the First Lord of the Treasury and the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary. I gathered from the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury that this Court of Appeal would not be a Court consisting of the present House of Lords, but would consist of the Privy Council. If that be the case, why is any change in the personnel of the Appeal Court necessary? What is the necessity for making these Australian, African, Indian, and Canadian gentlemen, colonial lords of the realm on a seven years lease? The reason we are interested is this, if this is to be a final Court of Appeal for the Empire it must be a final Court of Appeal for Ireland; and whatever you do for Australia, Canada, and other places, you are not merely doing; for them alone, but for every county of Ireland and England, just as much as for the new States of Australia itself. If an Australian peer is to be brought over here and given a salary of £6,000 a year, I want to know why is the impoverished peasant of Mayo and Connaught to maintain that gentleman and his peerage in London. I object to it altogether. If the Australian people desire to have peers of the realm then let them pay for them. I do not think that that statement is in the least degree offensive to Australia, for I am sure that if you do not provide this bounty on Australian peers out of our pockets Australia will not export any of these

805
curiosities. Having at times read the views expressed in Australian newspapers, I should hardly think that the opinion of the Australian people is one of extreme reverence or respect for peers of the realm, for I have seen some rather caustic criticisms on Australian Ministers who have gone back with a knighthood or a baronetcy. Therefore, I contend that the line Irish Members take up is a fair one. We are also entitled to know, if this Court be created, why English, Scotch, and Irish appeals should lie within the cognisance of these antipodean noblemen? No doubt if they are properly rolled they will present a most interesting and formidable appearance, but it is somewhat capsizing to my intellect to suggest that you will obtain in the new judiciary thus constituted that reverence which attaches in many minds to the ancient judicature of the House of Lords. The British Constitution has grown; it has not been patched, tinkered with, and cobbled. In 1874 and 1876 the Irish Members stood out for the ancient constitution of the House of Lords as a final Court of Appeal, because it was guaranteed by the Act of Union. I think, therefore, it is too much to suggest now that this new and hybrid Court will have either support or reverence from any section of the people of these countries. I protest, then, against this piebald peerage system which the right hon. Gentleman has associated with this Bill. I should be greatly surprised if, when his second Bill is introduced, whether here or in another place, the right hon. Gentleman will have any support to his proposal, for I rather think that, suspect as the right hon. Gentleman is by many of the ancient Conservative party in reference to the Peerage, they will regard this as a further undermining proposition, the real object of which is not to establish a Court of Appeal for the Empire, but to discredit the House of Lords. They will think that, as in the botanical world there are what are called "sports," so in his case there has been a reverter to " type," and that in his mature years the right hon. Gentleman has had a recrudescence of his Radical days. I say, therefore, we are entitled to some more reasonable explanation of this extra ordinary court which it is proposed to set up. As the right hon. Gentleman has so happily come to a conclusion with the Australian delegates, and no one rejoices
806
at it more than I do, he should now let this new-fangled tribunal rest. This macaronic House of Lords' proposal grew out of the difficulties he at first was placed in, by insisting on a general power of appeal from Australia. That has been found to be untenable. It is no longer necessary therefore to pursue his consequent innovations, and even though Chief Justice Way is entitled to great consideration, and although he has rendered the right hon. Gentleman important service, I trust that the strange apparition of these Australian peers will not be allowed to threaten an ancient constitution, but that, in their aboriginal loveliness, they will be allowed to sleep in the shades of the Australian forests.

COUNTY SURVEYORS (IRELAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith, in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
MR. LECKYmoved an Amendment to insert after the word "Commissioners" the following words: "or shall have obtained the degree of Engineering in any University in Great Britain or Ireland." He said that the Amendment dealt with what appeared to him to be a very practical grievance—namely, that a man who, by a long course of study and a severe examination, was qualified to discharge the duties of a county surveyor should be obliged to go through a second and supplementary examination. That appeared to him to be exceedingly irrational.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 8, after the word ' Commissioners,' to add the words 'or shall have obtained the degree of Engineering in any University in Great Britain or Ireland.' "— (Mr. Lecky.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I presume this Amendment is technically in order in connection with this Bill, but although it may be technically in order it appears to me to raise a question which is hardly germane to

807
the Bill. The Bill is intended to meet a very simple difficulty. Under the County Surveyors (Ireland) Act, 1862, it was enacted that whenever a vacancy occurred for the post of county surveyor the candidates should be examined. That caused no difficulty before the Local Government Act for Ireland was passed, because the Lord Lieutenant had the special power of transferring a county surveyor from one county to another in Ireland without an examination being necessary. That power was taken away from the Lord Lieutenant by the Local Government Act, and the result is that a county surveyor cannot now be transferred from one comity to another without undergoing an examination for the second time. It is in order to meet that difficulty that this very simple Bill has been produced. My right hon. friend desires that we should insert in this Bill a provision which can hardly be regarded as wholly non-controversial. He proposes in effect that a University degree of engineering shall be held to be equivalent to an examination by the Civil Service Commissioners That appears to me to raise an important question. It may be a good thing that we should have legislation to provide that University degrees, not only on this subject but on other subject, should be held to be an equivalent to a Civil Service examination; but that is obviously a question which ought not to be discussed or determined on a small non-controversial Bill of this kind. It is a question which my right hon. friend has a perfect right to raise, especially in connection with the University of which he is the distinguished representative; but I think it would be extremely unwise if we were on this occasion to delay the passage of this Bill in order to discuss a proposition which cannot be regarded as non-controversial.
Question put, and negatived.
Bill reported without amendment; read the third time, and passed.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT (1890) AMENDMENT BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

YOUTHFUL. OFFENDERS BILL [Lords].
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Heading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,):. The principal object of this Bill, which has been some time before the other House, is to diminish the number of cases of imprisonment among youthful offenders under the age of sixteen after conviction,, and so far as possible also to diminish the necessity of remanding juvenile offenders or committing them to trial. I am sure that these are objects which will commend themselves to every Member of this House. There are many cases of first offences, which I am thankful to say are now dealt with under the First Offenders. Act, and I think that the figures of recent, years establish the fact that that Act is being made use of more and more to the great advantage of our youthful population, and I hope also to the diminution of crime. I think that is a policy which ought to be constantly maintained. In another way a great deal of good has been done by the system of collecting together in various prisons throughout the country where convenient, young boys who have been obliged to be sent to prison. They are now kept at Bedford and sundry other prisons under special treatment, very much indeed to. their advantage, and also to the diminution of crime. But there are offences which cannot be altogether dealt with simply by discharge or by sending to a reformatory. There are, for instance, cases where the home from which a boy comes is a good home, where the influences are likely to be good and where he is likely after his first offence to be well looked after, and in such cases it is much better that he should not be sent to a reformatory; but these cases include many in which some punishment is necessary and, I think, desirable, not only in the interests of society, but of the boys themselves. Accordingly one of the proposals in this Bill is to extend the power of whipping, which now exists to a considerable extent under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, to other offences stated in the Bill. As regards indictable offences, the House is probably aware that an Act passed last session considerably increased the number of offences for which whipping could be administered, and there

809
is no very great change made in this Bill in that respect. The effect of the Act of last year was to provide that certain indictable offences previously punishable in another way could be punished by whipping, and this Bill materially simplifies the law on the same lines. But there will be a great change made in this Bill in respect to offences not indictable—against byelaws and so forth. By a strange anomaly there is now no power to administer the simple and effective remedy of whipping to incorrigible boys. On that part of the Bill there may be some difference of opinion, but I think with reference to the other provisions there will be very little. Among other things it is proposed to make parents criminally responsible where their neglect is shown to have contributed to the criminal acts of their children. The law will also be strengthened for the purpose of enforcing the duty of parents to contribute towards the maintenance of their children in reformatory and industrial schools. The Bill also provides—which I think is a very useful provision—that power should be given to magistrates to remand children awaiting trial to other places than a prison, if persons are found to take charge of them, and a contribution will be made by the Treasury for their maintenance. I am confident that if the House will give its assent to this Bill it will prove to be a very useful measure, and to the advantage of youthful offenders as well as to society. I beg to move its Second Reading.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Secretary White Ridley.)
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I move the rejection of this Bill with the greater confidence, because since it was brought into the House of Lords, another Bill of a kindred character—I mean the Corporal Punishment Bill—has been rejected by a decisive majority in this House. The same objections which were taken to that Bill are applicable to the present measure, and I am curious to see how those who condemned the one can support the other. The Home Secretary in particular, said that it was an unanswerable objection to the Corporal Punishment Bill that it would be uncertain in its operation, because of the unwillingness of some judges to inflict the punishment of flogging; but there will be equal unwillingness to order
810
the whipping of children. Some magistrates may be hard-hearted, and others tender-hearted, and they will act accordingly. The Bill is unequal in another respect; in that the punishment will be more severe in some cases than in others; because of the physical and the mental differences among children; so what would be a comparatively light punishment for some would be absolute torture in the case of others. There is another inequality in the Bill, in that the whipping is to be inflicted only on the non-payment of fines for offences. Those who can find the money will escape; while the poor will be left to suffer. Another objection to the Bill is that it will inevitably lead to cruelty. The only precaution taken is that an inspector is to be present when the punishment is inflicted. It is true that the parents may, if they like, witness the punishment and the degradation of their child; but they will have no right to remonstrate or to interfere. I think it a hardship on the police that they should have to discharge so disgusting a duty, and on the other hand, I can imagine that some of them may take a professional pride in making the punishment as severe as possible. I have lately read a painful description of the flogging of two boys, which appeared a few years ago in the Pall Mall Gazette. I shall spare the House the pain of hearing it and will only state that the writer says that he knows of similar cases in other gaols, and also that the police who whip the offenders are chaffed by their brother policemen if they fail to make the punishment effectual. It is said of mercy that it is twice blessed, in that it blesses him that takes and him that gives; but in my opinion the public whipping of offenders is in many cases a curse for both the administrators of the law and those who suffer under it. It is contended that the punishment does not, as is alleged, inflict indelible disgrace, because it does not do so at the great public schools; but the two things are widely different, so that there is no parallel between them. It is surely a great anomaly that, when corporal punishment has been so largely abolished in our homes, it should be extended in our gaols. We have gone a long way from the dictum of Solomon, that "foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, and the rod of correction must beat it out "; for you may travel far before you find a birch rod in a single home, though they used to be

811
common in my youthful days. Why has there been this change? It is because we have become more humane, and more tender and considerate in our treatment of child life, and because we have discovered other and wiser ways of dealing with juvenile delinquents. It is insisted that whipping is better than imprisonment; but is there no other alternative? Why, this very Bill points to one, in the fourth clause, which provides that, instead of a youthful offender being sent to prison to await trial, or on a remand, he shall be placed in the custody of a fit person, the parents contributing to his maintenance. In that you have the germ of a system which is capable of extension, and which would provide a substitute for both whipping and imprisonment. Sir, this Bill is a retrograde Bill. It is opposed to the spirit of modern legislation. It is a clumsy and superficial way of dealing with an admittedly difficult problem. There is also a provision in the Bill which is as extraordinary as it is novel; the third clause providing that if parents have conduced to the commission of an offence, by neglecting to exercise due control over a child, they also shall be punished, by the infliction of a fine. Are magistrates really going to be required to inquire into the family history of the young offenders brought before them? And why should such an inquiry be confined to the youngsters and not also apply to the older members of the family? But really the proposal is so impracticable as to be hardly worth discussing. There are, no doubt, some provisions in this Bill which are unobjectionable, and if I thought that the Government would take my advice, I would recommend them to eliminate the whipping clauses of the Bill, and then we could probably agree in making it not merely an unobjectionable but an admirable measure. I move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word ' now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words ' upon this day six months.'" — (Mr. Carvell Williams.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. PICKERSGILLthink this Bill has been introduced to the House under a very mislead-
812
ing title. Instead of being called the "Youthful Offenders Bill" it ought to have been "The Whipping Bill." It is true that there are some few clauses in it to which no objection can be taken; but the main purpose of the Bill is that whipping may be administered to young; persons convicted of certain offences. The right hon. the Home Secretary commended the Bill to the attention of the House favourably upon the ground that it would prevent the children being sent to prison. But we have already the First Offenders Act, under which it is possible to deal with youthful offenders without sending them to prison. The Home Secretary paid the most marked tribute to the First Offenders Act and its application throughout the country. He said it was being largely applied and with very satisfactory results; that it was tending to reduce youthful crime. The Home Secretary suggests that the effect of this Bill, if passed into law, will be to still further discredit the practice of passing a sentence of imprisonment on children; but I think the effect will be that magistrates, instead of dealing with youthful offenders under the First Offender's Act, will disregard that Act and inflict on them corporal punishment. Now, this Bill enormously extends the discretion of the magistrates in courts of summary jurisdiction. The measure provides that with regard to any offences whatever, with the single exception of homicide, the magistrates may inflict a sentence of corporal punishment. My hon. friend the Member for Mansfield has pointed out that the way in which the Act would be applied would be very uncertain, and he cited in support thereof the argument of the right hon. the Home Secretary against the Corporal Punishment Bill. This Bill will, however, have an unequal operation in another sense. If you take a strong, robust, healthy boy, he will snap his fingers at any corporal punishment you. may give him, and you will only harden his heart. But take a child physically weak and of a nervous temperament, the effect of corporal punishment on him would be not only disastrous to begin with, but life-long in its results. I notice with surprise that, in one respect, this. Bill is even worse than the Corporal Punishment Bill, which we discussed a few weeks ago. There was a provision in that Bill that a surgeon was to be present during the whole time of the

813
punishment; but there is no such provision in this Bill. Therefore the argument I am using that the effects of a whipping on a nervous child might be life-long applies all the more strongly if the whipping is to be administered in the absence of a surgeon. Then it is said that birching is practised in the public schools. But I need hardly point out that there is no analogy between the two cases. The schoolmaster has always been regarded as in loco parentis to the child, and there cannot be an analogy between the punishment administered by a parent or schoolmaster and that administered by a policeman in the execution of a sentence of a police court. But it is notorious that corporal punishment is not now administered in public schools to anything like the same extent to which it was some time ago. In fact, in the most successful public schools it has been discredited and abandoned. Now, why should the punishment of birching, which is discredited in the public schools, be applied for the first time on a very large scale as a punishment to those who offend against the criminal law? Again, I would point out that this is, to a large extent, class legislation. I do not think anyone would be bold enough to say that the child of any Member of this House, or of any person occupying a good position in society, or even the child of a member of the comfortable classes, would over for a moment be subjected to this degrading punishment. It would only be reserved for the children of the poor; and therefore I maintain this is class legislation. Then, I say the bench of magistrates do not make sufficient allowance for mischievous acts committed by the children of poor parents. I notice that these mischievous acts are regarded in a very different spirit when committed by the children of the comfortable classes than when committed by the children of the poor. There is a tendency to make a jest of them and to laugh at them when committed by children of the comfortable classes, but not in the case of the children of the poor. Again, Clause 3 introduces, so far as I know, an entirely new principle into our criminal law— namely, to make a parent responsible for the criminal act of his child. My hon. friend has already pointed out how delicate an inquiry that opens up, and which it will be for the magistrate to undertake. I do not think that any more difficult question has been submitted to
814
the courts of summary jurisdiction since, some thirteen years ago, this House gave to them in Ireland jurisdiction in regard to alleged cases of conspiracy. Courts of summary jurisdiction are usually composed of persons who have not had even a nominal legal education, and they ought not to have imposed on them the very delicate and difficult inquiry as to whether or not a parent, from want of due control of his child, has or has not conduced to that child's criminal conduct. It is true that Sub-section 4 provides that the parent may appeal to Quarter Sessions, but everybody who has any knowledge of the subject knows that that is a mere mockery; that the poor parents could not appeal. But supposing Clause 3 is given effect to by the magistrate, what would be the result? A fine may be imposed in the first place, and that fine may be as high as £5. Now, how is the labouring man going to pay £5, or even a fifth or a tenth of £5? Therefore, in the case of the poor man the real punishment would not be a fine, but imprisonment. Though by this Bill it is professed to keep people out of prison, the effect would be to send these people to prison; and that is an object which I would not be willing to support. At the present time, if my statistics are correct, there are 75,000 persons annually sent to prison, not because they have committed any offence which, in the first instance, is deserving of imprisonment, but because they are not able to pay a fine. That is an appalling state of affairs. The effect of this Bill, I believe, will be to very materially increase the number of those persons. For these reasons, and specially because I believe it a piece of class legislation, I object to this Bill and support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mansfield.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON: I have no general criticism to make upon the Bill, but the mover of the Amendment made one suggestion from which I strongly dissent. The object of the Bill is to substitute whipping for imprisonment. We did not know this in our early days as whipping, for it used to be called swishing. The hon. Member made a suggestion that there should be in place of either imprisonment or whipping what practically moans solitary confinement upon bread and water. Now I happen to have had some experience of what happens in schools abroad, especially

815
in France, and I do wish most strongly to raise my protest against it ever being made the law of this country that children should be placed in solitary confinement either with or without bread and water. I believe that the evil of the present system is acknowledged in every part of France, although the practice continues to prevail to a considerable extent. And yet it is admitted in France that the practice of locking up children in the cachot is about the very worse system that could possibly be adopted with regard to children. That is really the only reason why I have risen to take any part in this debate. I do not wish it to go forth that anything approaching solitary confinement is a proper remedy for any child's offence whatsoever. The only other observation I should like to make upon the Bill is in regard to Section 3. This provision in Section 3 strikes me as perhaps a rather strong method, and I hope that the Home Secretary will see his way to reduce, to a certain extent, the severity of it. We must remember that it is not the Home Secretary who has framed this Bill. This measure has come down to us from the House of Lords in its present form, and although the Home Secretary must approve of its general provisions, there is no particular reason why he should approve of every word contained in it.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: But is it not a Government Bill?
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON: It is starred as a Government Bill, but I will toll the hon. Member why a star does not necessarily prove that the Government have adopted every single line of the Bill. I brought in myself a similar Bill and tried my best to get it through, but I failed owing to certain opposition which was offered to it. That Bill was starred by the Government, and it is quite clear that the starring of my measure did not necessarily indicate that it was a Government Bill. I know, as a matter of fact, that the Government do sometimes adopt Bills that come from the House of Lords without necessarily approving of every line of them. Clause 3 provides—
"If a child or young person commits any offence and it is proved that his parent or guardian has conduced thereto by neglecting, without sufficient excuse, to exercise due control over him, the parent or guardian shall be deemed to be guilty of having contributed to the commission of the offence."
816
Those are words which are a little difficult to construe, and I have very little doubt that the Home Secretary will see his way to modify them in some way so as to protect the parent or guardian a little more than they are protected in this proviso. But if I object to the wording of this clause absolutely and entirely, that would be no ground whatever for objecting to the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a purely subsidiary clause in the Bill to meet the case in which parents have been found to be more or less actually conducing to malpractices on the part of their children. We all desire to stop that, but I venture to express the opinion that this proposal goes a little too far, and will require some modification in Committee. The chief reason why I rose was simply to express my great abhorrence of the idea of ever introducing solitary confinement, whether upon bread and water or not, in cases of children's offences.
MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I feel very much surprised that the Government should introduce this measure for the punishment of youthful offenders. We should take into consideration the fact that, in the early part of this session, there was a similar measure brought in by the hon. Member for Ripon, which had for its object the punishment by whipping of boys under sixteen years of age, and that Bill was rejected by a majority of 123, and only 72 Members voted for the principle of that Bill, while 195 voted against it. Under these circumstances, one can hardly understand that the Government should introduce this measure in another place and bring it forward now to give power to the magistrates to order the whipping of boys under the age of sixteen. I regard this Bill as a very serious measure, and one which in this enlightened age should certainly not be adopted by the House of Commons. I believe that the country is anxious that the Government should bring in a great many measures to solve the social problems of the people, but I do not believe that in all the promises which were made at the last election there was a single promise made by any Cabinet Minister or by any hon. Member on the opposite side of the House that they were in favour of bringing in a measure providing that the

817
children of the working classes should be punished by whipping. The Home Secretary in the short speech he made tonight gave his reasons why this Bill should be introduced, and he said it was brought in with a view of attempting to stop the large number of children who were now sent to prison. But when we look at the criminal statistics which were published quite recently for the year 1898, we find that they do not bear out the view which has been given by the Government for the introduction of this measure. We find, I am happy to say, a very large reduction in the prison population of our country. According to the last Return, between the year 1883 and 1893 the prison population—that is, the persons imprisoned—decreased to the extent of thirty per cent. during those ten years. I think that is a very happy state of affairs, and it shows that the growth of education—although we should like to see it a much in broader sense—is having a good effect upon the population, and we have not so many crimes at the present time as we formerly had. I think that is largely due to a more humane treatment of criminals by our judges. Now let me take the class of boys who will be subject to this punishment. The Home Secretary referred to the class of boys who are sent to the reformatory schools. I find in looking through the same return of the criminal statistics that in the year 1898 there were 1,017 boys sent to reformatory schools, and out of that number there were 801 boys sent there without being imprisoned at all. Those boys were sent to the reformatory schools without suffering any imprisonment, and there were only 102 boys who suffered ten days imprisonment and under, and 112 boys who suffered one month's imprisonment and above ten days. This is a strong indication that the magistrates in these cases have adopted a more humane policy, and that when these boys have been brought before them for committing petty offences or crimes, the practice of sending them to reformatory schools instead of to prison is increasing. The fact that you had 801 boys sent to reformatory schools, who were not sent to prison before, is an indication that the magistrates did not consider the crimes they had committed were of serious import. The same return states that of the boys sent to reformatory schools for simple larceny and minor offences there
818
were 717 cases. Those who have the privilege and the right of sitting upon the magisterial bench know what these simple larcenies are. They are simply minor offences boys sometimes commit, which, as one of the speakers before me stated, in the case of boys belonging to the leading families are overlooked and not punished at all. What does this Bill mean? It means that under Section I. many of the boys who would come under the same category as the 801 who were sent to reformatory schools last year without having any imprisonment at all would be subject to be whipped, that is to say, the magistrates would have it in their power to order that these boys should be whipped. I regard this as a retrograde measure in respect that we should not in this age give power to the magistrates to order that boys should be whipped in addition to being sent to reformatory schools. We all know that boys who are sent to reformatory schools are subject in these schools to humane influences and a better class of education than they have been accustomed to. Many of these boys come out bright and intelligent, and become useful citizens of the country. You propose in this Bill first of all to give power to the magistrates to order a child to receive six strokes with a birch rod, and you also give power to increase the number to twelve and up to eighteen strokes. I ask any member of this House, are we anxious that our children should be whipped in this way? There is no question that the working classes are more sensitive upon than the whipping of their children. If their children are whipped in the Board Schools they resent it. The proposal to give power in this measure that a constable should whip these children, and that the parents should have the right to go and witness the punishment of their own children, is a step which no House of Commons in this part of the century should pass. By Clause 3 of the Bill it is proposed to give a new power. I quite agree with the hon. Member for South-west Bethnal Green when he stated that this measure will have a tendency in a great many cases to cause a large number of parents to be sent to prison for crimes they are practically not responsible for. Under these circumstances, as has been already pointed out, you create the new offence that where it has been proved that a parent or guardian conduces by the neglect of his child to

819
the child committing a crime he is to be subject to a fine of £5 by the court for this neglect. If you gave this power to magistrates it would simply mean that the magistrate would inquire into the past conduct of parents towards their children. In many cases they would bring prejudice to bear, and parents very often would be punished without having been guilty of any crime whatever. We all know that, under the Act dealing with cruelty to children, we have already great powers, and many parents are brought up for neglect. I think there is ample power under that Act, when put in operation, to punish any parents or guardians who have neglected their children. To give them this power to inquire into the conduct of parents because a boy steals apples or commits any other small crime would certainly cause very great hardship to a great many parents. I also agree with the views expressed by the hon. Member for South-west Bethnal Green in reference to the clause giving power to parents to appeal to quarter sessions. We know quite well that now we have a large number of cases where poor men or women have a right to appeal against the judgment of a lower court, but in the vast majority of these cases no appeal is taken. They pay the fine or suffer the imprisonment, because they cannot undertake the cost of going to quarter sessions. I regard this protection of giving them the right of appeal as very delusive. I do appeal to the Home Secretary. We regard him as a very humane man, but I cannot understand his action now, looking to the speech which he recently delivered on the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Ripon when there was a similar proposal made for flogging or corporal punishment of boys under sixteen. He stoutly opposed that measure, and it was defeated by a very large majority. I hope the House to-night, without distinction of party, although the measure has been brought in by the Government, will vote against the second reading, and place upon record the fact that the House will not tolerate such measures, introduced by any hon. Member.
MR. MOSS: Unless we get a promise from the Home Secretary that the first clause will be eliminated, in other words, that whipping will not be part of the Bill, I shall support the Amendment of the hon. Member. I
820
object to the principle it introduces. It is a retrograde measure. The history of the criminal law of this country during the whole of the century has been a history of the application of the principle of the humane treatment of offenders. I am not going into all the statistics now, but the application of more humane principles to the treatment of offenders has in no way tended to increase crime. Apart from the fact that the Bill introduces a principle which, in my opinion, is retrograde, I object to the whole scope of the Bill as contained in, the first clause. The Bill proposes to give power to magistrates to order the whipping of youthful offenders for any offence under homicide. Not only so, but the first clause creates a most extraordinary kind of case. There is no power now, even in the High Court, or the county court, or the court of summary jurisdiction, to imprison for non-payment of damages, but it is proposed by this Bill to enable magistrates to order a child to be whipped because his father is too poor to pay if his son happens to break a window, if the window is valued at £5. If the magistrate imposes a fine of 5s.—and we know that many men can ill afford to maintain families, apart from paying costs for the offences their children may commit—and if any person is unable to pay the fine, the magistrate may order the child to be whipped. Look how this would work out. There are two children—one the son of a poor man and the other the son of a wealthy man. These two lads go into the streets and throw stones and break windows. They are brought up before the magistrates, and fined 5s. and costs. In one case the fine is paid, and the boy gets off' scot free; in the other case the fine is not paid, and the boy is whipped in prison by a prison official. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the effect of this clause, which gives the magistrate power to order flogging or whipping for the non - payment of a fine and costs and damages. It does seem to me an extraordinary innovation in our criminal system that the magistrates should be empowered to deal with youthful offenders in the way this Bill provides. There is another objection to the Bill, and that is one which has already boon mentioned—the inequality and the uncertainty of its effect. It is impossible

821
to conceive the enormous gap there is between flogging, or whipping as it is called, a sensitive child, and whipping a child who may not care very much after the first infliction of pain has gone by. Men who have families know that even in the same families there may be children, one of whom you would not under any circumstances speak harshly to because the child is so sensitive that the effect might be injurious, while there may be others who would stand a deal of birching without suffering in any way from it. The natures of the children are so totally different that a whipping in one case might be almost fatal, while in the other case it might have a good effect. Does the right hon. Gentleman know what happens in cases brought before the High Court judges? It is impossible not to notice the inequalities in the course taken by judges in cases where flogging is allowed. If trained lawyers, men accustomed to the Criminal Courts all their lives, commit these inequalities, what are yon going to say about magistrates who have no legal training or legal experience? I say that the inequality which would be the result of this first clause would be sufficient to justify me in voting for the Amendment. I hope that before the Amendment goes to a division the Home Secretary will give the House an assurance as to the way this first clause will be dealt with.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: If you get a group of lads who commit the same offence punishable by fine or imprisonment, or, if the lads are under 14, by flogging, is it preferable to send the boys to prison or to fine them, in which case the parents pay the fines? In cases where the fine is paid no doubt the boy receives the correction of the birch at home, while the castigation by the constable, which takes place in the presence of the parent, generally gives dissatisfaction on the ground that it is not administered with greater severity. Which boy suffers most—the boy who is flogged on the spot, or the boy whose fine is paid and who accompanies his parent home to suffer by flogging or otherwise when he gets to his domestic hearth? The truth is that this is really the most humane and satisfactory mode of treating the young offender. Any one who has to administer justice in the neighbourhood of towns knows that the magistrates have to
822
deal with groups of boys who, if not pulled up in time, might become members of the criminal class. You can deal with such cases most effectively by punishing the ringleader and letting off the minor members of the group. In that way you probably sent him back to live a respectable life. If a parent is fined, and the boy is simply talked to in a serious tone by the magistrate, I am afraid the results will not be perfectly satisfactory in instilling the necessary terror of the criminal law into the boy, who would then go on in his evil course and would find his character gone, and his chance of earning a respectable livelihood would be seriously diminished. I do hope the House will not be misled by those false notions, of humanity which have been uttered by hon. Members. Flogging is a form of corrective which a boy does not forget, but it has not any effect in diminishing the self respect of the individual. As to the diagnosis of the sensitive child, I am afraid it would require an amount of inspection which the most energetic Home Secretary could hardly hope to administer. Really the argument against flogging, in these cases of youthful offenders proceeds from a wholly mistaken kindness; it is likely to result in domestic disturbance at home, and in the possible-permanent degradation of the lads who. are sent to prison or allowed to continue in evil courses. This Bill really will assist in the administration of local justice which I cannot help thinking is administered with greater knowledge and discretion on the part of magistrates than the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down gives them credit for.
SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I have heard with astonishment the reactionary speech of the hon. Baronet, whom I regard as an eminent and enlightened man. I do not know whether, in the variety of his pursuits, he has had to deal with very young children. I have had some experience in that way, and I am perfectly satisfied that the infliction of the rod by a con stable, under the eye of an inspector, would be much more likely to degrade and demoralise for the rest of his life a child who was worth anything, or had any hope or promise of redemption in this world, than the infliction of punishment by either of his parents. I think it shows some ignorance, if I may be

823
permitted to say so with all respect, of children's nature to put forward such an argument. I cannot help observing that this Bill, which is brought down from the other House, is an illustration of how legislation is done for Ireland in the present Parliament. A few minutes ago there was not a single Member from Ireland in the House except myself, though now I am happy to see the Chief Secretary, the secretary of the Local Government Board, and other Members are present; yet this Bill deals with Ireland and creates new offences applicable to Ireland which is supposed to have statute-made offences enough already. I cannot help thinking that this case illustrates the disadvantage Irish Members are at when Bills of a not altogether Irish character, like some of the Bills in the orders of the day, with insidious sections applying to Ireland, are, as it were, sprung upon the House. Were it not that by chance some Irish Member happened to be present the Bill would probably pass without observation. I confess I am one of those who think that whipping should only be adopted in the last resort. I disapprove altogether of many of the sections of this Bill. There was an Act of Parliament passed in 1879 which limited the power of whipping to six strokes. I think the Government might have been satisfied with that Act. We are not now in a position to repeal that Act. I question whether if now brought forward it would pass, having regard to what happened with respect to the Private Bill lately brought forward by a right hon. Member opposite. It was rejected at an early stage of the session by a large majority. This Bill would enable every petty sessions in the very remotest corners of the three kingdoms to inflict the punishment of whipping. These courts are not exposed to the strong light of public opinion, and things might be done there which would escape public notice. In that way irreparable injury and injustice might be inflicted on a poor boy for a trifling offence. The very speech we have heard illustrates how some men's minds are constituted. Some magistrates entertain the same opinions which I am sure the hon. Member for Oxford University honestly entertains. If a child were brought before him there could be no possible doubt he would
824
inflict the rod without the slightest compunction, and to the utmost extent to which the law enabled him. Temperaments vary very much. In the eyes of some, to steal a rabbit or shoot a pheasant would be worse almost than shooting a man. Men vary according to their idiosyncrasies and education, and we cannot expect human nature, even in magistrates, to be quite perfect. The hon. baronet is probably a metaphysician, but he must know how one gets hardened if you are in the habit of perpetually flogging boys.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: May I inform the hon. Member that I am neither a metaphysician, nor am I in the habit of flogging boys?
MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I thought the hon. Member was a master of all sciences. But undoubtedly a constable would have a very different feeling in regard to inflicting the birch or rod, or whatever instrument it might be, from a father or an affectionate mother, while to say that a father would rather the child was flogged than fined says very little for the general humanity of the English people. As far as the Irish people are concerned, I repudiate any such argument altogether. The punishment of flogging is repugnant to the Irish nature and to the feelings of the Irish people, and it is preposterous that this Bill should be sprung upon us with an elaborate provision for its being applied to Ireland, the Chief Secretary being substituted for the Secretary of State in the exercise of the functions there in imposed. I do not know how far the fact of this Bill being applicable to Ireland was brought before the House of Lords, but I think if it had been properly appreciated the Bill would never have passed its Second Reading, and I trust it will yet be withdrawn. There is a still more preposterous provision which is quite a novelty in law. The Bill actually enables you to flog a boy because the parent is either unable or unwilling to pay a fine. That, indeed, is restoring the old whipping-boy theory. There is no precedent for such an idea, and it is a law which would excite the utmost indignation in Ireland. Then the third section says, that if a young person commits any offence, and it is proved that the parent or guardian has conduced thereto by neglecting, without sufficient cause, to exercise due control over him,

825
the parent or guardian should be deemed to be guilty of contributing to the commission of the offence. Therefore, according to the view of the hon. Member for the University, if it was proved to the magistrate that the parent had not thrashed the boy every day of the week before breakfast, he might be said to have conduced to the offence. Negligence is a very broad term. It would enable a hard-hearted stern magistrate to strain the law in such a way that there would be a perpetual conflict between the subject and the administrators of the law, and the evils we already suffer from in Ireland would be aggravated to a ten-fold degree without any advantage whatsoever ensuing. A new crime is created by this section, and I challenge the Secretary of State to show in the Statute Book any precedent for such a section or clause. I do not think that this is a Bill which under any circumstances can ever be—if I may use a vulgar expression—licked into any sort of reasonable shape, and I appeal to every man who has sympathy with children, who knows how they differ in temperament and disposition, to follow the precedent set earlier in the session and reject this Bill, which is an altogether cruel and inhuman measure.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. and learned Member who has just spoken has, in the course of his speech, explained many things. He has said that the Irish people have an unconquerable aversion to being whipped as children. That entirely explains to me the attitude and conduct—the energy, I would call it—of the Members opposite who come from Ireland. I think if they had been whipped in their childhood, they would probably have been much more agreeable to us. [An Irish MEMBER: I think you were neglected, too.] I have no unconquerable aversion to whipping as a form of punishment. What are the other forms of punishment? Imprisonment, companionship with people already convicted of crime, and who are likely very much to deteriorate the moral tone of a boy who is forced to associate with them, and all the deteriorating effects of a prison. To my mind, a short and simple whipping is much superior to that. Instead of trying to restrict the number of persons to whom whipping could be administered, I think it would be an advantage to have
826
it extended. I can conceive many cases in which a couple of dozen would be a far more adequate and effective punishment than that now inflicted by custom or law. In fact, this is rather an indulgent measure. Consider what it does. A boy of sixteen is accused of attempting to murder or of high treason—for the Bill includes all offences of which the law is cognisant. The law will not try him unless it believes he is capable of understanding the offence of which he is accused. The law at present inflicts the utmost punishment upon that boy. This Bill proposes to substitute for that very serious and possibly fatal punishment a whipping with a birch-rod, and eighteen strokes is the limit. That is the very reverse of cruel. With regard to graver offences, at any rate, it is a very merciful change in the law. It might be an advantage if it applied, say, to political offences. I think that a couple of dozen would sometimes be better than permanent exclusion from office.
SERJEANT HEMPHILL: What is a political offence—an indictable political offence?
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Oh! I am not a learned Member of this House, and therefore I will not attempt to go even so. far as a definition. I leave that to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I say there is an absolute strain of mercy passing through this Bill. It proposes to substitute for imprisonment or hanging the mild punishment of whipping, leaving it open to the boy to return to society without any serious deterioration, except in a cuticle form. But I do look with a certain amount of distrust upon Clauses 3 and 4. Clause 3 puts upon the parent a responsibility which should not be imposed upon him. The young person has been tried for an offence; it has been proved, to the satisfaction of the court, that he is a responsible person, that he adequately and fully knows the nature of the offence he was committing; consequently, the whole and full responsibility lies upon him. Therefore, it cannot lie upon the parent. But by Clause 3 you bring in the parent whom you have incidentally acquitted, and pretend to convict him of some contributory action in regard to the crime. That is a contradiction. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that by the laws we have passed with respect to education we have to a large extent taken the re-

827
sponsibility of the education and training of the children out of the hands of the parents. We have ordained that the children shall be sent to such and such schools, and we have taken very large securities for the moral training being given in those schools which alone can be given in connection with religious teaching. To that extent you have taken away from the parent the possibility of control he formerly had over his children, and instead of imposing a further responsibility you should rather relieve him of some of the responsibility he has at present. The clause sets up a sort of amateur gaoler. Where are you going to get him Is it to be the parent, who perhaps has been guilty of conducing to the offence? Surely not. If not, whom is he to be, and how will he be provided; with all the means and appliances that are required in a gaol? That is a dangerous position, and, with Clause 3, wants very serious amendment. But with regard to the substitution of whip- ping for the more serious punishment, it does seem to me that the measure is rather merciful than the reverse.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I confess I have had three disappointments in this debate. My first disappointment was with the hon. Member for King's Lynn. One of my first experiences years ago was to meet the hon. Gentleman when he was enjoying all the luxuries of a horse while I was engaged in the humbler exercise of the bicycle. My hon. friend, if it is not too personal a remark, used to be accompanied by his children. I would like to ask him whether in his private life, in his capacity as father, he exercised this doctrine of whipping with regard to these three charming children?
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: They were always good children.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I put this to the House, and it is a question we ought to consider: Shall we apply to the children of other parents a discipline we would not apply to our own? My second disappointment was with regard to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, when he introduced this Bill. I confess I simply looked at the title in the Orders, and did not pay very much attention to what the right hon. Gentleman was saying, because, knowing what a perfectly straightforward and honour-
828
able English gentleman he is, I took it for granted the Bill meant exactly what it said. Therefore, when I knew he was introducing a Youthful Offenders Bill, I, in the innocence of my heart, thought he was introducing a Bill for the purpose of levelling up the legislation of this country—which, so far as humanity is concerned, is nearly always behind—to the legislation of other countries. My third and greatest disappointment was in the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford University. We all have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, not merely because of his own high personal character and great attainments, but also because he is the representative of one of the great institutions of the country. I looked at the speech of the hon. Gentleman as throwing light upon one of the most important of all questions, namely, the mind and the psychology—if I may use that phrase—of the child, and the manner in which the education of the child should be conducted. I found the hon. Gentleman had no other solution to offer to the House with regard to the treatment of the child than methods which I supposed were dead and buried fifty years ago. What does this Bill propose to do? It has been represented by the hon. Member for King's Lynn that he would apply to the children of the poor — for it is with the children of the poor we are dealing —methods he would not dare to apply to his own children. This is a Bill for altering and almost revolutionising— and certainly degrading—the law of this country. It proposes to introduce whipping for children, and the defence of my hon. friend is that whipping is a less punishment than other punishments which might be inflicted. But is there no alternative? The advocates of this Bill have gone on the line that you have to choose between two things, that you must either have the child whipped by a constable or you must send him to gaol. But you need do neither the one nor the other. Even under the existing law of England you need not send the child to gaol, and under the law of Germany no child under sixteen years of age is ever sent to gaol for the first offence. The child gets a serious warning; the offence is recorded against him, and in time may be brought against him, but the humane! law of that country and of this country

829
comes to the reasonable conviction that a child of that age may not realise the meaning of what it is doing, and therefore, in order to save the whole of the life of the child from the stigma of imprisonment, he gets the opportunity of retrieving his character and of acting a better part when his reason is more mature. My hon. and learned friend who took part in the earlier part of this debate used an argument which has not been answered. I was astounded to hear the hon. Member for Oxford University throw scorn upon that argument, which was that a whipping meant one thing to one child, but quite a different thing to another child. It was said that the Homo Secretary could not make distinctions between one child and another, and that it would be throwing too much work upon the right hon. Gentleman. I would trust a great deal to the present Home Secretary, because I know he is a humane and an enlightened man, although this is an inhuman and a retrograde measure for which he makes himself responsible. But the cases do not come before the Home Secretary. The Bill proposes to give this discretion not to the Home Secretary, but to every magistrate in the country, learned or unlearned, merciful or merciless—or perhaps the proper expression would be, wanting in intelligence and sympathy rather than wanting in heart, not having the power of realising or knowing the mind and character of the child. The mind of a child is a very difficult and complex subject. I suppose the hon. Member for Oxford University is acquainted with the works of Herbert Spencer, and he will doubtless remember a most striking passage in one of his works, in which a child is described as going on a railway journey with its mother. The mother has seen everything before; the child, whose senses and mind are just awakening, finds everything around it novel and interesting, the result being that the child is always asking questions which seem to the parent—especially if she be an unenlightened parent—either embarrassing or absurd. A great many of the offences of childhood are the offences of ignorance; very often they are not offences at all, but a something done in ignorance, and very often are due to ignorance or want of understanding on the part of the parent. But now comes the Home Secretary, backed by the hon. Member for one of the greatest educa-
830
tional establishments in the country, and his answer to all these difficult and complex problems of the mind and disposition of a child is in those words—words which I say are shameful. The court may adjudge that the child—
"Be privately whipped with a birch-rod, and thereupon he shall be whipped accordingly by a constable in the presence of an inspector or other officer of police, and also, if the parent or guardian desire to be present, of that parent or guardian."
Twenty-five years hence the words of this Bill—for it is only a Bill, and will never become an Act if the Members of this House of humane and intelligent views do their duty—will be looked upon as a proof of the comparative savagery in which we live in these days. The hon. Member for Oxford University says the objection of the parent may be that the constable would not punish sufficiently. That is a strange argument, and it is backed up by my hon. friend who has never applied corporal punishment to his own children. What parent in this House will get up and say that he regards corporal punishment for his own children as a good thing? I know of no decent home in which it exists, and I believe there are very few public schools of an enlightened character where it is still allowed. There are none in Ireland that I am aware of, and I do not believe that any magistrate in Ireland would dare to carry out such a measure as this. I will turn to the other clauses in this extraordinary Bill brought in by the Home Secretary as a measure of alleviation. It is provided that if a child or young person commits any offence, audit is proved that the parent or guardian has conduced thereto by neglecting without sufficient excuse to exercise due control, the parent or guardian shall be liable to a fine. The Bill cannot even be consistent. There is no "sufficient excuse" for neglecting a child. In London we know that a Bill like that would be very carefully watched if passed into law. The question is not how the measure will be carried into operation in the midst of an enlightened metropolis carefully watched by public opinion, but how it will be used for class interests in country districts. If this Bill were to be administered by enlightened magistrates in an enlightened community and under the supervision of a vigilant press, even then I should object to it, but my objection would be much less. We know that where this Bill will be abused will be in

831
the country districts. I hope opposition to this Bill will not be confined to these benches alone, but that hon. Members on the opposite side will be found ready to support this view. We know that a Bill of this kind is more dangerous in the country districts. I call this a class Bill, and I challenge contradiction. [An HON. MEMBER: NO, no.] Some hon. Gentleman says it is not a class Bill.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Certainly not.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Then I will read the section which provides that the court may—
"In lieu of committing him to prison for non-payment of any fine, costs, or damages, adjudge that he be privately whipped with a birch rod."
A wealthy parent can pay any fine, costs, or damages, and therefore the question whether a child shall be whipped or not depends upon the ability and willingness of the child's parents to pay the fine.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The hon. Member has not quoted all the words.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The words are—
"Where a child or young person, being a male, is convicted either on indictment or summarily of any offence other than homicide, the Court may, in lieu of sentencing him to penal servitude or imprisonment, or instead of committing him to prison for nonpayment of any fine, costs, or damages."
I do not see that that alters my argument or my statement. I say that where a parent can pay the fine the child is saved from whipping, and a parent who cannot pay the fine cannot save the child from being whipped. Therefore, I think I prove my statement that whether the child be whipped or not depends on whether the parent of the child is willing to pay the fine or not. This is the very worst form of class legislation which is being brought forward by the Home Secretary under the guise of a Bill for alleviating the punishment of children. With regard to the responsibility of parents, there again I would not object if I knew the law was going to be exercised by enlightened magistrates, with an enlightened and watchful public opinion to safeguard it; but a law like this, placed in the hands of a magistrate with strong class and social personal prejudices might be used with serious and terrible
832
consequences. Now I come to the fourth clause, which provides—
"A court of summary jurisdiction, on remanding or committing for trial any child or young person, may, instead of committing him to prison, make an order that he be placed in the custody of any fit person named in the order who is willing to receive him, and be detained in that custody for the period for which he has been remanded."
I will not say that that is meant to-encourage baby farming, because I do not suppose that that is the object of the clause. But what I do say is, how are we to know what kind of a person this is to whom you entrust these children? In Texas the punishment is inflicted that prisoners should be hired out to certain employers, with the result that a horrible system of oppression has been the result. This very day I was reading very hurriedly the biography of a man whose name is on the lips of every Englishman to-day—I mean the gallant defender of Mafeking, and I find that his biography brings out the fact that his splendid mother was largely accountable for the greatness of the son, for she made it a rule never to inflict corporal punishment. I was also reading a biography of Napoleon I., and I find that his mother made corporal punishment the very gospel of the whole family, and I traced the very different careers of these two great men. (Laughter.) I do not know why hon. Members laugh, but I presume that they would be the first to admit that their mothers had a great deal of influence upon their character. That was the inference I was drawing. If you treat a child in this brutal manner in its childhood you create a brutal nature, but if you lay a good foundation in other ways it will not only be effectual in the case of the child itself but it will spread kindness and enlightenment everywhere.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion): It seems to me that we have a mistaken theory of what the object of this Bill really is. If my hon. friend who has just spoken will show me any method by which whipping can be avoided without imprisonment I should be very glad to support him. This proposal is put forward as the only alternative to imprisonment. Much as I dislike whipping, I dislike sending a child to prison even more, and it is only in a case where the child would otherwise be sent to prison that the magistrate is authorised to inflict whipping. My hon. friend says

833
that the rich man's child gets clear because he can afford to pay the fine, whereas the poor man's child gets flogged. But what is the alternative? Why, that the rich man's child still gets oft' under the present law, but the poor man's child goes to prison. Suppose two children commit the same offence, and one is the child of a wealthy parent, and the other the child of a poor parent. The wealthy father pays the fine and the other does not. If this Bill is not passed then the poor child goes to gaol. My point is that this Bill enables that child to be whipped with five or six strokes of the birch-rod instead of being sent to gaol. I would prefer a child to have eighteen strokes with a birch-rod rather than send him to gaol for even twenty-four hours. That being; so I am in favour of this Bill. Reference has been made to the case of the sensitive boy. I agree that there is a difference, and perhaps it is difficult for the magistrate to decide, but does not the same difference come in is the case of imprisonment? Suppose this Bill is passed, and a parent satisfies the magistrate that the particular child convicted is a very sensitive child. My opinion is that the more sensitive the child the more terrible would imprisonment be, and that child would think less of whipping. This Bill is more important in the case of delicate, sensitive, and nervous children than of any other, because, in all cases, as I said before, the alternative that is avoided by this Bill is imprison- merit. My hon. friend referred to the letting of a child off in the case of a first offence. But magistrates almost invariably do that now. I have never known a case where the magistrate did not always let off a boy on the first offence. But what would my hon. friend do in the case of a second offence ' Would he say that the magistrate must send him to gaol, and that there is no other alternative? Speaking as a magistrate, I should shrink from sending a second offender to gaol, because perhaps the boy has misused the leniency of the magistrate on a previous occasion, and because the boy has been led to believe that the magistrate would be equally lenient a second time. I would shrink from sending him to gaol when he might be punished by half a dozen strokes with the birch rod. Objection has been taken to Clause 4, but what does that mean? It means that where a child is remanded, instead of being re-
834
manded to gaol, the child may be taken care of by somebody else, possibly by the wife of the inspector of police, some relative, or perhaps some philanthropic person. I say again that the alternative of being remanded to a private house is much better than being remanded to a gaol. Still the power of remanding to the gaol remains. Reference has been made to unintelligent and cruel magistrates, but I would remind the hon. Member that these magistrates have the power without this Bill of sending those children to prison. What you do with the present law is that you fetter the hands of the kind-hearted magistrate and the intelligent magistrate, and the magistrate who desires to alleviate the child's punishment as much as possible. Under these circumstances I feel that I must support this Bill. My hon. friend has contrasted the punishment under this Bill with the punishment inflicted in former years, and he has made reference to people who do not punish their children in their own homes as if that was an analogous case. I venture to say that there is not a man here who would not prefer to have his own child whipped in his own presence in preference to being sent to gaol.
MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, N.): The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool has stated that this is a cruel Bill and a hardship to children. I venture to say that it is just the reverse, and that if it is passed it will be clearly in the interest of the children. Instead of sending these children to gaol, and making them hardened criminals, it offers the alternative of whipping, and thus prevents these children being sent to gaol and being mixed up with other criminals and hardening them until they become criminals as well. Surely it would be better to give them a good birching. At the present time the sons of the upper classes—oven Dukes' sons— are birched, and why should not other people and the children of other classes be birched? The hon. Gentleman went on to say that this Bill would be very harshly administered in the country districts. And why? Are the children worse there than in the towns? I venture to say that the children in the country districts are better brought up and do not commit such offences as the children in the towns do. Who is it that puts obstructions on

835
a railway line, and stands on the rail- way bridges outside large towns and throws empty bottles and stones at the engine-drivers as the trains go by? I heard of a case of one of these stones thrown from the bridge just outside London which hit the engine - driver and knocked him down, and he is in the hospital at the present time. Such children are brought up before the magistrate. If fines are imposed, generally the parents or the friends of the boy pay them, and the children get oft' scot free. How are you to make any impression upon such children? You must inflict some punishment upon them, and if you are to punish them at all it is very much bettor to birch the child than send him to prison. The Act says that the child—
"Shall be whipped accordingly by a constable in the presence of an inspector or other officer of police."
It has been said during the course of this debate that children are of a very different temperament, and flogging may have little effect on one child, while it might very seriously injure a nervous child. Therefore, I think that instead of being flogged in the presence of an inspector, the medical officer or the divisional surgeon of police would be letter able to tell whether a child can stand flogging or not. I hope the alteration I have suggested will be made in the Bill. I intend supporting this Bill, because I thirds it is a much more humane thing to give a child birching—which all boys have had more or less, instead of imprisonment, for many centuries, and which has made the British boy what he is —it is bettor and less degrading to birch a boy than send him to prison to mix with other classes of criminals. I hope my right hon. friend will adhere to this Bill, which, with the slight alteration I have suggested in Clause 1, I hope will be passed into law.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: I have had some experience in connection with existing law for inflicting punishment of the kind which the Government propose to extend. In the first place, I think that any attempt to put upon the statute book a Bill which would make flogging a more common method of treating young persons before our police courts is a very inhuman step. We talk about whipping as a very effective
836
method of checking crime, and all of us who have been at public schools have experienced the effects of caning- Birching, as applied to these unfortunate children, is very different from caning, for it is an inhuman practice of the grossest kind. I will give the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman who are doubtful about it a case which is on the records of Parliament. When I was elected in the year 1887 for Ilkeston, my attention was called in my own constituency to a case which I brought before this House, and which a former Home Secretary inquired into. This Minister himself introduced a flogging Bill, which I am glad to say we were able to drive out. In the case to which I refer there was a boy seven years of age accused of stealing a watch. He was brought before the magistrates, who, under a somewhat mistaken view of giving him a milder form of punishment, said they would not send the boy to prison, but ordered him to receive four strokes with the birch rod. That was a comparatively mild sentence. I saw the boy two or three days after the infliction of this punishment, and his little back was covered with wounds which extended right through the skin to the muscles, and not only was his back a mass of rawness, but the wounds had come round to the front of the abdomen, and they had cut down to the muscles on the front of his frame. If that kind of thing is to happen in this country, I say that any Bill which supports it is an inhuman Bill. After I saw that case and brought it before this House, and saw the boy afterwards, I determined on every occasion to oppose this system of flogging children. I hope we shall have strong opposition to this Bill as regards the flogging of unfortunate children. In the year 1891 there was a Bill introduced for the purpose of flogging children, and it made a most opportune election card for the Liberal party. [Ministerial cheers.] Hon. Members may cheer, but when they go to their constituencies and speak to people in the agricultural districts, and consider with them how small offences under the game laws would be treated under this proposal, administered by those whose sympathies are rather with the game than with the children, they will be forced to oppose such legislation unless they wish to have plenty of raw and scarred backs in every

837
village in England. I object to that as demoralising alike to the people who inflict the punishment and to those who receive it. This is a method of the dark ages, and we ought to be able to do now without inflicting this kind of physical torture. We ought to be able to manage our affairs without having to resort to such punishment. There is hardly a school board where the managers would not look askance and get rid of a master who could not maintain discipline in his school without inflicting corporal punishment. If a schoolmaster cannot manage children without corporal punishment he is regarded as not fit for his post. On that account I shall oppose this Bill as a retrograde step in the legislation of this country. We have already upon the Statute Book sufficient powers for the flogging of young persons, and we do not want greater powers in that direction. In other respects it is not so bad a Rill as hon. Members have made out. I have a great desire that children should not be sent to prison, but under an Act passed last year we can send them to reformatories, and magistrates can meet the difficulty by applying the Act which was passed last year. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham first came into this House he made his reputation here by resisting flogging as applied to the military service of this country, and he did very splendid work in opposing the flogging of our soldiers. In Birmingham at the present time they do not send young persons to prison, and for years past the efforts of the magistrates have been directed towards avoiding the sending of young persons to gaol. There are other ways in which you can deal with young offenders, and as far as this Bill is concerned in dealing with children by sending them to industrial schools and reformatories and giving greater powers in that respect I think the Bill is a good one. But when you put in the forefront of this Bill this flogging clause, then it will be certain to receive most determined opposition from everyone who has the interests of the people at heart, because this Bill will affect the poor more than the rich, and we therefore ought to resist it as a measure of class legislation. In some respects the Bill is a good one, and if the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of it would give us an assurance that he will do away with the first clause we should be leas inclined to
838
resist it. But if he insists on carrying this Bill with the first clause, I must say that I myself and, I believe, many hon. Gentlemen behind me, will feel bound to offer all the resistance we can to a measure which we consider both retrograde and inhuman.
MR. VIGARY GIBBS: I can at any rate guarantee to the Home Secretary that he will have the most cordial and hearty support of many Members on this side of the House for this Bill. I understood the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken to say that he had experience of caning. I can give evidence on the point also, because as a schoolboy I have had experience of both caning and birching. I have been caned at a private school and flogged at a public school, and all I can say is that if I had not gone through either unpleasant operation I should have infinitely preferred to have been birched rather than have to undergo the degradation of prison. An hon. and learned Member opposite said, most courageously, having regard to his position, that this is a case of alternatives. These children commit crimes. They have got to be punished and deterred, and how is it to be done in the best interests of the child? Is there a single father in this House who, if his child committed a crime, would not rather that the child should be birched than sent to prison? If there is, a more injudicious parent does not exist. There is no degradation in punishment; the degradation is in doing wrong. When boys steal or break into houses, then they degrade themselves; not when they are whipped or flogged for it, and it is nothing more than cant to talk about the degradation of whipping. The hon. Member also talked about this being a retrograde Bill. I do not care whether it is retrograde or not if it is an improvement. I have not the immense conceit to suppose that we are superior in every respect to our forefathers. We are advancing, I hope, in the main, but it is quite possible to make mistakes, and why should we not correct them? Why should we be afraid to be retrograde if we are improving? [Cheers.] I do not mind the cheers of hon. Members opposite in the least; they think that wisdom is bound up with them and will die with them, but they will soon find out that they are wrong. An hon. and learned Member near me reminds me of a case in

839
which a number of boys broke into a house with loaded revolvers and stole £300, and he himself had to deal with them. No doubt the elder boys deserved imprisonment, but what about the younger boys who had been led away? Why should they be branded with the mark —[An HON. MEMBER: Of the birch?]— Oh no, I have been branded with that myself and I do not consider it in the least a disgrace; but why should these young boys be branded with the stigma of having been in prison? That is indeed a cruel thing, and it can be avoided by this sensible and humane measure. Hon. Members talk of this Bill as a question of class legislation. That is perfectly ridiculous. It is admitted on all hands that the sons of the richer classes are subjected to corporal punishment in their schools, and why should it be any degradation to the sons of the poorer classes to be subjected to the same treatment? To talk of this Bill as affecting the country districts principally is to show a complete ignorance of the situation. Juvenile offenders, as a class, do not exist in the country districts at all. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman opposite to try and frighten us with an electioneering bogie. I do not mind if he sends out posters when I am engaged in a contested election. I will not alter my course in the least through any such contemptible methods as are suggested to us as a means of influencing our votes. We have got to do our duty here, and hon. Gentlemen may, at least, give mo credit for honestly and sincerely opposing them with reference to this Bill. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool ridiculed Clause 3, and asked how could there be any "sufficient excuse" for neglect, but it seems to me that ill-health would be a sufficient excuse. Surely that stands to reason and common sense. We have got to choose between sending these boys to prison and stamping them for life with a brand which will never be effaced, or else stamping them with a brand which they will get over very easily, as I have had to get over it.
MR. BROADHURST: The hon. Member for the Basingstoke Division has stated that he will move an Amendment when the Bill is in Committee to substitute a surgeon for the police inspector as a witness of the birching. No self-respecting surgeon in the
840
country can ever be hired for any such purpose as to see a poor child stripped and whipped for an offence which if committed by a child in another class of society would be merely regarded as childish play.
MR. JEFFREYS: May I say that in cases of flogging in prisons a surgeon is always present?
MR. BROADHURST: Flogging an adult in prison is a very different thing to flogging the tender flesh of the young children of the poor. Greater nonsense cannot be imagined than that which has been talked by the hon. Member for St. Albans just now. He seems to wish us to believe that he was proud of his caning and his birching. But whenever flogging in schools takes place it is administered by an educated person and under circumstances which carry no disgrace with it when the boy who was punished leaves school. That is the difference between flogging at school and flogging at a police court by a constable, or even a superior police officer. I have sat for more than ten years in the discharge of my duty as a magistrate, and so far as my experience has gone there is no difficulty in effectively dealing with young offenders without going to the extreme either of sending them to prison or of inflicting corporal punishment on them. We have never had, so far as my memory carries me, a single one of these youthful offenders before us a second time, and I do not remember a single case in which a youthful offender was sent to prison. The hon. Member for the Basingstoke Division stated that serious offences by youthful offenders are less frequent in rural districts than in urban districts. That I believe is perfectly correct, but his argument went on to show, as far as I understood it, that most of these offences are committed in big cities. Why is that? If the homes of these offenders were discovered they would probably be found to be very poor and overcrowded, and how can you expect proper control and moral training in the case of children who are living half a dozen in a room, and often sleeping in a room with adults of both sexes. That may easily account in large measure for these serious offences being located in crowded centres. I object to the Bill altogether. I am not a lawyer, but I have some elementary knowledge of the criminal law. As I understand it, Clause

841
3 creates a new criminal offence altogether. I am really somewhat surprised at the introduction of a clause of this kind into a Bill so innocent, and coming from the quarter it does. Parents and guardians are to be made co-offenders with the children if they have not exercised sufficient and due control over them. Who is to judge whether they have exercised sufficient control? How are we to arrive at that knowledge? Then, in the next place, what is "due control," and who is going to define it? We should have to call upon the most experienced criminal lawyers to interpret that phrase. Parents and guardians, if they have not exercised due control, have to be placed in the dock with the children, and dealt with at the same time, and they are to be liable to pay a fine not exceeding £5 and the costs of the proceedings against the young person. I would ask whether the payment of the costs is in addition to the fine of £5. The costs may run up to three or four pounds, and if the parents or guardians are to be made liable to pay them there is scarcely any limit to the costs which a magistrate's clerk might pile up in order to punish the parents and guardians of the children. Perhaps the Home Secretary may in his reply before the discussion concludes, if it does conclude to-night, be able to give some further information in regard to that sub-section. Clause 4 appears to me to be a most serious one. Under it an accused child may be sent into the custody of some person of whom it knows nothing, and may be detained as a prisoner, and if he is escaping, or thought to be escaping, he may be run down by the police without summons or warrant, captured, and restored to his place of keeping, very much like a runaway slave. That is a most ominous clause. It seems to bring into British law the apprenticeship system known in South Africa and other parts of the world. I would require a great deal of assurance on these points before I agreed to that clause. It must be amended so as to define more clearly by what persons and under what circumstances these children may be detained. Who is to decide what is a "fit person"? A "fit person" might be some taskmaster or task-mistress who had some menial work which he or she wanted done, probably without any remuneration. I look upon Clause 4 with the gravest suspicion, and I sincerely hope that it will never become law. The right hon.
842
Gentleman in charge of this Bill is a humane Minister, a Minister who during his term of office has exercised his prerogative of mercy on many occasions with great discretion and with very general approval. If this Bill was to be administered by the Home Secretary, I know of no other man to whom I would more readily entrust it, or any other Bill of a similar nature. But who are the men who are likely to administer this law? [AN HON. MEMBER: You are one of them.] If it were limited to the judges of the High Court there would be some guarantee, in some cases, but not in all, that it would be administered with care and discretion, and with some amount of justice. But it is to be administered by magistrates in the courts of summary jurisdiction, and by the stipendiary magistrates. I would rather trust the children under the care of the county magistrates than I would under the stipendiary magistrates. I believe, as a rule, we should get more justice, and certainly a great deal more mercy and consideration for the children from the former than the latter. But all county magistrates are not persons qualified for this work. It is perfectly well known that many young men are made magistrates immediately after attaining their majority, and in a year or two they come and sit on the bench to administer the law, although they have never been outside their own parishes since they left school or university, and have had no experience of the ways and byways of human nature. Their only experience has been to give a word to their servants, gamekeepers, and grooms on their estates, and that word is obeyed. These men are totally unfit to entrust with the administration of a Bill so far-reaching and serious as this is. No one regrets more than I do the disappointment felt by many of us at the speech made by the hon. Member for Oxford University. For a man so cultured and so refined to stand up in this House and advocate a measure which I think so cruel, is one of the amazing things connected with human nature. I certainly expected quite a different lead to the House on a subject of this kind from a Member for a University than that which he gave us to-night. I trust that this Bill will never reach the Committee stage. It is said that it is not a class law; but does anyone for a moment suppose that the backs of any children above the class of workmen will ever be submitted under this

843
Bill to the castigation of a village policeman? Nothing of the kind. We can legislate on the sure and certain faith and knowledge that that is not going to be the case. Who will suffer under it, then? The hon. Member for St. Albans says young criminals. I am surprised that the hon. Member should talk of children of tender years as criminals. I do not know of anything more degrading to the House than to use language of that kind in regard to children of ten, twelve, or fourteen years of age. It is because of out ignorance or indifference, or neglect to study the minds of our children that we are brought at this time of day to the point of asking the great British House of Commons to pass severe laws enabling magistrates to inflict a most severe and painful punishment upon the tender backs of these little ones. It is a shame and a disgrace to us, and I regret that the name of the Home Secretary is in any way associated with this measure. I only hope that, in the exercise of his discretion, before the next stage is reached, he will be able to give such assurances to the House as will enable us to agree at least to the skeleton of the Bill. In my judgment, the whole after part of the Bill is inserted for the purpose of carrying the first part. It is only the first part that is wanted, and not the second. Take the appeal to quarter sessions against a fine of five pounds. That is a matter of impossibility in the case of a farm labourer earning ten or twelve shillings a week. I remember the Act of 1866, giving an assurance of equality in criminal offences between employers and employees. This is a similar and parallel case. What happened between 1866 and 1875? Many men and women suffered imprisonment, but no employer in the country was ever once reached and dragged to the police court under that Act, much less was sent to prison for the offence of breach of contract. Precisely the same thing will happen under this Bill if it becomes law. It would be only the backs of the poor that would suffer at the hands of this law. My hon. and learned friend the Member for Eifion is the only Member on this side of the House who has supported the Bill. How is that? It is because he has had no personal experience; he is neither a husband nor a father. It is very easy to discuss how wise it is to inflict punishment upon other people's children
844
but a man, before he can speak with full feeling and knowledge on this matter, must at least have been responsible for the up-bringing of children if he has had none of his own. It is for these reasons that I oppose this Bill, and I resume my seat with an earnest appeal to the Home Secretary that he may to-night, before the debate closes, be able to assure the House that if this Bill goes to a Committee he will move to omit all portions of it which have any reference to the infliction of flogging on children of tender years.
MR. PARKER SMITH: I have had the honour of sitting on a Committee of Inquiry into the treatment of prisoners in Scotland, and one of the most difficult and pressing points brought before us was the treatment of juvenile offenders, and how to deal with and punish them. Our feeling was that nothing was more injurious to the whole future of a child than to send him to prison. That being so, what are we really to do with him? Take the case of a set of boys who smashed plate-glass windows to the value of £40 in a single night. Are you to set these boys scot-free, and allow their parents to escape all responsibility? You cannot send these juveniles to prison, and yet they have to be punished in some kind of way. We found that boys do much more mischief than girls; in fact, we were told that the girls were as good as the boys were bad; but girls have sometimes to be dealt with also. At present there is an excellent rule by which the case of any girl of fourteen years and under is reported straight away to the Home Secretary; and I think that rule ought to be extended to girls over fourteen, and all these cases ought to be taken to the Home Secretary and dealt with on their merits by him. They should be sent to a reformatory school, or at any rate come under the direction of the Home Office. The real question is whether in the case of boys we shall use corporal punishment, flogging or birching. I have no particular objection to cither. Like other hon. Members, I might confess that I have undergone something of the kind in my past history. And yet I think there is a very great difference between what hon. Members may have been accustomed to in their callow youth, and the punishment which would be inflicted under this Bill. To be

845
flogged by your father or your schoolmaster, or by a bigger boy at school, is an absolutely different thing from being flogged by a policeman; and we ought to keep that in mind. There would be an immense difference, also, in being flogged by a footman or a gamekeeper and that to which most of us have been accustomed in public school life. There is in certain places so strong a feeling against flogging that the magistrates would not inflict it. In some places in Scotland they flog boys quite freely, and without any harm to the boys; but in other places the magistrates would not order a whipping on any account. We cannot, therefore, have whipping as a universal remedy. We must look further. I think the provision in the Bill in Clause 4, by which children and young people can be sent somewhere other than to a prison, is a most excellent one, if only it can be carried out; in fact, it is attempted in Scotland very largely. In many cases, in order to avoid sending young people to prison, they are kept in police cells for a few hours in order to give them a good fright, and then they arts dismissed. Now, a police cell is a most unsatisfactory place to put children in, but there is no other place at present to put them; and to whip them does a life-long injury, and therefore in many cases the boys are left to go free. If something can be done in the direction of making provision for sending untried and unconvicted lads to places untainted, where they could be received for a time, that would be an improvement. I would like to go further, and would send lads who had been convicted to some such place, provided I was sure they would be well treated there; and you would find magistrates would convict far more frequently than they do now. Magistrates would send boys there who are not criminal but mischievous; they would like to give them some punishment, but not such a punishment as would do far more harm than by leaving them go free. Of course, we have industrial and reformatory schools. I think these want looking into, and that something better is required. We might take a bit of a lesson from the United States and aim at some such institution as Elmira, where young people are sent of an older age even than that mentioned in the Bill, and where the accounts show far more attention is given to improving the character and turning them out as really fit citizens at the end of the period of detention, and where the success
846
in accomplishing these objects is often surprising. It is in that direction that our whole system of punishment wants to be amended.
MR. C. P. SCOTT: We are told that, as the law at present stands, we are bound cither to send the children to prison or to flog them. I do not think that is the case, because it is open to us even now to send the children to a reformatory or an industrial school, and I believe that it is rather in that direction that our thoughts ought to turn than in the direction of greater severity. The effect of the Bill would be extremely unfortunate, for it would remove the security which we at present have that not only must the flogging be carried out in the presence of a surgeon, but by the sanction of a judge and jury. The Bill, in my opinion, is a retrograde step in the fullest sense of the word, and not a step in advance. We do not want simply to punish a child because he has committed an offence; we want to reform him. That has been the whole tendency of modern legislation. We endeavour to bring influences on the child which will really improve his character, and make him less liable to commit similar offences in the future. I hold that principle not merely on sentimental grounds, not because flogging is necessarily a degrading thing, but because we want to influence permanently the springs of character in the future life of the child. I do not think the hon. Member for Oxford University regarded flogging as a desirable thing in itself, or that imprisonment is in itself desirable. If we were tied down to these alternatives, the matter would be very difficult to decide. There is no civilised country in the world that I know of which inflicts a penalty of flogging for petty offences under summary court jurisdiction, and I do not see why we should be called upon at this time of day to adopt such a measure. What is the necessity, or urgency, or motive, or difficulty unfelt before for coming to us and asking us to do it now? Has there been an increase in juvenile crime? On the contrary, in recent years there has been an immense reduction of juvenile crime, and that has been the effect not of severe punishments, but to a very large extent of education. We have got, in this way, at the root of the evil, and we may look forward to a still further reduction in juvenile

847
offences. It is, therefore, wholly inappropriate to ask us now to inflict on children the punishment of whipping. We have been told to-night about gentlemen who have received birchings in their youthful days. That is an argument that ought not to be considered, because it is perfectly well known that a birching at school is an absolutely and totally different thing from a birching by a policeman. A birching from a policeman is not such a thing as a man would speak of with pleasure or a smile in after years. Such a punishment as was described by an hon. Member would score the back of a child in a terrible manner. The instrument, as everybody knows, is a very severe one, and is wielded by the hand of an uneducated man; and the punishment may be more or less severe according to the temper of the man and the strength of his arm. It is quite possible that a child may receive torture which he will remember with shame to the last day of his life, and I do not think the House is called upon at this time of day to agree to that. The hon. Member for St. Albans was very angry when he was told that the electors would take this Bill to heart, and he spoke of the feelings of electors as not to be considered in a matter of this kind. I think that when an election comes round the hon. Member will be inclined to modify his opinion on that point. I think the feelings and convictions of parents ought to he considered, so far as they are just and reasonable. Parents feel strongly and reasonably that it is not right that, by the decision of a single magistrate, paltry offences should be punished by inflicting a whipping on a child which may be totally unsuited from physical health or temperament to receive it. It will be in the country districts where this Bill will be most felt, because it is there the magistrates are more inclined to be autocratic, whereas in towns the magistrate is generally a trained legal expert. I should not have the same objection to this Bill if it were to be administered by the judges with the safeguard of a jury. In the country districts children are brought up for offences which do not seem very heinous to magistrates in urban districts, such as the taking of a partridge's nest of eggs, or robbing an orchard. I do not say that the majority of rural magistrates would inflict the punishment of flogging for offences of that kind; but I say that
848
some would, and that there is a greater danger of undue severity being shown in the punishments of petty offences against the game laws or property by magistrates in the rural districts, where they are not so much under public control as in the towns. I am sure that if hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to furnish us with a good election cry in the country districts they will pass this Bill. We must remember that the electors have a right to have their opinions considered. I think that we should be spared at this time of day a Bill of this kind, which is uncalled for by circumstances, and which will increase and, to a certain extent, popularise a form of punishment which we all admit to be undesirable, and sometimes degrading, and wholly ineffectual.
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The course of debate has developed a difference of opinion in regard to the matters dealt with in the Bill. Of course, I was quite prepared to know that there are a certain number of Gentlemen inside and outside the House who have such a horror of the infliction of corporal punishment that they will not look at a question like this as a matter of common sense, and more than that, as a matter of experience. Hon. Gentlemen have spoken as if this were the introduction on a wide scale of a new principle—conferring power on magistrates sitting in summary jurisdiction cases to give whippings. It is nothing of the sort. This kind of punishment is adopted in many cases throughout the country. A great addition was given to it by some legislation passed last year, and I have yet to learn that there is more abuse in the administration of that particular form of punishment of juvenile offenders than there was in the administration of other laws in other kinds of courts. I have been asked what is the motive of the Government in introducing this Bill. I should have thought that this Bill was not sprung as a surprise on the House. It was introduced before, and met with a good deal of discussion in another place on several occasions. It met with an enormous amount of discussion throughout the country last year and the year before. I have received many representations with reference to it not merely from magistrates sitting in petty and quarter sessions, but from societies of all kinds who are interested in the question of juvenile crime and of keeping young

849
offenders out of prison. The Bill was introduced with the distinct object of finding a, better means of punishment for some of the young offenders than that of sending them to prison. It is not true to say that it is merely an alternative between sending them to prison or to a reformatory. We all know from a speech I made in the early part of the session that we have the Juvenile Offenders Act, under which it is possible for them not to be punished in any way. Let that be taken advantage of to the fullest extent, and those who have followed this question know how much the Home Office has endeavoured to sec that that Act has been carried out. We have the power of sending these juvenile offenders to reformatories and to industrial schools, but there are a good many cases in which there is a better way of dealing with them. And, assuredly, some of the cases mentioned in the course of the debate are examples in which it was better to give the boys a short and sharp punishment, such as is contemplated by the Bill, than to send them to a reformatory for four or five years, where some of them are led away by older and more criminal boys than themselves. This proposal has been recommended by Committee after Committee, and is intended to be a humane proposal. It is intended to work in the direction of keeping these boys out of prison. We have done a good deal by associating, in four or five centres throughout the country, some of our juvenile offenders who are sentenced for periods of more than a month. It has done a great deal of good, but that remedy is much more fit for the older class of juvenile offenders than for the young. It must be within the knowledge of the hon. Members who act as magistrates that there are cases where a sharp and short punishment of this kind affords the best chance for the boy. I do not draw any inference from any experience which might be derived from public schools. I admit that the experience is not parallel; nor is it parallel with the cases provided for in the Corporal Punishment Bill, which an hon. and learned friend behind me recently introduced to extend flogging to certain offences against women and children. I myself was unable to support that Bill, but this is a very different case indeed, and when we have
850
a chance of keeping a boy out of prison and of dealing with him summarily in a way that is not cruel, and can be carefully watched, I maintain that the House should avail itself of that treatment which is not inhuman, but, on the contrary, humane. Of course we all have our opinions. I can of course understand the convictions which animate hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I say there are others who hold the contrary opinion, and that there are a great many throughout this country who believe that this is not a cruel, but on the contrary a judicious and humane way of dealing with juvenile crimes. I have had put into my hands this evening a resolution from the Council of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, a society which is well-known to many hon. Members. The resolution states—
" That in the opinion of this Council it is very desirable to authorise the substitution of corporal punishment for imprisonment for offences by boys as proposed by the Youthful Offenders Bill"
I do not say that the Council is necessarily right, I do not say hon. Gentlemen opposite are right, but I am entitled, when we are charged with introducing a Bill which is retrograde and inhuman, to bring forward a resolution passed by a society which is foremost in advocating the cause of the humane treatment of children throughout the United Kingdom. The society by the unqualified terms of its resolution takes the same view of the Bill which we take. I can assure hon. Members that, although I was prepared for some little dislike, I was astonished to see hon. Gentlemen so carried away by their dislike for that kind of punishment as to visit the Bill with what I venture to think is unfair criticism. There are several other points of detail, such as the question of parental responsibility. That clause is possibly susceptible of amendment, but I believe it is entirely in accordance with the conviction of most reformers who have given attention to this subject, and that one of the best ways of doing something in the direction of the suppression and control of juvenile crime is to increase parental responsibility. This is an attempt to do that. I will not say that the words are altogether satisfactory, or that I am pledged to every word of the clause, but I believe it is a step in the right direction. Here, again, I may quote the Council of the Society for

851
the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. They state—
"They regard with satisfaction the recognition in this Bill of the principle of enforcing the responsibility of parents for the offences of their children."
I was surprised to hear the criticisms on Clause 4, because it surely is not an inhuman thing to provide when an unfortunate boy has to be committed for trial for an offence of which he is prima facie guilty that, whereas now he is obliged to be sent to prison—of course I am assuming a case where there cannot be bail—the magistrate should have power to hand him over to a decent man or woman to take charge of him until his trial. Could anything be more fair to that boy? You avoid sending him to prison, and you also take care that the persons who take charge of him—it may be the wife of some inspector of constabulary, or it may be the wife of the governor of the prison—shall be adequately paid. I think it is reasonable that there should be Treasury help to pay for the custody of that boy rather than that he should be sent to prison. I cannot imagine when the clause comes to be considered, that any objection can be taken to it. No doubt we can have a fight on the main question of corporal punishment, but I am not without hope, after all, that the Bill may be found to be not the retrograde measure that has been described, but really a step, as it is honestly intended to be, in the direction of the better control of juvenile crime. I realise to the full, and authorities throughout England realise to the full also, that we have a great deal to do in the direction of checking crime on the part of persons between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one. I understood the hon. Member for the Partick Division of Lanarkshire to favour the extension of the age for reformatories. That may not be the right step in the desired direction, but I am persuaded with him that if we can do something to get hold of and improve young men who get into prison between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one, we shall have done more to solve the question of how to decrease crime in this country than even by getting hold of boys at the age of fourteen or sixteen. Without going further into details I may say that the Bill has been conceived and drawn up as a means of correcting boys who are unruly and
852
unmanageable, and who ought to be corrected in some way or other. The means adopted in this Bill cannot, I think, be described as harsh or cruel. If their cases are not fit for reformatories or industrial schools, and if they have homes to which they can return with safety, I think it is bettor to try and correct them at the moment and let them go home rather than to send them to prison, or even to an industrial school I am persuaded that when this Bill comes to be considered, and subjected, no doubt, to amendment, it will be found to be a Bill carefully and honestly conceived, and that, if passed, it will enable us to do justice to our juvenile offenders and to be really humane towards them.
MR. HARRINGTON: If the reason put forward by hon. Gentlemen on the other side in support of this Bill—namely, that it is an alternative for a sentence of imprisonment, were correct, there would be something to say in defence of the measure. But it is quite evident that that is not a just view to take of it. It is not an alternative, and the very reason for its introduction is because magistrates have from time to time inflicted terms of imprisonment on juvenile offenders for their first offence, and I very much fear that if you give the alternative in this Bill the system of corporal punishment will grow to be a regular system and a disgrace to the Empire. There can be no question about it, that numbers of magistrates have been dealing with first offenders in a manner never intended by the law. In numbers of cases in Ireland magistrates without the slightest consideration send a young lad for a trivial offence to a reformatory for a period of five years. There is nothing in this Bill which says that, before ordering corporal punishment, the magistrate must be satisfied that the boy has been guilty of different offences, and that he is of such a character that there is no chance of reforming him without corporal punishment. Magistrates now hesitate about sending a boy to a reformatory for a long period of time, and instead of giving him the benefit of the First Offenders Act they will have another alternative under this Bill. Everyone who knows anything of the First Offenders Act knows that a more humane or beneficial measure was never passed in this country. I have had considerable

853
experience of it in the criminal courts in Ireland, and recently in defending some prisoners before the Recorder of Dublin, who has immense experience in the criminal law, I made an appeal that some of the prisoners should be dealt with under that Act. The Recorder said: "Oh, this is too serious an offence. Too many men seem to be getting off under the First Offenders Act." I drew his attention to the fact that although he had been administering the Act since it became law to a greater extent than all the other judges in Ireland together, he did not let one single offender off under the Act who came before him a second time. At the moment he was unable to verify that observation, but he looked into the records and informed me next day in Court that no person let off under the Act had ever come before him again. The necessity for this measure is this: a number of magistrates get the idea into their minds that they are bound to inflict a term of punishment of some kind on any youth coming before them. They consider that a caution will not do, although a gentle word very often is much better than corporal punishment. It is because magistrates are too severe and insist on inflicting some form of punishment that you have this application to go back to the degrading system of corporal punishment, and the moment you give that power to the magistrates you bring disgrace and discredit on the administration of the law. I must confess I was very much amazed to find the Home Secretary attempting to defend Clause 3. It introduces a new principle which is subversive of every principle of law. The father is going to be punished if by his neglect he in any way conduces to the crime of his child. How can that clause be administered? The same neglect would conduce to the theft by a child of sixpence or a £5 note. The child will get a greater punishment if he stole £5 than if he stole sixpence, but the father, whose measure of neglect must be the same, must also be punished according to the gravity of the offence of the child. Surely that is a principle subversive of all law. There is one other consideration in connection with this Bill which is of great importance to Ireland. If a father is accused of neglect in connection with his children there are various laws which can deal with him at present. In addition, we are now going to intro- duce a system of punishment for the
854
working man who cannot remain at home to watch his child. You make him subject to be haled before a Court and have his day's wages stopped and be subjected to an investigation as to whether the offence of his child should be attributed to his neglect. But the law will tell unequally as between England and Ireland. In this country a man would be a competent witness in his own behalf; he could come forward and satisfy the Court that there was no evidence against him. In Ireland he would not be a competent witness, and the mere allegation that he had been guilty of neglect, with the fact that his child had been found committing some crime, would be regarded as an offence. I sincerely hope, whatever happens, the Bill, and I believe Clause 4 if it stood by itself, would be useful, that the extension of the system of corporal punishment will not be sanctioned because it would be certain to develop into a disgrace to the administration of the law in this country.
SIR J. BRUNNER: I heard with pleasure the few remarks addressed to the House by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Partick Division of Lanarkshire. They contrasted in an extremely pleasant way to my ears with what fell from the hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Albans Division. I was also heartily pleased to hear from the Home Secretary a repudiation of this notion that flogging at a public school is on a par with flogging at a police court at the hands of a police constable. I do not believe that any argument has ever been used with more transparent insincerity, unless indeed it was used more by way of a joke than anything else. But there was something which fell from the hon. Member for the St. Albans Division which was by no means a joke. He spoke of our opposition to the Bill as cant. I am sorry to have to tell the Home. Secretary that our opposition will be continued if the clause extending corporal punishment is retained. As regards our being guilty of cant, that word has been used with reference to every opposition to all the infamous punishments that blackened the pages of our statute book. When the abolition of capital punishment for sheep stealing was fought for in this country, those who favoured that splendid reform were accused of cant. I might go over a very

855
long list of amendments of the penal laws, and it would be found that every one of these amendments, proud as we are of thorn to-day, wore supported by men who were accused of cant. I hope this subject can be discussed without bandying back wards and forwards accusations of such a character. I am bound to say I detest the idea of the extension of the system of corporal punishment, and I am thankful to the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken for his practical remarks on the subject. If a boy who breaks a pane of glass is to be branded as a criminal I think we ought to reflect seriously on the tone which should be adopted in discussing a measure of this kind. I would ask the Home Secretary, whose kindliness we all admire, and whose administration of his high and honourable office we also admire, whether this principle embodied in Clause 1 is so sacred in his eyes, and is so extremely desirable from any man's point of view that he should force it upon a very large body of unwilling members, as he will have to do if this Bill is to be carried as it stands? I would beg him to consider whether it is for the benefit of the country that this system of corporal punishment should be extended, and I would ask him in a spirit of good feeling as between one side and the other to drop that part of the Bill.
MR. MADDISON: I have listened to a considerable part of this debate, and I am really astonished that we should to-night, after a very extended Easter holiday, and with the prospect of a very extended Whitsun holiday, and with the knowledge that there is a large amount of business of a really urgent and useful character in arrear, be spending all this evening upon a Bill which is, I think, a reactionary attempt to deal with the question of such enormous importance as that of juvenile crime. I am beginning to see light in this matter. Throughout the length of tin's Parliament the working classes have been wondering at the small amount of beneficent and remediable legislation which they are getting from the present Government. But this is the irony of the whole situation. After the fathers have waited all these years they now find that the Government fails to give them anything, but are prepared to give their children a sound whipping. Although we have a lordly disdain from hon.
856
Gentlemen opposite and a supreme and refined contempt for the electorate, I venture to say we shall be able to turn that contempt into something of a very different nature if the Home Secretary presses this Bill; and when he has broken down the opposition with which, I believe, it will be fought line for line, and when he passes this Bill into law, I can promise him that I will do my very best to hold up to the admiring gaze of the British democracy this monument of Tory legislation. My hon. friend who referred to juvenile offenders in the country districts appeared for the moment to forget that there are generally two magistrates on the bench. The hon. Gentleman opposite thought that was a splendid protection for youngsters who may have stolen apples from an orchard. On the bench will be found the best Christian in the village—the parson—and you may be quite sure he will not mete out justice tempered with mercy. Then there will be his traditional ally—the squire—who represents all that is great in our village aristocracy, and between the two it is certain the youngster will get the full benefit of this Bill. What I am really astonished at is that in the first place we are told that these juveniles are to be saved from imprisonment and penal servitude, and to be whipped with the birch-rod instead. Could anything indicate more clearly the lack of appreciation of the problem of juvenile crime than that? If whipping is a sufficient punishment, then surely penal servitude must be an awful crime. The fact is, under this Bill you are going to give police constables additional powers.
It being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

VETERINARY SURGEONS AMENDMENT BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc.
COLONIAL SOLICITORS BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

COUNTY COUNCILS (ELECTIONS) ACT (1891) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve of the clock.