Commons Sitting of 13 December 1906

Preamble
The House met at quarter before Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS
FALKIRK AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS (EXTENSION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered; An Amendment made. Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

PETITIONS.
  DOGS (PROTECTION) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Belfast and other parts of Ireland; Birmingham and other places; Chatham and other places; Guildford and other places in Surrey; Lancashire and Cheshire; London and other places; Midland Counties; Scotland; Southsea and other places; and Wales; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING ACTS.
  Petitions for alteration of law: From Aspley Guise; Grimsby; and Upper Tooting; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petitions for extention to women: From Guildford; and Poplar; to lie upon the Table.
  RAHILL, OWEN.
  Petition of Owen Rahill, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  Petition from Leeds, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council, dated 1st December, 1906, confirming certain By-Laws made by the Tyne Pilotage Commissioners for the River Tyne in substitution of the By-Laws
  638
  hitherto in force [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894, AND MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE FUND) ACT, 1898.
Copy presented, of Order in Council, dated 1st December, 1906, further altering the Scale of Light Dues to be levied under the Act of 1898 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copy presented, of Order in Council, dated 1st December, 1906, directing that any Pay, Half-Pay, etc., of Officers of His Majesty's Navy or the Royal Marines may be abated to meet Mess Debts or other similar debts or liabilities [by Act];to lie upon the Table.
GENERAL LIGHTHOUSE FUND.
Account presented, of the General Lighthouse Fund, showing the Income and Expenditure for the year ended 31st March, 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 377.]
SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 27th November, 1906, granting to Edward Aldridge, William Henry H. Butler, and Charles Gough, Overseers and Senior Telegraphists, Central Telegraph Office, retired allowances under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
CHINA (NO. 2. 1906).
Copy presented, of Further Correspondence respecting the Decree issued by the Chinese Government on 9th May, 1906, respecting the Chinese Imperial Maritime Customs [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Ordered, That the Standing Orders, as amended, be printed. [No. 378.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES

  Royal Naval Carpenter Warrant Officers.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the members of the

  639
  Douglass Committee who advised the abolition of the carpenter (warrant officer) in the Royal Navy had taken any steps to obtain the opinion of the admirals and captains on the active list on the question before arriving at their conclusion; whether he will inquire whether the officers mentioned failed in the finding of the Committee's Report; whether steps have been taken to ascertain if the officers, admirals, and captains on the active list consider it would be to the best interest of the service to retain the carpenter on the present line; whether, in the event of the Douglass Committee's suggestion being approved, their Lordships intend merging the warrant officers at present holding the rank of carpenter to the proposed rank of warrant artificer; I and whether he will furnish the House with a list of the occasions on which Navy carpenters have been specially I commended by their Lordships for the able manner in which special and urgent repairs have been effected in connection with the stranding of the battleship "Howe" on the rocks at Ferrol and other warships.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) As stated in reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Devonport on the 21st June last,†the passage in the Report referred to was an expression of opinion as to the probable result of changes in process of being carried out in the personnel of the fleet. No suggestion was made that the carpenter warrant officers had failed in their duty, but on the contrary it was well known to the members of the Committee that these officers are held in high esteem by commanding officers. No evidence was taken by the Committee on the subject. The Admiralty have not taken action on this part of the Report, and therefore it would be premature to make any statement as to arrangements which might have to be made at some future time.

  Carpenter Warrant Officers' Pay.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether I he is aware that there is a number of carpenter warrant officers, many of whom are serving in first-class battleships and
  †Sec (4) Debates, clix, 345.
  640
  cruisers, who receive about 1s. per day less than the mechanics in our Royal dockyards; and, if so, can he hold out any hopes that the pay of these warrant officers will in the near future be revised.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) It is possible that some carpenter warrant officers may receive less pay than certain mechanics in the dockyards, but, as the hon. Member will understand, the pay of naval ranks and ratings cannot be compared with the pay of men employed on shore. The pay of the former is associated with free quarters and victuals, whereas in the latter case the pay as a general rule comprises the whole remuneration. No undertaking can be given as to a revision of the pay of these officers at the present time.

  North Berwick Coast Defence.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY (St. Andrews Burghs): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have applied to the North Berwick Parish Council for a site for a look-out hut for coast defence and protection of shipping; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Admiralty have applied to the North Berwick Town Council for a site for a war signal station. The matter is still unsettled.

  Beagling at the Royal Naval College.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his Department received a memorial signed by, amongst others, I twenty-eight head masters of schools, stating that, in the opinion of the memorialists, beagling is a demoralising form of sport for the young, and suggesting that a drag hunt should be substituted; and whether his Department will accede to the prayer of the memorialists at the Royal Naval College.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Such a memorial was recently addressed to and received by the First Lord of the Admiralty, who replied in the sense of the Answer given to the hon. Member in this House on 24th'April last,‡and stated that
  ‡Sec (4) Debates, clv., 1393.

  641
  he was not prepared to depart from the decision then announced.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any part of the expenses incurred in the sport known as beagling at the Royal Naval College is paid for out of public funds; and whether parents of cadets are under any obligation to subscribe to the maintenance of this form of sport.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The wages of the kennel-man are paid, during the present financial year, out of funds voted by Parliament. After the 31st March next no part of the expenses of the beagles will be paid for out of public funds. A charge, not exceeding 10s. per term, is made to parents as a contribution to the general sports fund, from which money for the maintenance of the beagles is allocated by the captain.

  Cycle Postmen.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether cycle postmen are expected to clean and attend to their cycles in their own time; and whether, in view of the diversity of practice, he will issue a circular defining what is meant by minor repairs, which, in addition to cleaning, have to be performed by postmen.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Cycle postmen are expected to clean and attend to their cycles in their own time, and a special allowance is made to them in respect of this work. The minor repairs a postman is expected to effect are those which an ordinary rider would do for his own machine. I do not think any precise definition is needed.

  London Cabs and the Taximeter.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is intended to sanction the use of a taximeter for motor or horse-drawn cabs in London which will register the fares in accordance with the existing regulations as to rates; and whether, on account of the difficulty of designing a taximeter which will register the inequalities of the existing cab tariff, he intends to give
  642
  effect to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Metropolitan Cabs and Omnibuses for the adoption of the taximeter by sanctioning a new scale of cab fares in which the inequalities referred to will be abolished.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The Commissioner of Police has the whole question under his consideration, and I expect to receive a Report from him shortly. I can say nothing further at present.

  Work for the London Unemployed.
  MR. BROOKE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Central Unemployed Committee for London has initiated any schemes for dealing this winter with applicants for employment, who are eligible under the Unemployed Workmen's Act; whether he can state what those schemes are; how many of the unemployed have applied for work under them; how many who applied have been rejected as not complying with the conditions of the Act; and how many of those applicants who do comply with its conditions have received any employment at all.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I understand that the Central (Unemployed) Body for London have been in communication with His Majesty's Office of Works, the London County Council, and the metropolitan borough councils, and it is hoped that from 1,500 to 2,000 of the unemployed will very soon be engaged upon works provided by these bodies. The Central Body are now employing some 530 men on work at the Garden City, on the farm colony at Hollesley Bay, and on making a sea-wall at Fambridge. They are also carrying on three workrooms for women, and 107 women are employed there. I am not able to state how many persons have applied to the distress committees for work since the registers were re-opened, or how many of such persons have been found to satisfy the prescribed requirements. I understand, however, that applications continue to be received by the distress committees, and that 500 persons have already been referred by them to the Central Body.

  Delayed Appeals.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the delay in obtaining a hearing of causes before the Court of Appeal, and to the fact that certain causes have been down now more than two years for hearing without any immediate probability of coming on; and whether any remedy for this delay has been considered and if it is proposed either to form an extra Court or appoint further Judges to obviate the difficulty.
  (Answered by Sir Lawson Walton.) The delay has no doubt been considerable; but many of the cases which have stood over have been postponed at the request of the parties or for special reasons. An additional Court has been and will be organised, when practicable, to deal with arrears. No further remedy is possible without further legislation, in reference to which no decision has yet been arrived at.

  Tobacco—Irish Roll.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that tobacco manufactured in England is extensively sold in Ireland under the designation Irish roll; and whether, seeing that the term is calculated to deceive intending purchasers, some steps will be taken to confine the term to goods only made in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The attention of the Board of Trade has not been called to the practice referred to by my hon. friend; but, if he will place before me any information in his possession on the subject, I will see that the matter is carefully considered.

  The "Midland Tribune."
  MR. HAVILAND BURKE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the proprietors of the Midland Tribune newspaper, published in Birr, King's County, are subjected to annoyance and inconvenience by the fact that the London General Post Office authorities insist that the English translation of the title of a Gaelic supplement, Dun na n Gaedheal
  644
  published by them in connection with the Midland Tribune, must be printed at the head of each page; and whether he will take steps to prevent a recurrence of this interference with their publications.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The, newspaper in question, bearing an English title, but accompanied by a supplement with a Gaelic title only, was submitted for registration at the General Post, Office under The Post Office Act, 1870. That Act requires the title of the newspaper to be printed at the top of every page of any supplement. It is necessary, therefore, if it is desired to register the newspaper and its supplement under the Act, that it should conform with the Law.

  Crown Receiverships.
  MR. HARMOOD BANNER: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state what steps are being taken to fill the-position of Crown Receivers shortly to become vacant on the termination of the notice given to the present Crown Receivers; what qualifications will be required for the position; and what remuneration will be paid to the next receivers.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) No decision has yet been arrived at.

  English County Councils and University scholarships.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the President of the Board of Education if English county councils have power to establish University scholarships; and, if so, to what extent do they use that power.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. I understand that the power is exercised by many local education authorities, but I have no complete information in regard to the extent to which it is exercised.

  Scottish County Councils and University Scholarships.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if Scottish county councils have power to establish University scholarships; and, if so, to what extent is that power used by them.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Scottish county councils have the power to establish University scholarships under The Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890, and the Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892. Two county councils and one burgh council have exercised this power to establish University scholarships, seven in all.

  Wexford County Council and University Scholarships.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will give the reasons for the refusal of the Department of Agriculture to sanction the proposal of the county Wexford County Council to establish University scholarships for students from that county.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Department of Agriculture were advised by the Law Officers that expenditure for the purpose referred to in the Question is not permissible under the Technical Instruction Acts, 1889 and 1891, or under The Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899.

  Kerry Potato Crop Failure.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution passed at a public meeting in Keel, county Kerry, dealing with the failure of the potato crop in that district; whether he has made inquiries into the matter; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any and, if so, what steps.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have received a copy of the resolution referred to in the Question. The Reports which I have received indicate that there has been a partial failure of the potato crop in the Keel district. I would refer the honourable Member to my Answer to the Question put by the hon. Member for East Mayo on the 5th instant,†when I fully stated the intentions of the Government in respect of the partial failure of the potato crop in Kerry and other counties.
  †See (4) Debates, clxvi, 941–3.

  Instruction in Irish in Irish Schools.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the number of subjects specified by the Commissioners to be taught in Irish national schools, managers will be permitted, in districts where Irish is spoken, to substitute Irish for object lessons and physical drill; whether the Board has directed its inspectors to refuse such authority to managers; and, if so, will he say why this has been done, in view of Rule 119d.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that in districts in which Irish is spoken they sanction the bilingual programme in all suitable cases, and do not regard this programme as over-weighted. The Commissioners are unable to consent to the omission of object lessons and physical drill, which they consider to be of the first importance in connection with education in elementary schools. They inform me that they have given no special instructions to their inspectors on the subject. Rule 119 (d) provides that managers may with the approval of the Commissioners arrange school programmes. The Commissioners do not approve of programmes from which object lessons and drill are omitted.

  Newfoundland.
  MR. F. E. SMITH: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the Paper, No. 1 (1906), United States, contains all the correspondence which has taken place between His Majesty's Government, the Government of the Colony, and Mr. Root in reference to the Newfoundland fisheries between 12th October, 1905 and 8th October, 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Paper is a complete record of what passed between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government, and between His Majesty's Government and the Colonial Government, on the subject of the modus vivendi up to the date, of its conclusion. It does not set out, and does not purport to set out, the whole of the correspondence on the Newfoundland fisheries question. The documents

  647
  prefixed to the correspondence respecting the modus vivendi were included in order to show the general nature of the dispute with the United States Government. Mr. Root's Note of 12th October, 1905, was included because it was referred to in his Note of the 19th October, 1905.

  Vaccine and Syphilis.
  MR. LUPTON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, if he is aware that the, official examiner of vaccine lymph stated in evidence to the Royal Commission on Vaccination, in answer to Questions 4154 and 4164, that it was then impossible to ascertain by microscopic examination whether lymph contains the virus of syphilis or not; and if, since then, any practical means have been discovered by which the presence of syphilitie germs in vaccine matter can be ascertained;.and whether he has any official information showing that the symptoms produced by inoculation with calf lymph are sometimes indistinguishable from those produced by syphilitic inoculation.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am aware of the evidence referred to. I am informed that since 1889, when the evidence was given, it has been claimed that the microbe of syphilis has been discovered. Whether or not it has been detected in vaccine lymph from the human subject I am unable to say, but, as my hon. friend is aware, humanised lymph is not now used for public vaccination in this country. Calves, as I understand, are insusceptible to inoculation with syphilis material.

  Dockyard Joiners.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he can state why the joiners employed in the Works Department of the Admiralty are paid at a lower rate I than the joiners employed in other departments of the dockyards; and whether they can be placed upon an equal footing as regards pay and prospects.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The rate of pay to joiners in the Works Department is governed by the rates paid in the building trade in the district, and it may be added that these men form a
  648
  different class from the ship joiners who are employed in the dockyards.

  American Gooseberry Mildew in Worcestershire.
  MR. BELLOC: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether in view of the fact that outbreaks of a destructive epidemic fungus disease of gooseberries, viz., the American gooseberry-mildew have now occurred in Worcestershire, and that the Board of Agriculture have at present no power to deal with the prohibition or control of the importation of diseased gooseberry bushes, on which the disease has been introduced into this country, the Government will introduce this session a short amending Act to The Destructive Insects Act, 1877, in order to give the Board the necessary legislative powers to deal with the disease.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) Full inquiry is being made as to the necessity and practicability of legislation in the direction suggested by my hon. friend, but, until we are in possession of further information as to the characteristics and past history of the disease, and the nature and extent of the trade with which it is proposed to deal, it is not possible for us to enter into any definite undertaking on the subject. We fully appreciate, however, the importance of taking any action which may be decided upon as speedily as possible.

  Land Sale Bonuses.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will furnish a list, made up to date, of persons to whom bonus has been paid under the Land Act of 1903, showing in respect of each the county in which the land sold is situate, the amount of bonus paid, the total, the number of years purchase paid by the purchasers, and, so far as can be ascertained or estimated, the aggregate amount of relief in addition to price and bonus gained by each vendor from payment of stamp duty, cost of publication of notices, cost of preparation and service of notices on public departments, cost of searches in registry of deeds, titles, and judgments, negotiation fees, deduction

  649
  of title, and other normal expenses incidental to sale to tenants under previous Purchase Acts, and from which these vendors have been relieved.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Land Commission inform me that the preparation of such a Return as is asked for in the Question would be a very lengthy and difficult task, involving the examination of each ledger account since the Act of 1903 came into operation, and that it would cause delay in the proper work of the Commissioners and their staff. Any estimates of the relief afforded by exemption from stamp duties and the other matters specified in the Question could only be mere approximations, and, in some instances, would be misleading. Under Section 48 of the Act the bonus is not payable in respect of all estates sold, and in some cases in which it is payable, it is only payable in respect of part of the purchase money. In these circumstances the Commissioners do not think it desirable to undertake the preparation of the Return. They add, however, that up to the present date a total sum of £13,892,706 has been advanced by the Estates Commissioners, and the total amount drawn for bonus in pursuance to the Orders of the Judicial Commissioners has been £1,373,739.

  Disturbance at the Bushmills Presbyterian Church.
  MR. GLENDINNING: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is aware of the annoyances and threats towards various persons since the late election for having exorcised their right of private judgment; whether he is aware that on Wednesday night, 28th November, the annual social meeting of the Bushmills Presbyterian Church was made a scene of disturbance; that a speaker was interrupted during his discourse, and that clergymen and their wives were hooted and threatened when leaving the lecture hall, and members of the congregation were stoned on their way home; whether he proposes to give police protection to these people, who have been attacked because they hold political views in opposition to the Conservative interest; and whether the Government will prosecute for the offences done on Wednesday
  650
  night, 28th November, in the presence of the police, as it is dangerous for anyone to prosecute in his private capacity.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the police authorities that no complaint to the effect stated has been made to the local police. The police, however, are aware that at the meeting referred to one of the speakers was interrupted by a man who was under the influence of drink. This man was ejected from the room, and the police prevented him from returning. After the meeting a clergyman and several other persons were hooted at by some disorderly persons, and a few small stones were thrown at them. The police have issued summonses against six offenders, and the case was to be heard to-day. The police appear to have acted promptly in this matter, and the hon. Member may rest assured that all possible protection will be afforded to any persons who may need it, and that every effort will be made to secure to every one the free exercise of all civil rights.

  Irish Teachers' Salaries.
  MR. MURPHYTo ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if his attention has been directed to the effect of placing the teachers who were in training colleges for a two-years course when the new-salary rules issued by the Hoard of National Education in 1900 came into operation in the lowest grade provided by these rules, whereas, according to the rules in force prior to 1900, and which were chiefly instrumental in inducing those men and women to become teachers, their salaries would have been far more satisfactory; and, if so, has he used his influence with the Commissioners of National Education to make special provision for these teachers in the salary rules which at present are under consideration.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I would refer the hon. Member to the very full reply which I gave, on the authority of the Commissioners of National Education, to the similar Question put by the hon. Member for South Cork on 19th June.†I would also refer him to my Answers on the same subject to the hon. Members for
  †See (4) Debtes, clix, 44.

  651
  Newry and South Belfast on 30th March and 11th April, respectively.†The Commissioners now inform me that they have nothing to add to those replies. The hon. Member will see that the Commissioners claim to have conserved the vested rights of all teachers and teachers in training, so far as it was possible to do so, and that all exceptional cases were specially considered and dealt with.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if the Commissioners of National Education made application to the Treasury for a grant for the purpose of making the salaries of those teachers who were undergoing a two years course in the training colleges when the new rules of 1900 came into operation more in accordance with what they would have been did the old rules which induced those teachers to enter their profession still hold; and, if so, has the application been favourably considered, and if it has been rejected will he say on what grounds.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) It would be contrary to the established practice to give particulars of the correspondence which passes between Departments of the Government, but the hon. Member will gather from my reply to the preceding Question that no necessity arose for any communication in the present case, seeing that the Commissioners hold that they duly conserved existing rights.

  Grant for Irish Primary Education.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Cavan Urban Council drawing attention to the fact that the grant for Irish primary education is less by £578,905 than the grant provided for Scotland; as the number of pupils in the two countries attending primary schools is practically the same, will he explain why there is such a difference in the treatment; and whether he will at once take steps to secure fair treatment in respect of the grant for primary education in Ireland.
  †Sec (4) Debates, clv., 18,1315.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) : I have received the resolution in question. If the hon. Member will refer to the Answer which I gave on the 12th November to the Question put by the hon. Member for East Kerry, he will see that while the disparity between pupils and voted moneys is in favour of Scotland if the numbers of pupils on the books are taken into account, the disparity is in favour of Ireland when the numbers in average attendance are compared.

  Shirley Estate, County Monaghan.
  MR. McKEAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that eviction notices have recently been served on a number of tenants on the Shirley estate, Carrickmacross, county Monaghan; whether he is aware that negotiations for the purchase of their holdings by the tenants are proceeding; will he say whether the tenants on whom the notices of eviction have been served are willing to buy on terms fixed by the official inspector employed by the Estates Commissioners; whether he will disclose the main facts connected with the negotiations for sale and purchase as between Mr. Fottrell, who has carriage of the matter, on behalf of the trustees and the Estates Commissioners; whether he is aware that the trustees are trying to sell the estate in portions and on different terms; and whether, seeing that such a method of proceeding is contrary to the spirit of the Act of 1903, he will instruct the Estates Commissioners to refuse to advance the money necessary for such a piecemeal sale; whether he will ask the Estates Commissioners to use their powers to bring the matter to a successful conclusion on terms fair to both parties; and whether he will take such action as may be necessary to preserve the peace of the locality if the measures now threatened by the trustees are carried out.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have no knowledge of the facts alleged in the Question. No proceedings for the sale of the Shirley estate have been instituted before the Commissioners, but they have received a communication from the tenants and are writing on the subject

  653
  to Messrs. Fottrell, solicitors, who, it is understood, act for the owner of the estate.

  Keel Evicted Tenant.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement in his former holding from W. O'Brien, of Ardcanaght, Keel, county Kerry; and, if so, what steps have been taken to arrange with the present occupant.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received the application in question, and have referred it to their inspector for inquiry and report.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Naval Gun Mountings.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how-many firms in the United-Kingdom are able to make the gun mountings for the twelve-inch guns.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. Edmund Robertson, Dundee): Two, Sir.

  Life Saving at Sea.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the consequences of any abandonment of the coastguard stations of Great Britain on a large scale, and especially the difficulty of maintaining the various organisations for the saving of life from shipwreck in the event of the coastguards being withdrawn, he will undertake that no further reductions or abandonments of stations shall be made until this House has had an opportunity of discussing the matter.
  MR. GODFREY BARING: I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the telephonic communications established round the coasts of the British Isles for the purpose of saving life from shipwreck are worked entirely, or almost entirely, by His Majesty's coastguard, and
  654
  that some portions of this system of coast communication have already been relinquished in consequence of the abandonment of certain coastguard stations, he can undertake that no further action shall be taken by the Admiralty in the direction of reduction of the coastguard until opportunity for discussion in this House has been given.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No further orders for closing of coastguard stations will be issued before the Estimates are introduced next year, as the whole subject is being considered by an Inter-departmental Committee.
  MAJOR SEELYasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that there had been very serious inconvenience, especially on the coast of Northumberland, in carrying out the arrangements for saving life.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he would be glad if his hon. and gallant friend would let him have any information in his possession on the subject.
  MR. GODFREY BARING:inquired if during last year there were no fewer than 300 launches of the lifeboats made by the coastguard in cases of emergency.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of such a Question.

  Small-Arms Ammunition.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, pending the provision of reliable ammunition and its shipment abroad, any of our stations abroad in the case of unforeseen hostilities would, at the present moment, have to depend on a limited war reserve of ·303-inch small-arm ammunition, which, owing to its age or other causes, can no longer be regarded as reliable, and moreover is not packed in chargers.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. Buchanan, Perthshire, E.): The war reserve of ·303-inch small-arm ammunition abroad is in all cases maintained at the figure which is considered requisite to meet the military requirements of each station. As regards the reliability of this ammunition, I would refer the hon. Baronet to the reply the

  655
  Secretary of State gave him on the 6th instant.†Charger-packed ammunition is only required at stations where the troops have the short rifle; the issue of this kind of ammunition is proceeding pari passu with that of the short rifle.

  Army Rations.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the War Office has given a contract to America to supply the British Army with about 10,000,000 lbs. of corned beef; and, if so, whether, after the recent disclosures of American meat packing methods, he will say what steps have been taken to avoid risk to the health of British soldiers by supplying them with food from this source.
  MR. BUCHANAN: No contract has been placed for the quantity referred to. The balance of preserved meat due under a contract made in the early part of this year, namely, about 1,000,000 lbs., has yet to be delivered from America. An officer has been sent to America to watch the process of manufacture. Owing to the stringent regulations issued by the American Government which came into force on 1st October last, it is not anticipated that there will be the slightest risk to the health of soldiers by supplies of food from this source.

  Indians in British Columbia.
  MAJOR ANSTKUTHER-GEAY (St. Andrews Burghs): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the condition of some of His Majesty's Indian subjects who have landed in British Columbia, and have neither food, shelter, nor suitable clothing to withstand the rigours of the winter, and cannot find employment; and whether he will take steps to discourage the immigration of Indian natives to Canada unless suitable work can be ensured for them, seeing that they are constitutionally unfit to stand the severity of the Canadian winter.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. JOHN ELLIS, Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe): As stated yesterday, the Secretary of State's attention has been called to this matter, and he has asked the Government of India to
  †Sec (4) Debates, clxvi.,1170–71.
  656
  take steps to discourage further emigration to Canada.

  Smallpox in India.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any system of registration of smallpox cases exists in India and any system of registration of vaccination from which it can be readily ascertained by investigators whether persons suffering from smallpox have been vaccinated or not.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: There is a system of registration of vaccinations performed throughout India. There is no such general system in respect of cases of smallpox, but there is a legal obligation to report cases occurring in most of the larger towns.
  MR. LUPTON: Has the Royal Commission not been told that vaccination in this case is absolutely useless?
  MR. JOHN ELLIS MR. JOHN ELLIS asked for notice of the Question.

  Vaccination in Bombay.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Surgeon-General to the Government of Bombay, in his instructions to vaccinators, orders that vaccination shall be made with four crosses on each shoulder; that calves, lanced at every inch all over the body, are wheeled in a hand truck from station to station about the city of Bombay, so that children may be vaccinated direct from the calf; and that this system produces violent inflammation, which sometimes causes death; whether the lymph with which the calves are originally vaccinated comes from London; and whether these practices rule in other Presidencies in India.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: The Secretary of State has not seen the instructions referred to, and he has no report as to improper treatment of the calves employed. Fresh calf lymph is used in a largo but decreasing number of the vaccinations performed in Bombay City, and the percentage of success in primary vaccinations with this lymph is very high indeed; no deaths from this cause have been reported. Glycerinated lymph has

  657
  on some occasions been procured from England, and has been tried on calves with excellent results. In Bombay, as in other provinces of India, rapid progress has been made towards the substitution of preserved vaccine, prepared by moans of chloroform, for the fresh lymph.

  Manila Experiments.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India it he has any official information to the effect that ton prisoners out of twenty-four inoculated with cholera virus for experimental purposes, in Manila, died, and that the experimenters explain that the virus was contaminated with bubonic plague; and whether any precautions have been taken in India to make sure that the virus used for vaccination in that dependency is free from bubonic plague germs; and, if so, will he describe them.
  MR. JOHNT ELLIS: The preserved vaccine, which is now used largely for vaccination in all parts of India, is prepared in a strictly scientific manner at special depots, and I am advised that the possibility of its contamination by plague in course of its preparation is excluded. In provinces where arm to arm vaccination is still practised, great care is taken in the selection of the persons from whom the lymph is taken.

  Crown Agents.
  MR. WALKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State will, in the exercise of his general control and supervision over the conduct of the business of the Crown Agents, consider whether greater efficiency would ensue if the present system, under which appointments to the staff of the Crown Agents' Office are made by nomination and without an examination of any kind, were replaced by a system under which candidates were required to enter for a competitive examination in open competition.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N. W.): It is obviously desirable that appointments to Government services should be made either by competitive examination or by selection after standard ex-
  658
  amination. The Secretary of State will consider whether such a reform can be conveniently effected in the system of appointment to the staff of the Crown Agents' Office. But the questions connected with such a change are complex, and no decision can be taken upon them at present; and the Secretary of State must not be taken as admitting that there is any lack of efficiency.

  Maintenance of the Crown Agents' Office.
  MR. WALKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the funds available for the maintenance of the Crown Agents' Office are drawn in part from Protectorates which are largely financed by grants-in-aid from the Treasury, he will arrange that this House shall not again, until it has a practical and efficacious right of control, be asked to sanction expenditure which will go in part towards the maintenance of the Crown Agents' Office.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The system under which the Crown Agents transact business provides for a complete audit of the accounts of grants-in-aid colonies by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as well as for the observance of all the checks by which the Secretary of State exercises control over the Crown Agents. If the House does not regard this control as practical and efficacious expression will no doubt be given to its opinion upon some convenient opportunity.
  MR. WALKER: Can the hon. Gentleman quote any other cases where grants of public money are made without the corresponding right of control?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Crown Agents and Railway Construction.
  MR. WALKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the consulting engineers to the Crown Agents have anything to gain by recommending the construction of railways; whether they, or their representatives, are employed and receive remuneration for their services in connection with the construction of railways which have been undertaken upon their recommendation; and, if so, what has been the amount of their remuneration from this source during the last ten years, how is it

  659
  assessed, and from what fund or funds has it been paid.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The consulting engineers employed on behalf of the Crown Colony and Protectorate Governments advise only on such schemes as are referred for their advice by the Colonial Governments with the sanction of the Secretary of State. They do not recommend schemes in any other sense than that they state the merits or demerits of any project upon which they are called upon to advise, from an engineering point of view. Should the Secretary of State decide that any scheme shall be carried out, after the consulting engineers have advised, their further advice is, if advice is necessary, utilised in connection with its execution. The course followed is the ordinary practice whenever professional advice in any branch is sought either by Governments or by private individuals. How far it may be possible or expedient to furnish a Return of the nature desired requires further consideration.

  Hindoos in British Columbia.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GEAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the condition of the immigrant Hindoos who have landed in British Columbia, and have neither food, shelter, nor suitable clothing to withstand the rigours of the winter, and are without employment; and whether he will facilitate any steps taken to remedy the condition of these natives; and if he can state their numbers.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave yesterday to the Question of the hon. Member for the Montgomery Boroughs on this subject.
  *MR. HAROLD COX: Can the hon. Gentleman say who is responsible for enticing these Indians to go to so unsuitable a country?
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: How many are there of them?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Two thousand. I think the Canadian Government are fully alive to the situation.

  Witwatersrand Mines.
  MR. FIENNES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether thirty-six mines on the Witwatersrand employ about 53,000 Chinamen, 17,000 natives, 8,300 whites, and that, therefore, about 6,200 whites at least are directly dependent on the retention of Chinese labour, and will be thrown out of work when these Chinamen are repatriated.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The official monthly statistics do not give the numbers employed on various mines, but I have no doubt my hon. friend's figures are substantially correct. The general bearing of the Chinese labour experiment upon the interests of white labour in the Transvaal is not a subject which can be conveniently dealt with in answer to a Question. The views of His Majesty's Government have often been explained; and I should be ready to repeat them if desired on any suitable occasion.
  *MR. MACKARNESSasked if the Robinson Group might not employ a far larger number of white miners if they were allowed to recruit Kaffirs, and whether the very same mineowners referred to in the Question of the hon. Member for Banbury were not pressing the Portuguese authorities to refuse the Robinson Group facilities for recruiting Kaffirs?
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid it was no doubt true that the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association and the Chamber of Mines did object to the increased facilities for recruiting native labour in Portuguese territory, which the Government believed would very probably result in supplying any deficiency in the labour supply to the mines which the absence of Chinese might create.
  MR. MACKARNESSasked whether it was not the fact that Mr. Robinson had surrendered his right to 3,000 Chinese coolies because he preferred to employ white men.
  MR. CHURCHILLwas understood to say that that was so, and that a beginning had already been made in spite of many delays with the employment of white labour on one of the Robinson mines.

  Native Prisoners in Natal.
  MR. MOLTENO: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in regard to the rumoured negotiations for the removal of a body of native prisoners from Natal to the Transvaal, he can state under what law and by what authority it is possible to transport natives from Natal to the Transvaal; and, in the event of such natives being so transported, under what law and by what authority they can be detained in the latter Colony against their will; and whether, in previous cases, such as the detention of the Natal Native Chief Langolibalele in the Cape Colony, special legislation had to be resorted to to which the assent of the Crown was necessary.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The necessary legislative authority is given by the Natal Act No. 15 of 1905, and the Transvaal Ordinance No. 36 of 1904. Special legislation was passed in the case of Langolibalele and in some other cases which, in view of the provisions of the above Ordinances, is not required in the present instance.

  Cost of the Native Rising in Natal.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the approximate cost of suppressing the native rising in Natal; and whether any portion whatever of that cost will be defrayed out of Imperial funds.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The approximate cost is £700,000, all of which will be borne by Natal, not by Imperial, funds.
  MR. HAROLD COXasked if this included the cost of the regiment at Pieter-maritzburg.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he understood the extra cost was, but he could not say that the ordinary annual cost was or ought to be charged against South Africa.

  Tilonko.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Natal Chief Tilonko was on the 30th July tried by a Court constituted of
  662
  military officers of a Colonial corps set up by the Governor of Natal and the Commandant of Militia under martial law on a charge of sedition, and was convicted and sentenced to ten years imprisonment with hard labour and to a fine of 500 head of cattle; whether he is aware that the persons constituting this Court were indemnified and the proceedings of the Court, which was held with closed doors, were rendered valid by anticipation by an Indemnity Act previously passed by the Parliament of Natal, which was itself dissolved before the trial began, and whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the unreliable character of the evidence for the prosecution, and the severity of the sentence which has now been endured by Tilonko for several months, the Secretary of State for the Colonies will consider the propriety of advising that in this case the prerogative of pardon may be exorcised by the Crown.
  MR. CHURCHILL: In this case the Governor acted on the advice of his responsible Ministers, and the Secretary of State does not think that he would be justified in over-ruling him in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy under such conditions.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether, without over-ruling the discretion of the Governor, some representations would be made with regard to the prerogative of mercy.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he would be very glad to see some modification of the sentence, but he could make no official statement.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLthanked the hon. Gentleman for his sympathy, in which he hoped other chiefs sentenced with Tilonko would be included.

  New Zealand Butter Industry.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies can he state what was the proportion of first-grade butter to the total exported when grading was first instituted in New Zealand, and what is the proportion in the present year according to the latest information; and can he state what is the difference in the price of

  663
  first-grade New Zealand butter now and that current when grading was instituted.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Compulsory grading was instituted by the Dairy Industry Act of 1894. The first year for which full statistics are available is that ended 31st March, 1896, when the percentage of first-grade creamery butter was 93 per cent., while that for the year ended 31st March, 1906, was 97·85 per cent. In regard to the difference in price as between these years, no precise figures can be quoted as a guide, as values fluctuate from year to year according to the general state of the market irrespective of influences such as grading. It may be stated in general, however, that New Zealand butter, since the institution of grading, has attained a higher standard of value represented by many shillings per cwt.
  MR. BOLAND: I hope the hon. Gentleman will convoy the information to the Irish Department of Agriculture.

  Cost of Grading New Zealand Butter.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state what the cost is per hundredweight of grading butter in New Zealand: and what is the proportion borne by the producer and the New Zealand Government respectively.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The cost of grading butter in New Zealand by the Government of that Colony is stated to be approximately 1½d. per cwt. The whole of such cost is borne by the Government. The figure named does not include the cost of cold storage and freezing at the grading depots at the ports of shipment. Practically the whole of such cold storage charges are now borne by the producer or shipper, and are considered as pertaining in greater degree to the business of oversea export than to the official grading system of the Colony.
  MR. BOLAND: Can the hon. Gentleman give the total cost?
  MR. CHURCHILLasked for notice of the Question.

  Judicial Reforms in Macedonia.
  *MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State
  664
  for Foreign Affairs whether the proposed judicial reforms in Macedonia are to be prepared, presented to the Porte, and applied by Austria and Russia, to the exclusion of Great Britain and the other Powers.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): No proposals for the introduction of judicial reforms in Macedonia have yet been put forward. Whenever a definite scheme is proposed, the question of the best method of applying it will be carefully considered by His Majesty's Government, who appreciate the importance which attaches to the Question.

  The Congo International Conference.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States Government have promised their full support to a plan for summoning an international conference to consider the situation in the Congo Free State; and whether His Majesty's Government will, in conjunction with the United States, take any steps in this direction.
  SI REDWARD GREYthe plan of summoning an international conference has not specifically been mentioned. But the United States Government have recently intimated their desire to contribute to the realisation of whatever reforms may be counselled by sentiments of humanity, and by the experience of past or present administration in the Congo State. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, such an announcement is most cordially welcomed by His Majesty's. Government. But, pending the decision to which Belgium may soon come, it is unnecessary to make any further statement at the moment.

  Maderia—Portugese Concessions to a German Syndicate.
  SIRW. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a Bill is now before the Portuguese Cortes under which it is proposed to grant exclusive rights to a German syndicate to build hotels and sanatoria in the island of Madeira during a period of thirty years, to import furniture and material free of duty, and

  665
  to build and run casinos and gambling rooms in connection with the said hotels; whether he is aware that the import duties in Madeira average from 50 per cent. to 80 per cent. ad valorem; that the Portuguese Government has frequently promised equal treatment for British subjects with the subjects of other Powers; and, seeing that the granting of the exclusive rights and privileges above referred to would constitute a breach of these pledges, and expose British subjects long established in Madeira to ruinous competition and loss, whether His Majesty's Government will make such representations as seem necessary on the subject to the Portuguese Government.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: According to the information in my possession, no Bill such as that alluded to by the hon. Member has yet been brought before the Portuguese Chamber. I am aware that the Portuguese import duties are high. His Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that any legislation is contemplated which would be contrary to the satisfactory assurances which have already been received from the Portuguese Government with regard to the protection of British interests and property in the island of Madeira from unfair competition.

  Income-Tax and the London County Council Tramway Profits.
  MR. WATERLOW: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer how much income-tax was paid by the London County Council on its tramway profits for the year 1905–6; and what was the amount of profit on those tramways on which tax was paid.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): The information cannot be given without breach of the injunction to secrecy in respect of profits under Schedule D.

  Windlesham Motor Fatality.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of Lieutenant Paton, who was charged at Windsor on Saturday, 1st December, before the Berkshire magistrates, with the manslaughter of Mr. Hart, who died from injuries caused by a motor car
  666
  driven by the defendant at Windlesham, on 23rd October last, in which case several witnesses spoke to the car having been driven at a speed estimated at between forty and fifty miles an hour, and in which the magistrates, without calling on the defence, dismissed the charge; and whether in view of the evidence that the defendant was travelling beyond the statutory limit of twenty miles an hour, he will state if he proposes to take any further action to protect the lives of persons using the highway.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone, Leeds, W.): Yes, Sir. I have now had the opportunity of making inquiries into this ease, and as the result I am consulting with the Director of Public Prosecutions as to whether further proceedings against the defendant should not be taken.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Is it not the fact that Lieutenant Paton says that his car was not travelling twenty miles an hour?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: The case is under consideration. I can make no statement.

  Case of Jane Isabella Sharpies.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Jane Isabella Sharpies was sentenced at the City Police Court, Newcastle-on-Tyne, on 29th October, 1904, to be detained in a home until she was sixteen years of age, and that, although she attained that age on the 5th August last, she has not yet been released from the home at Chipping Norton, in Oxfordshire, to which she was sent, the officials of the home stating, in reply to the mother's protestations, that they intend to keep possession of the child until she is eighteen years old; and whether he will order the instant release of this child and cause immediate inquiry to be made into the conduct of the officials concerned.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: This girl was found to be living with prostitutes. At the same time as she was committed her mother was, I am informed, sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard

  667
  labour for keeping a disorderly house. The girl was not committed to an industrial school, but was dealt with under Section 9 (1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904, and I have no jurisdiction in the matter. As she is over sixteen she is a free agent. I have, however, communicated with the authorities of the home, and I am informed that she remains there entirely of her own free will and that the officials have not stated that they intend to keep her until she is eighteen.
  MR. BOWLES: What was the order of the Court in this case?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot say at the moment. I have given the hon. Member the facts, and I am not inclined to interfere in the case.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Was not the order of the Court to hand the girl over to the Court missionary and not to send her to an industrial school?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given.

  Unlawful Acts and Homicide.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will endeavour to see that persons who, deliberately breaking the statutory law, happen to commit homicide, receive some punishment as a deterrent.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: Anyone is liable to conviction who, as the result of an unlawful act, accidentally commits homicide; but it is for the magistrates to decide whether the evidence in any particular case is sufficient to warrant committal for trial; and if the accused is committed, it rests with the jury to decide whether he is guilty.

  Motor Speeds—Blackpool Coroner's Ruling.
  MR. CATHCART WASON:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the direction of the coroner to the jury at Blackpool, with reference to Clause 9 of The Motor Act, 1903, which enacts that a person shall not under any circumstances drive a motor
  668
  car on a public highway at a speed exceeding twenty mile per hour, in stating to the jury that if it were done early in the morning when few people are stirring, or in a place which might be unfrequented, the act would be excusable if. ordinary precaution were used, and that it did not matter the time of day, as that was only another way of saying when there was no traffic about; and what action he proposes to take with reference to this coroner.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I am informed by the coroner that the words quoted had reference to Section 1 of the Act (which relates to driving recklessly or at a speed dangerous to the public) and not to Section 9 which fixes a maximum rate of speed. The coroner did not say any thing to imply that a car might be driven anywhere or under any circum stances at a speed exceeding twenty miles an hour. On the contrary, he expressly stated that the driver had no right to drive down the road where the accident occurred at a speed of twenty miles an hour.

  Metropolitan Police Rate.
  MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the amount produced by the Metropolitan police rate for the years 1905 and 1906.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: The sums received in the years 1905 and 1906 in respect of the proceeds of the police rate of 5d. in the £ levied on the parishes in the Metropolitan Police District were respectively £1,044,941 10s. 1d. and £1,077,548 15s. 8d.

  Police Arrests.
  MR. FIENNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state what facilities are afforded by the police to a man arrested in a public street for any offence to obtain witnesses from the bystanders who have been present during the time of the alleged offence.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: It is open to any bystander to proceed to the police station or police court in order to tender his testimony, and no obstacle would be placed in the way of the prisoner asking any bystander to do so. A person under

  669
  detention at a police station is afforded all possible facilities for communicating with his friends or his solicitor.
  MR. LUPTON: Are we to understand that a man arrested will be allowed to ask bystanders for their names and addresses?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I was asked a general Question and I have given the best answer I can.
  MR. LUPTON: But a definite instruction from the Home Secretary might be useful.

  Newspaper Descriptions of Crime.
  MR. W. R. REA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the growing practice amongst a certain section of the Press, of publishing articles minutely descriptive of the methods practised in certain forms of crime, such as coining and house-breaking; whether he has official information showing that such articles are an incentive to imitation, and thus directly productive of an increase in the crime of the country; and whether there are no means by which the abuse may be checked.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: The attention of the Home Office has more than once been drawn by Judges and others to the mischief done by such articles as are mentioned in the Question. One of the worst of these articles was withdrawn from circulation some years ago, but the evil it did survives, and quite recently a case occurred where it had led to the commission of crime. I entirely concur with what my predecessor said in this House on 1st August, 1904; and, if necessity arises, I shall be prepared to ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to take action. If it is found that the law requires to be strengthened, I am confident that I should receive the support of the House in legislation for its amendment.

  Naturalisation Fees.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a letter written from the Colonial Office by the
  670
  hon. Member for North-west Manchester, advocating a reduction in the amount of the naturalisation fee at present charged as a condition upon which an alien resident in this country may obtain the privileges of British citizenship; whether this letter was written with the Home Secretary's approval or knowledge; whether the matter is one within the competence of the Colonial Office to decide; and whether the Government intend to lower the fee.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir, my attention has been drawn to the letter referred to. The subject of it, as my right hon. friend knows, is under the jurisdiction of the Home Office, and it is one on which my hon. friend the Member for North-west Manchester is perfectly entitled to express his private opinion. The question as to whether or not the naturalisation fee should be lowered has not as yet been under my consideration. I may, however, observe that in considering applications for naturalisation I attach more importance to the careful inquiries which are made into the personal qualifications and fitness of the applicant than to the amount of the fee.

  Constables in Charge of Police Stations.
  MR. FIENNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the rank and qualification of a constable in charge of a police station, and, if any, what instructions are given to him; and what power is placed in his hands of retaining or dismissing a prisoner who is brought into the station.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: The rank of the officer depends on the local circumstances. In all the more important stations he is an inspector; in minor stations a sergeant. The qualifications of the officers appointed to this post are ascertained from their record of service, and tested by departmental examination. It would be impossible within the compass of a Question to discuss the powers of the station officer, and the instructions given him; but I may refer the hon. Member specially to Section 69 of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, and to Section 38 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879.

  Grants to Distress Committees.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will give the names of the various distress committees to which money has been granted, and the amount that has been granted to each of the said committees.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): The total amount distributed in England and Wales out of the grant up to the present time is £29,450. I will send my hon. friend a statement as to the particulars of the payments.

  Seizures of Diseased Pigs at Birmingham
  *MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the value of pigs seized and destroyed weekly in Birmingham for tuberculosis has been estimated at £100, and that it has been admitted by the town clerk of Birmingham that the approximate value of pigs destroyed each week for the four weeks ending 17th November was £31 18s.; and whether he will take steps to have those dealers recompensed whose pigs have been destroyed in the interest of the public.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am not aware of any authority for the estimate referred to, and its accuracy is denied by the town clerk on behalf of the town council. The approximate value given by the town clerk of the carcases and portions condemned during each of the four weeks ending 17th November is as stated in the Question, but I am informed that the number of pigs slaughtered during this period is considerably above the average of the year. I have no authority to cause the dealers to be recompensed us suggested.
  *MR. FFRENCH: Why are not the owners in Birmingham compensated as they are elsewhere—inGermany for instance? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the pigs slaughtered have passed the Government inspectors; at the port of embarkation? What are the special qualifications of the Birmingham inspectors for the work?
  *MR. JOHN BURNS: I have no doubt as to their qualifications. It would be quite possible for an animal inspected at the port of embarkation to develop disease subsequently.
  MR. THORNE: What becomes of the condemned pigs?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I hope by means of the Bill I have before the House to ensure that no pigs are sold which are not fit for human consumption.
  *MR. FFRENCH: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the justice of compensating poor, dealing men, whose pigs have been seized and destroyed in the interest of the public?
  [No Anwer was returned.]

  Motor Bus Skidding.
  MR. ROSE:I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received any communication from the Automobile Club of Great Britain and Ireland with reference to trials they propose inaugurating for ascertaining the most effective devices, in compliance with the regulations of the Local Government Board and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, for preventing side-slip and skidding by motor omnibuses; and whether he can see his way to appoint a representative to watch the trials in the interests of the public.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have received a communication to this effect, and have accepted the invitation to send an officer of the Local Government Board to watch the proceedings for testing the capacity of any devices that may be submitted for competition.

  Hatherleigh Postmaster.
  MR. WALROND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the fact that the post office at Hatherleigh, Devon, has recently been moved into a building occupied by a political club; that the postmaster is an official of the said club, and that there is direct communication between the premises of the club and the post office, and that the postmaster is authorised to

  673
  deal in liquor; and whether he will endeavour to find other premises for this, post office.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): This Question has necessitated local inquiry which is now being made. I will give the hon. Member an Answer as soon as possible.

  Post Office Hampers.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, during the two years ending July, 1906, 80,000 now Post Office hampers, of the average value of £1 per hamper, were, at the instance of the Postal Department, burned by the contractors, who were paid £1 per 100 for destroying them; whether the only reason for destroying these hampers at the public expense was that the Department had decided to adopt another kind; and whether some of these hampers are still being burned by a South London firm of contractors who are being paid by the Post Office for destroying them.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The hon. Member has been misinformed. The baskets to which he refers were not now, but upwards of eleven years old; the number destroyed was about 3,000 not 80,000. They were heavy baskets of an obsolete pattern; and as it was found that an economy would be effected by replacing them, even though not quite worn out, by a much lighter receptacle, it was decided after full consideration to withdraw them from use. If they had been sold they would have realised only a very low price; and as it was not considered desirable, being a Post Office pattern, that they should be used for ordinary purposes, there was no alternative but to destroy them.

  Leeds High School Teachers.
  MR. O'GKADY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the case of Miss James, a pupil teacher studying at the Thoresby High School, Leeds, who applied for admission to the Ladies Training College, Cheltenham, and whose application was refused, has been submitted to him by the Leeds Education Authority for inquiry; whether such inquiry has been made; and, if so, with what results.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Birrell, Bristol, S.): The Answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. Owing to present circumstances I have not yet had time to make inquiry into the case. The matter seems to me to be of such a nature as to necessitate a most careful inquiry and not merely cursory investigation. It is for this reason that I prefer to postpone my inquiry for a short time in order that it may be done thoroughly, and with full consideration of the somewhat wide issues of principle which it will of necessity raise in regard to our whole training college system. The hon. Member may rest assured that the case will not be let slip, and that my delay, so far from implying indifference to it, is on the contrary due to my serious concern in regard to the principles involved.
  MR. O'GRADY: Shall I repeat the Question in a week's time?
  MR. BIRRELL: The Education Office at the present moment is very heavily worked. I will communicate with the hon. Member at the earliest possible opportunity.

  Education Grant.
  MR. BUTCHER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will issue a statement explaining the principles on which the £1,000,000 to be granted under the Education Bill is to be allocated to the education authorities.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave on this matter on 26th April and 9th July.†The latter reply also gave the reasons why we cannot at present come to any definite conclusion on the matter. I should perhaps add that the grant of £1,000,000 was made contingent upon the passing of the Government Education Bill.

  Compulsory Sheep Dipping.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the resolution recently passed by the National Sheep Breeders' Association,
  †See (4) Debates, clvi., 28; clx., 493–4.

  675
  urging the Government to put into force at once an universal order throughout the whole of Great Britain for the compulsory dipping of sheep; whether he is aware that the outbreaks of sheep scab are now in excess of the outbreaks at the same season last year; and whether the Board will now proceed to carry into effect an universal sheep-dipping order in accordance with the wish of the main body of sheep breeders in the country.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYwe have received the resolution referred to, but the proposals made would involve a system of penalties on the owner of diseased sheep. This would require legislation and the Board do not consider the necessity of such a measure has been established. It is true that the number of cases of the disease during the two weeks ended 1st December was greater than during the same period last year, but this temporary increase has not been maintained, and for the year as a whole the outbreaks have been reduced by nearly one-half. The Board are now considering the question of extending the requirement of compulsory dipping universally.

  American Gooseberry Mildew.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the danger to the fruit-growers of Great Britain in consequence of the outbreaks of American gooseberry mildew in this country, a danger admitted by the Board in the circular just issued by the Department, he will undertake at the earliest possible date to introduce legislation giving power to the Board, both to prohibit the importation of gooseberry bushes into Great Britain, and also to deal effectively within the country with infected stocks and insect pests, on the lines of the Destructive Insects Act, 1877.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Full inquiry is being made as to the necessity and practicability of legislation in the direction suggested by the hon. Member, but until we are in possession of further information as to the characteristics and past history of the disease, and the nature and extent of the trade with which it is proposed to deal, it is not possible for us to enter into any definite
  676
  undertaking on the subject. We fully appreciate, however, the importance of taking any action which may be decided upon as speedily as possible.

  Sheep Scab.
  MR. ROSE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware of a number of recent cases of sheep scab in various districts in the south of England, which have been traced to sheep purchased at some of the larger sheep fairs; and whether, for the protection of purchasers, he can see his way to appoint an inspector at the principal sheep fairs in England.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: If my hon. friend would be good enough to give me rather more specific information as to the locality of the outbreaks to which he refers, the Board will be glad to cause fall inquiry to be made into their origin. The administration of the orders relating to sheep scab rests, however, with the local authorities, and the appointment of an inspector to attend fairs would be a matter for their decision.

  Castletownroche Train Service.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the train service at Castletownroche, on the line of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company; if he is aware that no train stops at this station, in connection with any train north of Mallow, after 2.18 p.m.; that passengers leaving Dublin by any train later than 9.15 a.m. cannot reach Castletownroche the same night by rail; and if he will make representations upon the matter to the company concerned, in order that the requirements of the people of this and surrounding districts may be adequately provided for.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr Kearley, Devonport): The Board of Trade have been in communication with the railway company concerned. They admit that the facts are as stated in regard to through trains, but state that further facilities for long distance passenger traffic could not be given

  677
  without extra expense which the amount of the traffic would not warrant. The company add that there is a good local service.

  Humber Bank Floods.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the breaches made by the gales of last winter in the Humber bank, thereby flooding the low lands of Kilnsea and Easington; whether he is aware that nothing has been done to repair these breaches and that the Treasury have repudiated their obligation after maintaining them for over fifty years; and what steps he proposes to take in the event of this winter's storm sweeping through the bank and affecting the navigable channels of the Humber, thereby causing silting and injury to the approaches to the city of Hull and the port of Grimsby, and also endangering the anchorage for shelter of His Majesty's Navy and the mercantile marine.
  *MR. KEARLEY: The Board of Trade have received reports as to the damage done by the gales of last winter to the sea banks of Kilnsea and Easington Levels, whereby a considerable extent of low lands became flooded, and I under-stand that it is the case that the breaches in the banks have not since been repaired. These banks have always been maintained by the local Commission of Sewers at the expense of the owners of the lands requiring protection, and not by His Majesty's Government. The Board of Trade are advised that there is no reason to anticipate that the navigable depth of the Humber would be affected to any appreciable extent by the passage of water across the low lands in question.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONasked if it were not the fact that every extra high tide of the sea sweeps through the breaches. Would the Government not reconsider their determination to refuse assistance for remaking the bank.
  *MR. KEARLEY: The Board of Trade sent down an eminent engineer, and the Royal Commission on Sea Erosion has also taken evidence on the matter.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: But does the hon. Gentleman realise that before the Royal Commission can report the damage done may be irreparable?
  *MR. KEARLEY: I have had many representations to that effect from the hon. Gentleman.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: Have not the Government for fifty years maintained a portion of the bank?
  MR. KEARLEY: Yes, in connection with the Spurn lighthouse.

  Butter Deliveries—Railway Delays.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the case in which four kegs of butter consigned from Limerick to Messrs. White & Symon of Maldon on 6th November were not delivered until 19th November; and what action, if any, the Board of Trade proposes to take in the matter.
  The hon. Member had given notice of the following Question also:—To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the case in which three boxes of butter were consigned to Morgan Hicks, Parth, South Wales, from Limerick on 26th November, and not delivered on 4th December; is he aware of the fact that those complaints in regard to Irish produce are general; and can he say what steps will be taken to insure punctual delivery.
  *MR. KEARLEY: I will cause inquiry to be made into the matters referred to in these Questions, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

  Company Law.
  MR. TOULMIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the number of companies which do not comply with the statutory requirements as to the holding of annual meetings; and whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to secure the observance of the law.
  MR. KEARLEY: Yes, Sir, the question referred to has engaged the

  679
  attention of the Department and will be dealt with in the Companies Bill which my right hon. friend hopes to be able to introduce next session.

  Spurn Breakwater.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury have repudiated their liability to maintain the Spurn Breakwater at the mouth of the Humber; whether he is aware that the breaches in the banks made by the storms of last winter near Kilnsea have been entirely neglected; will he say what has been the amount annually contributed for the purpose of maintaining the Spurn during the last twenty years; what is the acreage of land reclaimed from the Humber (including Sunk Island), and what is the annual amount of rent paid into the Exchequer from such land; and whether in the event of the Humber Conservancy being willing to accept the obligation of the Treasury respecting the maintenance of the Spurn, he will transfer to them the income arising from these lands, such money to be expended in maintaining the Spurn and the Humber generally.
  MR. KEARLEY: I have been asked by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reply to the Question addressed to him by the hon. Member. The Treasury have neither repudiated nor admitted liability for the maintenance of the Spurn towards which a sum of £1,200 has been voted by Parliament for many years past. The area of land reclaimed at Sunk Island is estimated at about 5,000 acres. That reclamation has been effected partly by nature and to a great extent by works carried out at the expense of the Crown or its tenants. The gross rental of Crown property on Sunk Island is £10,000. The suggestion that such income should be transferred to the Humber Conservancy on their undertaking the maintenance of the Spurn cannot be entertained.

  Clydebank Licences.
  MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the circumstances under which six new licences were recently granted by the Clydebank Bench, several of the applicants already holding one or more licences; whether be is aware that no
  680
  vote was taken by the Bench when the licences were granted; and whether it is proposed to take any action in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): No information on the subject referred to by my hon. friend has reached me.

  Appeals Against Summary Convictions in Ireland.
  MR. SWIFT MACXEILL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, in view of the fact that magistrates at petty sessions in Ireland I are empowered to sentence to terms of imprisonment of not more than one month, on summary conviction, persons brought before them and that such sentences may be accompanied with hard labour; that from these sentences the prisoner has no power of appeal, and that an increase of sentence to admit of the lodging of appeal is not uncommonly refused by magistrates, and that such refusal has been frequently the subject of severe comment by County Court Judges and Judges of the High Court; and; having regard to the fact that in England there is in every case a power of appeal from the decision of magistrates, and that the senior Member for London on the 17th May, 1887, when the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Bill was passing through Committee, gave a pledge, which was not observed, that in all cases under that Act there should be an appeal, he will consider the advisability, with a view of assimilating the English and Irish criminal law, of advising the Government to introduce a measure providing that in Ireland in all cases there should be a power of appeal from the decision of magistrates at petty session.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange): The right of appeal from an order of imprisonment by a Court of summary jurisdiction in Ireland is, as stated in the Question, confined to sentences exceeding one month in duration. Magistrates are sometimes asked by the persons convicted to increase lesser sentences with a view to allowing an appeal, and in some cases they have refused to do so. As the hon. Member is aware, during the course

  681
  of this session an Amendment to the Street Betting Bill was adopted by the House, extending this right of appeal in Ireland in the case of offences which will be created by that Bill if it becomes an Act. Personally, I see no objection to a more general extension of the right of appeal, and it is prima facie desirable to assimilate the criminal law in England and Ireland in this and in many other respects. These are matters, however, upon which I can give no pledge on behalf of the Government.

  Irish Intermediate Education.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether the programme of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland for the period after 1907 is expressed to be the programme for any particular year or years; if not, for how long will such programme continue in force; and whether there will be power to alter it every year as may be found necessary.
  MR. CHERRY: The programme of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland for the period after 1907 is not expressed to be the programme for any particular year or years. It will continue in force until altered by the Commissioners. There is power to alter it at any time as may be found necessary.

  Burns Hartopp Estate.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any and, if so, what stops have been taken by the Estates Commissioners to secure the reinstatement of Patrick Sullivan, an evicted tenant on the Burns Hartopp estate, now living in Cahirciveen, whose case has been inquired into recently by one of their inspectors.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.): the Estates Commissioners imform me that their inspector has recently inquired into and reported upon the application for reinstatement which was made by Patrick Sullivan, an evicted tenant from the Burns Hartopp estate. The Commissioners will take the inspector's report into consideration as soon as possible.

  Swinford Potato Crop Failure.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been specially drawn to the condition of the people in the union of Swinford due to the failure of the potato crop in that union; and whether he will consider the desirability of placing a sum of money at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board for the purpose of carrying out drainage and other much needed works in that union during the coming spring.
  MR. BRYCE: The Reports which I have received indicate that there has been a partial failure of the potato crop in the Swinford Union, but that other crops have been good, and that good prices for live stock prevail. It is not anticipated that any exceptional distress is likely to exist in the union for some time to come, but the condition of the people will continue to be carefully watched. The Congested Districts Board hold that they cannot undertake works for the relief of temporary or exceptional distress. Their power to execute improvement works is confined to estates which have been purchased by and vested in them. The Board are alive to the importance of carrying out any works they can carry out in the places and at the times most likely to be helpful for the relief of distress.

  Dr. Bird's Bantry Estate.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Dr. R. Bird's estate at Kilcrohane, Bantry, county Cork, was vested in the Congested Districts Board; and, if, so, whether striping and rearrangement of holdings will be immediately carried out so as to enable the tenants to earn money and thereby prevent their suffering from the partial failure of the potato crop.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed that the estate in question was vested in the Congested Districts Board on 25th October last, and that the Board are now proceeding with improvement works on the estate.

  Irish Agricultural Statistics.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the

  683
  Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the enumeration of agricultural statistics in Ireland is deficient in that it does not contain tables of average and comparative prices of agricultural produce from different parts of the country; and will he direct that this omission be remedied next year.
  MR. BRYCE: Information as to the average and comparative prices of agricultural produce in different parts of Ireland is published in the annual Returns of prices of crops, live stock, and other products, which is issued by the Department of Agriculture and presented to Parliament. The Department do not consider it desirable that this Return should be incorporated in the agricultural statistics.

  Longford Rent Reductions.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any representation has reached the Land Commission from county Longford farmers, on the subject of recent rent reductions in that county; whether he is aware that in nearly all the cases heard recently the highest reduction given did not exceed 15 per cent.; and can he undertake to make representations to the Commissioners upon this subject.
  MR. BRYCE: The Land Commission inform mo that they cannot find that any representations from county Longford farmers have reached them on the subject of recent rent reductions in that county. As I stated in reply to the hon. Member's Question yesterday, the Land Commission conceive that they ought not to discuss, in answer to Questions in this House, the result of judicial proceedings for the fixing of rent. If either of the parties to a particular case is dissatisfied with the decision, he has the right of appeal as provided by statute. I have no power to interfere with the procedure for rent fixing which Parliament has left to the Land Commission.

  Cavan and Leitrim Railway—Flag Stations.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a copy of a resolution passed recently at a public meeting
  684
  held in Ballinamore, county Leitrim, protesting against the closing of four flag stations on the Cavan and Leitrim Light Railway to passenger and goods traffic; and, if so, will he say what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. BRYCE: I have received a copy of the resolution referred to, and have informed the chairman of the meeting that the Irish Government have no authority to interfere with the action of the Cavan and Leitrim Railway Company in the matter complained of, but that it appears to be open to the ratepayers, under Section 47 of the Cavan, Leitrim, and Roscommon Light Railways Order, 1884, to make representations to the Board of Trade in respect of any alleged default on the part of the railway company in the working of the line.

  Labourers (Ireland) Act Inspectors.
  MR. DOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will submit to this House the names of all persons who are candidates for inspector, ships under The Labourers (Ireland) Act 1906, before any appointments are made.'
  MR. BRYCE: No, Sir; it would be an unprecedented and most inconvenient course to submit to this House the names of candidates for any offices in the gift of His Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Young's Culdaff Estate.
  MR. DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that over 200 tenants on the estates of R.G. Young, Esq., Culdaff, county Donegal, signed agreements to purchase their holdings under the Land Act of 1903 in March, 1904;that the estate was inspected in August, 1904, and all the queries raised by the inspector satisfactorily discharged; whether, seeing that the tenants have since paid punctually interest at the rate of 3½ per cent. on the purchase money, he will say what is the reason for the delay in vesting the holdings in the tenants, by which the amounts of the hall-yearly payments would be reduced; whether the Commissioners have received letters from the tenants complaining of the delay; and, if so, why they have not replied to them.
  *MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform mo that the estate in question was first inspected in August, 1904, but having regard to the fact that a considerable number of the tenants had refused to sign purchase agreements, and that part of the estate was congested, the Commissioners decided to deal with the estate in two portions, one of which was to be sold to the tenants by direct sale (Section 1) and the other to be sold to the Commissioners under Section 6. With the object of making an offer to the vendor for the latter portion, the Commissioners instructed another inspector to visit this portion of the property and also to report on certain holdings included in the direct sale which were described as judicial holdings. On consideration of the second report the Commissioners decided to visit the estate personally and suspend the completion of the sale until they should have an opportunity of doing so. Owing to the demands upon the time of the Commissioners, which made it difficult for them to leave Dublin, some time elapsed before this visit could be made. As a result of their visit the Commissioners have decided that a further report must be made before the advances applied for could be made. The inspector to whom the estate has been referred has met with an accident and will not be able to visit the estate until January, and until his Report has been received no further action can be taken. Letters have been received from several tenants on the estate and will be dealt with when the Commissioners have received the further Report.

  Mr. George Hewson, J. P.
  MR. DOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. George Hewson, J.P., estate agent, Dromahair, is a candidate for the position of inspector under The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906; and, seeing that the Local Government Board are aware that Mr. Hewson's appointment would be unpopular in the county of Leitrim, whether he will consider the advisability of appointing some other person.
  MR. BRYCE: I have no information as to whether the gentleman named is likely to be a candidate.

  Evicted Tenants in County Clare.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the inspectors of the Estates Commissioners have completed their investigation of the position of the evicted tenants in county Clare; and what steps are to be taken for their reinstatement into their holdings.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received 200 applications for reinstatement from evicted tenants in county Clare. The Commissioners have obtained reports from their inspectors on 156 of these cases. In thirty-four cases the prices which the Commissioners will be prepared to advance for the purchase of the holdings, which are in the owners' possession, have been communicated to the owners, and have been accepted in thirty of these cases. In fifty-one cases the Commissioners have decided, for various reasons, to take no action. In thirty-three cases the applications have been noted for consideration in connection with the distribution of any untenanted land which the Commissioners may acquire; and the remaining thirty-eight cases have yet to be ruled on by the Commissioners.

  Radio-Telegraphic Convention.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to name a sitting for the purpose of a discussion on the Radio-Telegraphic Convention.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): An opportunity will be given on Tuesday.

  Cruel Sports.
  MR. G. GREENWOOD:I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that, on 27th November last, a deer turned out to be hunted by the Berks and Bucks staghounds, after a run of some fifteen miles, got entangled in a barbed wire fence which it had attempted to jump, and while thus entangled was so severely bitten by the hounds and so seriously injured by the barbed wire that it subsequently died in a cart into which it had been lifted for the purpose of removing it; and if he is

  687
  aware that, on 4th December last, another deer was turned out by the same hunt in a maimed and injured condition, and after a short run was captured and carried on a gate to a neighbouring farm, where it was killed by order of the master of the hounds; and if he will introduce legislation at an early date to put down such so called sport.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware whether the facts are as my hon. friend states, but if such cruelties are perpetrated and we can do anything to top them I shall be very glad. I am against cruelty of any sort whether under the name of sport or otherwise.

  Plural Voting Bill.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the rejection of the Plural Voting Bill in another place, the Government will introduce at an early date a measure to include one man one vote, adult suffrage, and the removal of all obstacles which prevent the legislative expression of the will of the people as declared through their duly-elected representatives.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: I am afraid that I cannot make any announcement on this subject.

  Spiritural Peers.
  MR.FULLERTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will give an opportunity during the present session of Parliament for considering a Motion affirming the desirability of relieving spiritual peers from attendance in Parliament.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not see any possible opportunity.

  Swindon Magistrates.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the list of newly appointed magistrates for the borough of Swindon; whether he is aware that out of the published list of twenty-four appointments one only of that number represents labour, although five nominations were made from organised labour; and can he say what are the objections taken to labour men in the borough mentioned.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Lord Chancellor informs me that he is under the impression that three representatives of labour are on the list of justices appointed for Swindon, but will inquire. Whether it is one or three no other labour names were sent to him direct, nor were any others recommended to him. The Lord Chancellor is prepared to receive and consider the names of labour representatives from any responsible quarter, but in order to prevent misunderstanding he suggests that the names be sent to him direct, accompanied by recommendations on which he can act, as in other cases.
  MR. FLAVIN: Cannot the Irish Lord Chancellor act in the same direction?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The ways of Ireland are strange.

  Scottish Prisons.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the sum of £33,800 is to be spent on a new prison in Scotland though there is large spare accommodation in Perth and other prisons; and whether, in the interests of frugality, he will consider the advisability of utilising this sum as an instalment towards new barracks for housing the Scots Greys.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am aware that this sum is given as the estimated cost of the new prison at Greenock. It is the case that the accommodation in Perth prison is not fully occupied, but the constant removal of prisoners for considerable distances is attended with serious public inconvenience, and therefore this new accommodation is required. Let me add that I should think there can be no question in any circumstances of permanently housing the Scots Greys in Scotland. That regiment has only had ten turns of two years and under of service in Scotland during the last hundred years.

  Orange River Colony.
  *MR.BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if the Constitution of the Orange River Colony will be included in the discussion fixed for the 17th instant; and, if so, whether Papers will

  689
  be at once laid upon the Table giving full particulars of the proposed Constitution of that Colony.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANthe general outline of the Orange River Colony Constitution will be announced to Parliament on Monday. No Papers will be laid at present.
  MR. MACKARNESSasked when the grant of the Constitution would actually be made.
  SIRH. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If any definite Answer can be given to that Question it will be given on Monday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. F. E. SMITH: Does the Prime Minister propose to give an opportunity for discussing the Papers on Newfoundland?
SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: I am afraid there is no chance of a discussion on them this session.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything as to the business of next Wednesday?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid Wednesday would be an opportunity, if Members desired to embrace it, for a discussion on the Army; but, if he might tender friendly advice, he would say that the new session was not very far off, when a more complete discussion would be possible. After the several discussions were finished during the course of next week, they would take up the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to Bills and other business of that sort, of which there was plenty.

THE TIMES AND THE HOUSE.
MR. WEDGWOODasked the Chairman of the Select Committee on Housing of the Working Classes whether his attention had been called to the premature publication in a newspaper of a summary of the Report of the Select Committee, why the Report was communicated to the Press before it
690
was circulated to the Members of the House, and whether he could give the House the names of the persons who contributed the summary to the Press.
*SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid, as Chairman of the Select Committee referred to, that he desired to say that he had noted with equal surprise, and even greater annoyance, the paragraphs in The Times of two days ago, and the additional paragraph in to-day's Political Column of that paper. Perhaps he might be permitted to say, in justification of himself, that in no way, either directly or indirectly, was he responsible for imparting this premature information to the paper. As the House might be aware, the Chairman of a Select Committee possessed no control over his colleagues in matters of discretion of this character, and any information that might be given by any member of the Committee of course lay solely in the discretion of that member, and the chairman, in his capacity, had no control. If a member of that Select Committee had given the information he could only express the opinion, which was largely shared in all quarters of the House, that such action was greatly to be deplored, and that every means should be taken to avoid the recurrence of it in future Select Committees. The House would realise that he was placed in a somewhat invidious position in being asked categorically to give certain answers to his hon. friend. They had been sitting on that Select Committee since the early days of the session, a very laborious and long task, and the chief feature which had characterised the Committee had been the harmony and good feeling among all the members. He had no desire to disturb that harmony by assuming, as it were, an inquisitorial position over his colleagues, over whom he really had no control in this matter. This was by no means the first experience of such leakages—it had become an almost constant practice; and he was sure his statement would be borne out by other chairmen, that it was extremely injurious to the results and the impressions of the Report of a Committee that premature information in an emasculated and abridged form should appear in a paper before the publication of the Report. The hon. Member was proceeding to make a suggestion, when
*MR. SPEAKERsaid the reply of the hon. Member was somewhat exceeding the usual limits.
SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERbowed to Mr. Speaker's ruling. He had wished very respectfully to indicate a way in which they might be able to prevent these leakages in future. He believed Members themselves were the chief offenders. He hoped that at an early date next session the Government would take steps which would ensure that these premature paragraphs did not appear in the Press.
MR. KEIRHARDIEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of these frequent leakages, it would not be worth while to appoint a small Committee to consider and report on what steps might be taken to prevent their recurrence in future.
AN HON. MEMBER: Would it not be possible to prosecute the newspaper in question as a receiver of stolen goods?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked the Prime Minister if he did not see his way at once to accede to the request of the hon. Member below the gangway, whether the Government would not, at any rate, take this matter into very serious consideration during the recess. The right hon. Gentleman would remember that Questions had already been addressed to him on these subjects. These leakages had been especially frequent of late, although complaints had been made in the House for many years past. He ventured to suggest that they were almost an infringement, certainly an abuse, of the privileges of the House which required serious consideration.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am quite alive to the importance of the matter. I do not know that it has got worse recently. My memory goes back a great number of years to a time when there was less soliciting in the immediate neighbourhood of the House, and Members were not assailed at every step by gentlemen whose object it is to screw out of them all the information they can. If Members are foolish enough to succumb to this species of terrorisation or
692
persuasion—I do not know which—these things will happen; but let us hope that Members, now that they have heard this little discussion, may button up the recesses of their minds against these encroachments. I will bear it in mind, and if any step can be taken to assist the promotion of better secrecy I shall be very glad to take it.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I understand that you, Mr. Speaker, generally delegate to the Sergeant-at-Arms your power in reference to tickets for the Press Gallery. In the case of repeated instances of misconduct by a paper—and The Times has been the chief offender—if these instances of misconduct are repeated may I ask you whether you consider it, in your discretion, right to admit the agents of that paper to the courtesy of the Press Gallery I That would put an end to it at once.
*MR. SPEAKER: If there were any question of misconduct on the part of any paper admitted to the Press Gallery or Lobby I should at once take notice of it; but I am not in a position to say, when a paper is handed by an hon. Member of this House to a newspaper and then published by that newspaper, that any charge of misconduct can be made against the newspaper.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: With very great respect, Sir, I put this aspect of the case before you. These leakages have repeatedly been the subject of comment in this House; editors and proprietors know that they are violating Parliamentary etiquettes and the rules of this House by it; and, if that is the case, would it not lie in your discretion not to give tickets to the papers whose proprietors and editors offend in this respect?
*MR. SPEAKER: The best way to stop a leakage is to fill up the hole.

LAND VALUES TAXATION, &c. (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
Special Report brought up, and read.
Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 379.]

POST OFFICE SERVANTS.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed].
Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 380.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).
Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read.
Report to lie on the Table and to be printed. [No. 381.]

NEW BILL.
  PROBATION OF OFFENDERS BILL.
  "To permit the release of Offenders on Probation in certain cases," presented by Mr. Secretary Gladstone; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 369.]

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order for the Third Reading read.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.)said in moving the Third Reading of this Bill he had again to thank the House for the support and the assistance he had received from all quarters, from all parties, and through all stages. The House would remember that the Bill was to consolidate, as well as to amend, the law. The fact that hon. Members had not taken advantage of this to discuss at length that part of the law which it was not proposed to change had justified the course taken by the result, and he hoped by this Bill they would all have learnt to deal less in legislation by reference in the future. This measure contained no new question of the first magnitude, but it did deal with difficult and important points in connection with labour. He gratefully acknowledged the valuable assistance he had received from his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General, and from his
  694
  hon. friend the Member for the Cleveland Division, to whom the excellent machinery to carry out the purpose of Clause 8 of the Bill was really due. The Government were also indebted to the hon. Member for Berwickshire for his pioneer labours upon this question and his long persevering efforts in bringing those labours to legislative fruit. He felt sure he was voicing the views of all Parties in the House when he expressed his regret at the inability of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to take part in the debates on the great extension of the parent Act which the right hon. Gentleman himself brought in in 1897. It was not without a personal tremor that he had looked forward to the co-operation of the right hon. Gentleman in this House either in the way of criticism or in support of these proposals, and he thought the House had greatly suffered from the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, the cause of which they all deplored. He had no occasion to detain the House long upon this subject. The recent discussion extended over four days, during which all the leading points of the Bill were fully discussed. But there was one matter upon which he desired to say a few words. The House in its collective wisdom had shown an inveterate hostility to all the attempts of the Government to exempt from the operation of this Bill the small employers. Now practically all classes of persons under contract of service, whether the employment was dangerous or safe, were included in the purview of this Bill. While in 1897 6,000,000 of people were brought within the operation of the Act, and in 1900 1,000,000, there were now 6,000,000 in addition. This great extension did involve benefit—he hoped great benefit—but it also, naturally, involved some danger to which this House should not shut their eyes. A number of small employers would be brought under the operation of this Act, and it was to be hoped that they would be raised to a sense of the duty imposed upon them by it; to a sense of the necessity which lay upon them to insure against the liability to which they would be exposed in order to be in a position to meet it in compensating a workman who might be injured. Experience showed that a mass of these people would not insure whatever steps were taken, and

  695
  that experience was reinforced by the opinion expressed in the Committee which considered this question. It was pointed out that 24 per cent. of those engaged in the building trades did not choose to insure, although the Act had been in operation for some six or seven years. If the Government required any pressure this knowledge and this information from the Committee would hasten their desire to deal with the whole subject of national insurance in rotation to the law of employers' liability. But in the meanwhile they would do the best they could through Government agencies or otherwise to warn employers, great and small, throughout the country, of the risks they were under and also to tell the workpeople of this country what rights were given to them under this Act. In the coming session at an early date the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade would bring in a Bill to provide a test of the financial solvency of the insurance companies, which dealt with cases under employers' liability, so far as it could be provided in the time at their disposal and, in that connection he desired to express the hope that small employers in particular would be specially on their guard against mushroom and insolvent companies. He wished to appeal through the House and to the Press throughout the country to give the fullest information in their power in regard to this Bill as soon as it passed into law, so that employers should realise their risks and the workmen their rights under it. He believed the provisions of the Bill would be helpful to masses of the people throughout the country, and in so far as they extended and improved the working of the Act of 1897 they would in no sense impair the good relations which existed between employer and employed, but would strengthen the foundations of the national industries by the free and general recognition of the claim to compensation on the part of those who unhappily were the victims of accident in the course of their daily toil.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid this was the final stage of a Bill which every section of the
  696
  House had helped to pass. There had been no desire on the part of the Opposition to put any difficulties in the way of the Bill or to do anything else than make it a workable and good measure. He desired to associate himself with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman in expressing regret at the absence of his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, who had made this subject his own. The measure that his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham brought forward in 1897 marked a new era in the law of compensation, and no one could regret his absence on this occasion more than his colleagues on the Front Opposition Bench. He was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman proposed early next session to introduce a measure dealing with the question of the solvency of insurance companies. He had ventured on Report to point out the danger that existed with regard to the insurance companies designed by this Bill to pay the compensation. The small employers had not the same opportunities as the large employers of of finding out whether a company was solvent. He recognised the Government's desire to fill that gap. They had shown already their interest in the subject by introducing a measure this year. That measure, which was withdrawn, might be taken as a token of the measure to be introduced next year, and all that he would ask of the right hon. Gentleman was that he would introduce it at an early date, so that it might become law when this Bill came into force next July. The experience of nine years working of the Act of 1897 had shown the necessity of an amending Bill, and he himself last year introduced such a Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had taken a bolder course in this Bill, and had consolidated the law. Although the Opposition approved of the principle of the Bill, there were certain points with regard to which they were not quite satisfied with the decision of the House. First of all, there was the reduction of the fourteen days to seven, the period that was to elapse after the accident before compensation was to be claimed. The House, he thought, had by its action in connection with this matter unnecessarily increased the cost of compensation, and placed a heavier burden on the employers, because the fourteen days were certainly a check

  697
  on the malingerer. His experience at the Home Office was that no men were more anxious than hon. Members below the gangway to put an end to malingering, but by reducing the period they had taken away one of the securities against malingering. When preparing the Bill last year he consulted a large number of those who had knowledge of compensation cases, and their opinion was that a distinct period should elapse before compensation was given, and that they should not throw on the employer any expense not necessary to the work. Obviously one factor in wages was the expense of production, and if the cost of production was raised too high some part of it would be transferred from the employer to the workman. That was one point which he regretted had been altered in the Bill. On the introduction of the Bill in March he had expressed a doubt whether the seven days proposed by the Government would really please either the employer or workman. The former desired three days and the latter fourteen. However the right hon. Gentleman had struck the balance and the House had accepted it, and he trusted the result would be for the benefit of both the men and the masters, although he doubted whether they were not placing too heavy a burden on the shoulders of the employers. Again, he did not think this Bill could easily or properly be applied to seamen. He was still unconvinced as to the soundness of the policy of including seamen in this Bill, not that anyone in this House, and certainly not himself, desired to deprive seamen of the right to compensation, but he still thought the better way to have dealt with seamen was by an amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act, as recommended by the Committee. He did not think that the provisions and machinery of the Bill could easily or properly be applied to seamen. The prolonged absence of ships from home, and the frequent changes of the crew, which must in many cases prevent the production of evidence and the witnesses necessary to prove or disprove liability, would place great difficulty in the working of the Act. The recommendation of the Departmental Committee on this point weighed very strongly with the late Government when they deliberately omitted seamen with the view of including them in the Merchant Shipping Act. In regard to the
  698
  new proposals relating to industrial diseases, he was glad to see the hon. Member for Berwickshire back in his place. He was sure it had been a matter of very great regret to the hon. Gentleman that illness prevented him from being present during the Report stage of this Bill. He knew how keenly the hon. Gentleman had felt and pressed the necessity for legislation of this sort. He welcomed the new proposals with regard to industrial diseases, but there was one point he was not satisfied with and that was the deletion of the sub-section refusing compensation in case of a workman's wilful and persistent disobedience to special rules and regulations for his protection. He thought that if a workman persisted in breaking such rules he should not obtain compensation. It was well known that a large percentage of accidents which occurred in course of employment were due to sheer carelessness and disobedience to orders. He believed that if rules made by employers, which were known to, and conspicuously displayed before, workmen, were obeyed one fourth of those diseases would not be contracted. Rules in case of industrial diseases were more often evaded than rules made for protection against machinery. In the latter case, the workman had before him the danger of revolving machinery, which he could see in motion, and it conveyed to him the knowledge at once that it might cause death or mutilation. But in the other case the effect was more distant, and the workman did not take the same precautions. He persisted, notwithstanding the danger of lead poisoning, in eating with work-soiled hands, or in picking wool, which might lead to anthrax, without protecting his mouth. It was hard on the honest employer, who did all he could by rules to warn the employees of the danger they ran, that he should be liable for compensation. He wished to express regret that the Home Secretary had left the question of the old men an open one. He was aware that hon. Members below the gangway held that this proposal would not have the effect which he thought it would, namely, to make it harder for old men to obtain work. It was the opinion of the Departmental Committee that the effect of the Act of 1897 made it more difficult for old or infirm men to find employment,

  699
  because it was difficult to persuade the insurance companies to take the risks without charging a higher premium, and the result was that the employers preferred younger men, and older men found it more difficult to obtain employment. They were moving tentatively, and must move tentatively with regard to workmen's compensation, but this Bill was no doubt a great advance on, and carried forward, the Act of 1897. That Act for the first time gave to a workman, as an incidence of his employment, the right to obtain compensation for accidents received in the course of his work. But some day or other, some scheme of compulsory insurance would have to be devised, probably in the shape of State insurance. In the meantime he trusted this Act would work well, and though it placed in some cases too heavy a burden on the employer, he thought they all ought to agree to wish it God-speed, and hope it would shortly become law.
  MR. H. J. TENNANT:expressed his acknowledgments to the Home Secretary, and also to the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, for their observations respecting himself. He thought it was generally admitted throughout the House that this Bill was a distinct advance in the law of workmen's compensation, and as such he thanked the Home Secretary and congratulated him upon having now entered upon the last stage of the Bill. At the same time his remarks would be more in the nature of a criticism of the Bill than a pœan of praise, although he prefaced those remarks by saying he felt very strongly that the Bill was an advance. There were two serious omissions in the Bill. The first was the omission of outworkers from the power of obtaining compensation. The other point related to dangerous trades. The exclusion of outworkers was to his mind a serious defect. He did not deny that there were difficulties. The objections raised by the Government were that the employer had no control over the outworkers or places in which they worked, and that it was difficult to say who was the person employing the outworker at the moment when injury to health arose or accident Occurred. The question as to who was the employer was not a very serious difficulty, because the outworker
  700
  did not often take work from more than one employer or did not take work from another until he had finished the work of one employer. As to the objection that the employer had no control over the person who undertook work for him, he would ask what real control had the ordinary employer over the ordinary workman? Had the employer any real control over his employees in a factory or in a mine which might be miles from the place where the real control was situated? Where a man avoided control over the worker by deliberately electing to give out his work he ought to be made responsible for accident or illness, for he derived pecuniary advantage from giving out the work to people who were not within the Factory Acts. When the small laundries were excluded by the law an enormous number of employers broke up their laundries into small branches in order to escape the obligations of the law. There was a danger not only to the workmen but to the public in certain small workshops. Any old dilapidated workshop, for example, seemed to be regarded as good enough for brushmaking, and where the work was carried on in living-rooms the risk of anthrax was greatly increased. The risk which employers with factories would run under the Bill would very likely lead some to give up their factories and employ outworkers who would not get compensation if they contracted anthrax. He regretted the decision which the House arrived at in regard to his Amendment which was so ably moved by his hon. friend the Member for West Ham. He could not help thinking that decision was arrived at owing to a misunderstanding. When his hon. friend pointed out for instance that the manufacture of india-rubber was not included in the reference, the answer of the Government was that it had been included.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel, Yorkshire, Cleveland)said the reference was not limited to any particular trades.
  MR. TENNANTsaid the hon. Gentleman stated distinctly that it was included in the reference. He thought it was an unfortunate slip and had considerable weight with the House. This trade was recommended a long time ago to be included in

  701
  the schedule of dangerous trades, but it was not included, and his right hon. friend the Home Secretary, in refutation of the argument of the hon. Member for West Ham, showed him a paper which he said contained all the things the Home Office had done in the last six or seven years, as if that were a refutation of the argument that these things had taken a long time.
  *MR. GLADSTONEsaid he only referred to that to show what action the Home Office had taken when it was stated that practically nothing had been done.
  MR. TENNANTsaid he had never taken the line that nothing had been done. He only said that what was recommended by the Committee had not been carried out. He regretted the decision of the House, because the workpeople engaged in trades outside the schedule would not be able to obtain compensation. He was sorry the two defects he had mentioned had been allowed to remain in the Bill. If wiser and less timorous counsels had prevailed with his right hon. friend, he would hot have allowed these two defects to remain in the Bill.
  *MR. GILLsaid he desired to support the Third Reading, because he believed the Bill was absolutely necessary. The existing law was of an altogether too restricted character, but that was not the case with regard to this Bill, which was a very extensive one. He thought, however, it was a pity that outworkers were left out of its operation. There were, he understood, a great number of difficulties connected with their inclusion, but he and his friends hoped that before very long some solution of those difficulties would be found. He liked the Bill because it removed so many anomalies with which workmen had been acquainted in the working of the present Act, especially in regard to the thirty feet limit, lending workmen, and loading outside of an employer's premises. The Bill contained very important provisions which would be welcomed by the working class. One of the most important was the basis upon which compensation should be assessed. Previously
  702
  if a man happened to be ill or off his work through slackness of trade he would not only have lost his wages, but have been penalised in the amount of compensation he would be entitled to receive. But he was pleased to know that under this Bill the workman would be entitled to get 50 per cent. of a full week's wages so long as it did not exceed £1. That would be very much welcomed by the working classes. There had been a great deal said about the question of dating back after the first fortnight, and also about the question of malingering. He thought the matter had been greatly exaggerated. There were 1,500 cases of accident in his own society and it was difficult for him to remember a single case among those of which he had charge of a person malingering. The great trade unions paid compensation as well as employers; that was a safeguard against malingering, and employers could be satisfied that their interests as well as those of trade unions would be looked after in that respect. The question of costs had been mentioned. He did not think that the cost was going to be so great as some people seemed to suppose. When the Compensation Act was passed in 1897 there were many gloomy prognostications as to the cost, but the fears then entertained had not been realised. An important provision in this Bill, which would be largely welcomed in Lancashire, was that in regard to the scale of compensation for young persons earning from 10s. to 20s. a week. They had been accustomed to receive only 50 per cent. of the average wage, and in many cases that had not been more than 5s. a week. It was now provided that it should be 100 per cent. so long as it did not exceed 10s. a week. A more important provision still was that in regard to permanent incapacity. He bad known several sad cases where lads had been permanently disabled, and when they were able to earn 10s. a week they were without compensation for the future. That was on account of the provision in the Act that when the person who had been injured was able to earn a sum equal to his previous wages in another job the compensation was to be stopped. There was a valuable provision in this Bill which enabled the Judge to review the award to give

  703
  the injured person 50 per cent. of what probably he would have earned if he had not been injured. The provision in regard to the medical referee would remove much suspicion which had prevailed. When the medical referees were also the medical advisers of insurance companies, whether they acted justly or not it was impossible to remove from the minds of working men the suspicion that in the capacity of judges they were not acting fairly. Another important provision was that dealing with the principle of commutation. There had hitherto been no uniformity in the awards, and the Bill would have the effect of putting the work of ascertaining the amount payable for commutation on a more satisfactory basis. As to medical examinations, injured person had been harassed very much indeed by too frequent examinations on behalf of insurance companies. He maintained that in this connection insurance companies should not be the arbiters of what was to be done. He had known cases in which workmen, in order to get rid of these harassing examinations, had accepted most inadequate commutation of the amount of their compensation. He was glad the Government had accepted the claim put forward by labour representatives that payment should be made to workmen suffering from industrial disease as well as to workmen suffering from accidents. Of course there were only a few of these diseases in the schedule, but he had confidence in the Home Secretary in this particular matter and believed that he would extend the provisions as soon as he could possibly do so and include other dangerous trades. he thought the Bill was a very satisfactory one. There were one or two points which might have been improved, but, taking the Bill as a whole, he looked upon it as one of the best pieces of industrial legislation ever passed, and he thought it would be taken in that way throughout the land. He thanked the Government for the sympathetic way they had listened to the views the Labour Members had put before them. He believed the Labour Members had done something to make the provisions of the Bill better than they were when first presented to the House.
  *SIR CHAELES DILKEagreed with the hon. Member for Bolton in expressing general approval of the Bill, and he congratulated the Home Secretary on the admirable manner in which he had conducted it though its various stages. The Bill had been greatly altered in many matters against the will of the Government, and they could not blame the Government for defects which they might foresee so far as it had been extended beyond the extent to which the Government themselves desired to push it. There was perhaps some haste shown in one matter with which he would not now deal at any length. It was a matter in which sudden action was taken. It was felt that what was said by the Attorney-General went further than the words which were put in the Bill. He thought that should be kept in view and that the words should be changed if there was any possibility of doing so. The hon. and learned Gentleman argued that persona who were substantially dependent should not be excluded in certain cases of obvious hardship. The particular words adopted were perhaps a little crude in form and did not extend to all those cases. He only now called attention publicly to the matter in the hope that it might be dealt with in a better manner than by the words adopted. As to the inclusion of industrial diseases as well as accidents in the Bill, he pointed out that the dangerous trades which had been scheduled employed only an infinitesimal portion of the workers of the country. It was conceded that the schedule did not covet all the diseases, but no procedure by schedule could deal with the major part of the suffering from industrial disease. He agreed with his hon. friend behind him, who had rendered great service in these matters, that the blot on the Bill was the conspicuous exclusion of outworkers. There was the great difficulty of compulsory insurance in connection with the extension of the Bill to workers in small shops and to domestic servants. When he referred to the French law in a recent debate, the Under-Secretary of State argued in reply that, in the case of small employers, servants could not get compensation without making the employers bankrupt. It had already been the case in regard to 'small"

  705
  agriculture that either there was no compensation or the employers had become bankrupt. Cases of that kind had occurred in England. In Ireland the Compensation Act passed by the last Parliament had been absolutely a dead letter in regard to small agriculturists. When they introduced to the benefits of the Bill domestic servants and shop assistants without restriction they ought to face all the difficulties to which his right hon. friend alluded, and see that the law was not illusory. They ought to see that people did get compensation if they were entitled to it. His right hon. friend, he believed, was making inquiry as to the possible treatment of the outwork system, and he only hoped that if the Government saw their way to legislation, and if their insurance scheme was in working order, they would extend those principles to outworkers.
  *MR. J. WILLIAMSsaid he would like to express his sincere appreciation of the manner in which the Bill had been handled by the Home Secretary. The Bill was a great improvement upon the existing law, and for that Labour representatives were very grateful. He hoped that the Third Beading would be allowed to pass without a division, and that the treatment of the Bill when sent up to the House of Lords would be such as to carry the approval of both groups of Labour Members and the Government. He did not propose to speak at length upon the Bill, because he believed that all that could be intelligibly said upon it had been said, and that the greatest intellect in the House at the present time could not find anything new to say about it. The Amendments that had been embodied had given great satisfaction to the large number of workmen in his constituency. He would not go into detail upon those Amendments, but he would say that he was very glad that payment of compensation where the incapacity for work was not less than two weeks was to be for and from the first week. There was another matter which this Bill put right, and that was the computation of the average earnings. An unlimited amount of money had been spent in. litigation upon this matter, and he was very glad to find that this clause would meet the requirements
  706
  of the workmen of the country. The wilful misconduct clause was a great improvement on the existing law. He believed that under the existing law the employers and the insurance companies had greatly abused this clause and that the modification would be a means of avoiding a large amount of litigation. He was glad to find that the Government had extended the provisions of the Act to domestic servants. The principle underlying the present law had been lost sight of by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. That principle was to give compensation and not to prevent the giving of compensation. There was, in his opinion, a vital difference between awarding compensation and the principle of assessing the damages to be given. He hoped that the House of Lords would bear that difference in mind in dealing with the Bill. Good as the Bill was, they wanted another Bill which could be applied more generally and more closely to the economic conditions of the huge masses of the people constituting the labouring classes of this country.
  MR. HUGH LAWsaid that the Home Secretary in his opening speech told the House that this Bill practically covered all classes of workmen whether employed in dangerous or non-dangerous trades. They all recognised full and frankly the great advance made by the Bill over the existing Act, but the right hon. Gentleman had betrayed a little parental partiality towards his measure.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I was speaking in millions.
  MR. HUGH LAWsaid that there was one class of people who had been left out of the Bill, the outworkers; and his fear was that in the course which the Government had taken they had done injustice to that class. His contention was that everything which Parliament did to tighten the obligations of the employers in factories drove the work out of the factories into the homes of the work people. He would quote one trade which had formerly been carried on in factories with hardly an outworker—he meant the

  707
  scouring of clay pipes. The Board of Trade lady inspector in a recent Report said that that trade was exceedingly injurious to the health of the girls employed, and that the only method of preventing the danger was the erection of large ventilating fans. Many of the best employers had erected these fans at large expense, but one employer who was asked to do so refused, and got rid of all his girls. If the conditions in the factories were made more stringent, and at the same time the conditions of the outworkers were not correspondingly tightened, the tendency would be to increase disease. He was glad that the Government had included anthrax in the scheduled diseases, but he would point out that a great deal of the handling of wool, hair, and bristles was carried on in the homes of the workpeople, and unless the obligations on the employer in factories in respect to ventilation and compensation were pro tanto applied to outworkers the danger of carrying on those dangerous processes in the home would be infinitely increased. As to accidents to domestic servants, it was said that these were very rare. He doubted that very much under modern conditions. He knew there was a difficulty of proof in the case of the outworker, because he was away from the immediate control of his employer; but because that class of employee would have a difficulty in establishing his claim was no reason why he should be deprived of the chance of doing so. He thought the balance of advantage was strongly in favour of throwing this liability on the employer, whether the workman was occupied in the factory or outside. He appealed to the Government to do something in this matter, but at all events he hoped they would take into very real and serious consideration the whole question of this class of labour, bearing in mind how much misery existed among this class in cases where accidents had occurred.
  *MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid, that taking as he did a very deep interest in the question under consideration by the House, and having more than once in the last Parliament introduced a Universal Workmen's Compensation Bill prepared by the
  708
  Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress, the Miners Federation and the Textile Workers Union, be felt that he must not allow this opportunity to pass without offering his warmest congratulations to his right hon. friend, the Home Secretary, the Solicitor-General and the Under-Secretary, on the enormous step in advance the Bill that was now being passed through one of its final stages would effect. It came very nearly to giving effect to the Bill he had had the honour to introduce, inasmuch as it would increase the number of those workers enjoying the benefit of workmen's compensation from 6,000,000 to 12,000,000. He felt sure that the 6,000,000 additional workers—men and women—to whom this measure did what was an act of justice in regard to this matter, would greatly appreciate their inclusion within the scope of the measure. He had had no sympathy or support whatever from the Tory majority in the House, when he had introducd his Bill, but he gathered from speeches made by Members of the same political Party now sitting in Opposition that he might regard them as repentant sinners. It was indeed a death-bed repentance when they rose the other night and proposed the inclusion of 2,000,000 of domestic servants within the scope of the Bill. He welcomed that inclusion, but it was so hastily adopted by the House that he hoped, now that they were included, it was clearly understood that in case of accident they were to receive not only half their wages, but half the cost of their board and lodging as well, in case they were deprived of that, as that formed the greatest part of their earnings. He cordially supported the Bill.
  *MR. REESsaid he recognised the impatience of the House to get this Bill through. He hoped, however, he might be allowed to call attention to the case of the lascars. When he last referred to their case and upheld their claims the hon. Member for Stoke thought fit to place him under the ban of the Labour benches, not appreciating the fact that the lascar, though a brown brother, was a British subject, a tremendous trade unionist, and, indeed, in one sense, an employer of British labour in so far that wherever he worked he provided work for

  709
  the Briton who overlooked him. Thus it was wherever white and coloured labour met—and might this simple elementary fact one day dawn upon those who represented labourin and out of this House. The function of white labour was the supervision of coloured labour wherever the two colours met. He thought that when the dread sentence of excommunication had to be passed it was the Hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil who tolled the bell, read the book and held the candle, and he wondered if that hon. Member appreciated the fashion in which his lieutenant wrote "Ego" over the first, and "et rex meus" over the second Labour Bench. He had supported this Bill right through, except that he did not follow the hon. Member for Thanet in his chivalrous campaign on behalf of the domestic servant, nor the hon. Member for North West Ham who represented secularism, socialism, and sentimentalism in their most attractive guises, or disguises in this House. No one, however, had spoken for his Indian friends. His right hon. friend would no doubt tell him that the Lascar was included in the benefits of Clause 7, and reading the definitions of "seaman" in the Act and in the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 he agreed, but they had had spirited object-lessons of late to make them realise that the intentions of draughtsmen and frontiers of Bills were of little account in the Courts, and he should like either a positive pronouncement, or a promise of an Amendment in the Lords. Hon. Members would allow that seeing how many clients he had, and how greatly they were interested in the Bill, he had not taken long in putting their case, and it must be remembered that lascars had no such legislation to fall back upon in India at the other end of the voyage.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid he wished to join those who had preceded him in giving his blessing to the Bill, and he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for having included the law on this subject within the corners of one Act. He was quite sure that it was a great advantage to those who had to put this Act into operation or to assist the Courts in its administration, to find all the provisions in
  710
  one statute, and not to be driven as they often were to many statutes in order to get the full meaning of the Act itself. He had also to thank the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for the readiness with which they had acceded to many suggestions made upstairs in Committee and upon the Report stage. No doubt some of the principles embodied in the Bill were not accepted at first by those who represented the Government, but when it was shown that a vast body of people were in favour of them the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, with graciousness and reasonableness, at once adopted them. He wished most heartily to echo the remarks of the Home Secretary with regard to the Press. The Press could help this Bill immensely by calling the attention of employers to their responsibilities and of workmen to their rights. There were a number of 'small organisations organised by men who had been working men themselves, or still were working men, which had for their object the bringing before the vast bulk of the people a knowledge of the law and placing before them a knowledge of the means of obtaining the compensation to which Parliament was giving them a right. He noticed that a certain section of the newspaper Press had been attacking these small organisations and had called for their prosecution. He knew that there were such things as champerty and maintenance, and that there was good ground for thinking that cause for these classes of actions had existed in the past, but he thought there was no justification for the attacks which had been made. It was never intended that the law in those matters should be put into force for the purpose of depriving vast multitudes of people of the benefits of the humane laws put upon the Statute-book, and he hoped the Solicitor-General would not put the law into operation against those small societies, which existed for the purpose of bringing to the knowledge of the people a series of laws made for their benefit. Those small societies had been dealt with very unfairly by a section of the newspaper Press, who had done absolutely nothing in the past to help the people for whose benefit this law was introduced. There was only one other, point with regard to the machinery

  711
  for carrying out this law. The county courts had had their jurisdiction for cases at common law increased from £50 to £100. That had increased their business considerably. The scope of this Bill having been widened and vast numbers having been brought within its operation, there would inevitably be thrown on the county courts an amount of business which in all probability they would not be able to do. Had the right hon. Gentleman borne that fact in mind? Those who were associated with the operation of these Acts knew perfectly well that the county courts were overwhelmed with work. There would have to be some, devolution which would enable the Judge to take up these cases in the morning and to throw upon the registrar more of that class of work which now wasted the time of the Court in the morning, the best time of the day. It was a fact that workmen attended at the Court with their witnesses and doctor and sat there all day only to come away at the end without their case having been reached. That would occur two, three, and four days running. He hoped that point would be considered. It could not be done in this Bill, but certainly something would have to be done to prevent the congestion of work, and the Government might consider whether they should not bring in some Amendment of the County Courts Act for that purpose. This Bill, in which he took great interest, was now going to another place. Although he had not got adopted all the Amendments he moved, he was successful with some, which would be found to be useful when the Bill came into operation. Others he had not succeeded in, but he was going to have another shot with them elsewhere. He was grateful for what he had been able to accomplish, and he joined with those who had preceeded him in thanking the Government for this measure and the manner which they had crarried it through. It was a useful piece of legisation which he hoped would bring security and relief to hundreds and thousands, he might even say millions of the workers of this country.
  *MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid that, if the few words he had to say were directed to points of criticism and suggestion, he was sure that his right
  712
  hon. friend would believe that it wag not because he did not fully appreciate the value of the Bill which had been so successfully piloted through the House. The first point he desired to raise was with regard to the definition of "workman." He particularly drew attention to the fact that not only was the outworker excluded from the provisions of this Bill, but also the casual worker under certain conditions. He had one instance in mind which would serve to ill strate his point. There was the case of the charwoman, who was employed in most cases in a domestic establishment, and he thought this Bill would not only be unjust to her, but also to the regularly employed domestic servant who would be in some danger of dismissal and whose place would be filled by the charwoman. With regard to the outworker, he had taken an active part in the organisation of the Sweating Exhibition which excited so much attention during the past summer. In connection with that work and other matters he had been frequently brought into contact with the outworker, the sweated worker. In a great number of instances it was not true that the outworker was working for more than one employer, and yet this appeared to be the chief argument for their exclusion. Not only with regard to this Bill but with all legislation they were often too much inclined to give attention to exceptional cases. It was as a rule the exaggerated attention given to exceptional cases that created more trouble and litigation than the inclusion of what was universal. He hoped that even at this, the eleventh hour, the right hon. Gentleman would include the outworker in the Bill. Another point to which he, wished to draw attention was the case of the posthumous child, to which apparently no attention had been given. A case had recently some before Judge Bryn Roberts in which a woman had borne a child to her husband after his death. She brought in action against the insurance company for compensation and Judge Bryn Roberts had to decide the case against this poor woman because it could not be said that either the woman who had lot been co-habiting with the man for some months or the child who was born

  713
  after his death was dependent upon him. The dependency of posthumous children had been entirely overlooked by the Legislature. Then there was that serious question which had been raised so eloquently on the Report Stage by his hon. friend the Member for North West Ham, the question of the diseased worker. The introduction of the principle of compensation in the case of industrial disease was perhaps the point upon which the Government could most congratulate themselves. It was here that we were taking the lead in the world instead of following the example of France and Germany in these labour matters. The right hon. Gentleman put into the schedule certain cases of disease which were known to belong to particular trades, and then set up a Departmental Committee to inquire into various diseases. When that Committee was assured that those diseases belonged to a particular trade they were to be added to the schedule. The scheme was a good one, for this reason, that in these scheduled cases when the workman was able to get from the certifying surgeon a certificate that the disease from which he suffered arose from the occupation he followed, his case for compensation must be disproved by the employer or compensation must be paid. He desired to retain that system of scheduling and he wanted his right hon. friend to continue the operation of that Committee. There remained a tremendous number of heart rending cases. What was to be done with such cases? He suggested that the present schedule should be kept exactly as it was, and that at the end of the clause some such words as these should be introduced, "The provisions of this Act shall also apply to cases of disability arising from disease, the result of processes not mentioned in the third section of this Act, but in regard to such diseases the onus of proof that the incapacity arises through the employment shall lie with the workman." In other words, the cases of industrial disease or incapacity from industrial disease would be divided into two parts—one the scheduled cases (those in which the largest number of cases of disease arose) and the other the industrial diseases not included in the schedule, and as to these
  714
  the onus of proof would lie with the workman. If they put such a provision in the Bill they would confer by it compensation in more cases than they would through the scheduled trades, because the man who had his lungs choked by dust or filings could in the great majority of cases prove that the injury occurred through his employment, and the onus of proof Tested with him. He thanked the Home Secretary for his Bill, and for the sympathy and skill with which he had put it through this House. The right hon. Gentleman had a right to pride himself upon the introduction of the principle of compensation for industrial diseases into the Bill, and he hoped he would complete his work by giving consideration to the point he had put before him.
  *MR. CARLILEpointed out to the hon. Member for North Paddington that the posthumous child was provided for in the definition clause. The hon. Member for Barnsley rather twitted hon. Members on the Opposition side with what he called a death-bed repentance in regard to the domestic servant at the end of the discussion on the Bill. But if anyone came to a death-bed repentance on the subject it certainly was His Majesty's Government and not the Members of the Opposition. The Opposition were favourable to the Bill when introduced, and though Amendments and criticisms had been made their feeling towards the Bill was sympathetic and kindly. All they desired was that the measure should if possible be thoroughly discussed, and if they on that side could in any way contribute towards improving the measure, they were nothing loth to do so, and they heartily congratulated hon. Members in all parts of the House upon the measure as it now stood. They realised that a voluntary system on such a subject would be absolutely impossible, and while this measure brought compulsion upon employers he hoped it would not in any way interfere with or discourage the great voluntary efforts made from time to time by employers for the good of their workpeople. Undoubtedly a great burden must fall upon some one, and the employer was the best able to bear it, and to make provision for it. They

  715
  could not help feeling a great deal of sympathy with the small employers, who under the provisions of this Bill would have to bestir themselves. He hoped the workpeople would not show less concern in the friendly societies, but would increase, if possible, their industry and enterprise in connection with these, most valuable societies, which were doing such grand work in the country. With reference to Clause 16, he feared employers would be called upon to take out two years policies, although he did not think that was the intention of the Government, but if a workman developed a disease which he had contracted in a previous employment, then the previous employer was liable under the Bill. If the provisions did not come into force until July, 1908, instead of July, 1907, so far as that was concerned such employers would have been, protected. As it was they would have to take out policies of insurance for that liability covering the two years. A new departure in this Bill was made in respect of those whose relations to their parents were not on a legal basis. Their position had for the first time been legally recognised. Whilst they appreciated the dreadful handicap such children had in life, and approved that addition to the Bill, yet when it came to admitting claims by the parents he thought that was going too far. He was not sure that it would make for public morality. It would be impossible for a measure to be put on the Statute-book of this country without its containing some regrettable things, and to some that provision was regrettable. Another thing was that old persons and cripples who were very seriously handicapped in their fight for a living, had not had in this Bill the consideration they ought to have received It would have been only reasonable if this Bill had allowed them to seek employment from employers who were relieved from the necessity of paying full compensation to them. Old men and cripples were far more exposed to accident than the able-bodied. By the exclusion of such a provision from this measure these persons would find it increasingly difficult to obtain employment, although many of them were quite skilled, industrious, and perfectly able to earn a good day's wage. The omission of such a pro-
  716
  vision would result in increasing numbers of these persons being thrown upon the rates instead of getting such employment as they were able to undertake. Apart from those considerations he congratulated the Government and the House upon the passing of a measure which would do much to lessen the sufferings and evils which would otherwise fall on the working people of this country.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid it was necessarily a source of great gratification to the Government to remark the harmony which characterised this debate. When they heard the late Home Secretary wishing the Bill God-speed, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress describing the Bill as one of the best industrial measures that Parliament had ever passed, and the unanimous expression of satisfaction with which the House had received this measure, it could not but be a source of gratification to his right hon. friend the Home Secretary and those who had assisted him. There had been some gentle criticisms from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in connection with the burden which would be thrown upon employers, but a point which had not yet been made was that, as against the small extra charge that the measure would throw on the employer, was to be reckoned the great benefit that would indirectly accrue to industry generally from any measure which helped to make more secure and stable the position of the workman. It was the insecurity of the workman's life that detracted largely from his capacity. Insecurity bred recklessness and insobriety. The fact ought to be borne in mind by this House that the more they safeguarded the workmen against the fear of destitution, whether from old age, from unemployment, or from incapacity due to accident, the more they raised his status, and the more they increased his value as a worker. A great part of this debate had turned upon the position of the outworker. For his part he regretted most deeply that it had not been found possible to bring the outworker within the scope of the Bill. The outworker, with his hard conditions, excessive hours, and wretched pay, was perhaps the most pathetic figure in the

  717
  whole industrial system. But the practical difficulties were insuperable. In the first place it was impossible to decide who was the employer, because, while a great majority of outworkers might as had been said, work for one employer, still there was of minority who took in work from different employers. The vista of litigation which this fact opened up as to whose employment the outworker was in when an accident happened was obvious enough, and the question would often be incapable of proof one way or the other. Who was to say, if a man cut his hand or a woman scalded her arm; whether the accident happened in the course of the employment or in the ordinary culinary operations of the household? And how was the employer to insure the outworker? No practical suggestion had been made by any of the critics as to the manner in which these difficulties could be overcome. To have brought the outworker within the scope of this Bill would have given the Government the greatest gratification, but the difficulties were insuperable. As to the question of industrial diseases there ought not to be such a thing as industrial disease, but until by the operation of science and of law we had rid our industrial system of those maladies which attach to it, employers ought to recoup financially the workers for injuries which they suffered owing to these maladies. With regard to the complaint of the late Home Secretary, he might point out that in the case of disease being contracted owing to continued infraction of rules it would be open to the employer to plead that the injury was due to serious and wilful misconduct. The hon. Member for Berwickshire said that every industrial disease ought to have been brought into that schedule. That question was debated for some hours a few days ago, but his hon. friend was in error if he thought the House was misled into the conclusion they had adopted on that occasion by any observation which he made.
  MR. H. J. TENNANTsaid the hon. Gentleman had misled his hon. Friend the Member for North West Ham.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the reference of the Industrial Diseases
  718
  I Committee was simply to inquire what diseases were suitable for inclusion in this Bill. They were not limited to any industry or trade. The hon. Member for North West Ham had asked whether they were investigating a particular disease due to the use of naphtha in indiarubber works, and he had answered that they were. His hon. friend had then said that it was not on the list of diseases which had been published, and he had replied that he thought it was. He had been mistaken in that, but the fact remained that the Committee had intended to inquire into that particular disease, among a large number of others. The list was a provisional list which was circulated among the trade unions and employers' associations, and it was circulated in order that those associations and trade unions might make suggestions as to other diseases which they thought ought to go into the schedule. On the question of diseases his hon. friend the Member for North Paddington had suggested that while there were certain diseases which were specific and should come within the scope of the Act the burden of disproof resting on the employer, there were many other diseases which were not so distinctly industrial, and in regard to which the burden of proof should be thrown on the workman.
  *MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid his suggestion was that the second list of diseases should include all those which were not specific, and that in such cases the onus of proof should rest on the workman.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he understood his hon. friend's point. It was that there should be a list containing obvious trade diseases, and that the workman should be entitled to compensation unless the employer could prove that the disease was not due to his employment. With regard to other industrial diseases the hon. Member's suggestion was that the workman should only have the right to recover compensation if he could prove that any disease from which he suffered was due to his employment. His difficulty with regard to the latter proposal was that there were many complaints of which no one

  719
  could say whether they did or did not arise from the trade in which a person was engaged. In the case of an agricultural labourer, for example, it might be difficult to say whether rheumatism arose from exposure to weather or bad housing. In cases of that nature, and others which he had mentioned in the previous debate, if they tried to give effect to the proposal, there would be an infinite amount of litigation, and no Court would be able to decide with certainty whether the diseases arose from occupation or not. It was true that there were certain diseases which were in. some degree trade diseases, and in regard to these it might be advisable to have a separate schedule and to give the workman the right to claim and recover compensation when he could show that the disease, although not always specific to the employment, was in his case due to that employment. From the beginning of the debates the Government had always regarded the schedule as provisional and had recognised that there were many diseases that ought to be added to it as soon as inquiry had decided their nature and the trades to which they specifically belonged. In reply to the hon. Member for Montgomery, lascars would be in the same position as British sailors. He did not think that the apprehension of the hon. Member for Kildare as to the increase of County Court litigation was justified. The litigation which had taken place under the previous Act would he hoped be lessened by this Bill on account of the simplification of the procedure, and on account of the provision for the settlement of medical questions outside the Courts by the medical referees. He congratulated the House on the passage of a Bill of precisely the kind which this new House of Commons desired to pass for the direct benefit of the poorer class—a Bill which without imposing any undue burden on any shoulders would bring relief—and at the moments when it was most needed—to tens of thousands of necessitous homes.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he was sorry that the hon. Gentleman had not held out more hope in regard to the inclusion of outworkers and an extension of the diseases clause of
  720
  the Bill. Nobody sought to minimise the difficulty of bringing outworkers in, but if the Home Secretary was willing some way would be found of overcoming that difficulty. The chief difficulty seemed to be to determine whether the accident arose out of the employment or from some other cause. If an accident were met with and the workman felt he had a claim why should he be barred from going to Court and taking the risk? In all probability both these questions would be raised in the House of Lords and serious effort made to remedy what were admitted to be the two defects in this otherwise excellent measure. His suggestion to the Government was that if those questions were raised in the House of Lords they should not only put no obstacle in the way of trying to find a solution to them, but should co-operate with those who were seeking to make the Bill even more perfect than it was when it left the House of Commons. He trusted too that the suggestion made with regard to the inclusion of workmen suffering from dangerous diseases other than those contained in the schedule if they proved that their incapacity was due to their employment, should also be favourably considered. He wished again to urge the Government to co-operate in the House of Lords with those who would seek to bring outworkers and workers suffering from diseases not included in the schedule within the scope of the Bill.
  SIR CHARLES SCHWANNsuggested that means should be taken for publishing the provisions of this Bill among the workers in order that they might know the advantages they had. The hon. Gentleman had promised that the State offices would be used for advertising the Act. He suggested that a synopsis of the provisions of the Act should be exposed in every factory and workshop, and also that copies of the Act should be available for reference so that workers might know what the advantages were if an accident occurred. It had been said that trade union secretaries would point out the advantages to the members of the unions, but it should be remembered that a large number of workers did not belong to trade unions.
  MR. LUPTONsaid it would add to the value of the Bill if employers who made especially good arrangements for the health of their workers could receive certificates which would, according to their classification, he regarded by insurance offices as justifying a reduction of insurance rates.
  MR. HARWOODasked that when diseases were added to the schedule one should be put in for the benefit of Members of Parliament themselves. It arose from their occupation and might be called "brain rot." He admitted that it might be objected that if they had not already the germs of that disease they would not have come there at all.
  Me. T. F. RICHARDS:drew the attention of the Home Secretary to diseases which affected operatives in the boot and shoe trade—blood poisoning from the stain used and consumption from the dust caused by the rapid machinery used in dealing with chemically tanned leather. In his judgment there was no provision in the Bill for the protection of the workmen in the shoe-making industry suffering from blood poisoning. He wished to emphasise the remarks of the hon. Member for North Paddington so far as dust was concerned. In the boot and shoe industry they were accustomed to work with machinery which moved with extraordinary velocity whereby the leather was ground. The result was that the air was laden with dust. It should be remembered that whereas formerly it took seven years to tan leather, it could now be tanned in as many weeks, and the men who worked with the leather suffered from consumption to such an extent that the deaths amongst them were 38 per 10,000 above the average of ordinary trades. The medical officers of health in Northampton and Leicester had reported in 1905 that the Government should take the diseases arising from leather working into consideration. He therefore hoped that the Government would endeavour to widen the schedule so as to include those particular diseases, whether the persons afflicted by them were factory hands or outworkers.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY:moved the rejection of Clause 1, because he thought that the result of the clause would be not to correct an evil which was supposed to exist, but to create a greater evil than the Bill was supposed to remedy. Moreover he considered that the local education authority was not the proper authority to whom should be entrusted the carrying out of the measure if passed into law. Though there might be some foundation for the allegation that an evil existed, the evil had been greatly exaggerated; and he believed that it could be met by voluntary effort. He knew that that statement would not meet with the approval of the hon. Member for North Camberwell; but he thought he could prove his argument. If the Bill became law as it now stood it would take away from the parents all sense of responsibility for the care of their children, and would encourage improvident marriages. He pointed out that when the Bill came from the Select Committee only one meal was to be furnished, but it had been altered on the Report Stage to "meals." That was a proof that if it were once admitted on principle that the State should take care of the children in regard to meals, that principle would be extended. The safeguard introduced in another part of the Bill that the meals should be prepaid was altogether illusory. Free education having been conceded there would soon be a demand for free meals; and once a tart was made on the road to provide free meals for other people's children it would weaken the love of parents for their children and their sense of parental responsibility. The result would be that the parents would have more money in their pocket; and human nature being what it was they would become thriftless and extravagant. The extra money would be spent on selfish pleasure. In fact, the Bill would be a direct encouragement to drink, and

  723
  the money which had been gained not from their own exertions, but provided by the ratepayers, would go rather to the public-house than in any other direction. Of course he acknowledged that in some cases there were individual parents who under certain circumstances were unable to provide sufficient food for their children; but it had to be remembered that up to the present time there had been a fair amount of voluntary money to provide for those cases. The Report of the Select Committee went far to prove that the absolute want of food was really in many cases non-existent. The Committee said that the inadequate feeding of children in some large towns had forced itself into the consideration of people interested, but the evil was more or less spasmodic, and that on a general review of the evidence they thought that the cause of the evils was due to the social condition of the parents of these children, the lack of employment, thriftlessness, and an absence of parental responsibility. That was borne out by the evidence of Mr. J. Parr and Mr. Joseph Brown There was a general disposition in the House to regard the Poor Law guardians as not to be trusted, but in his opinion this Bill, if it became law, should be administered by the Poor Law guardians, who knew all the circumstances of each case, rather than the local education authority. He knew of cases in which people receiving£2 9s. 0d. were yet receiving this class of relief.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Lough, Islington, W.):regretted to interrupt the right hon. Baronet, but wished to point out that no child would be fed under this clause.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that if he was out of order no doubt the Speaker would stop him. There was one case which was disclosed in the course of inquiry which showed that one family, the head of which earned £4 18s. a week, were receiving food and assistance at the expense of the ratepayers or voluntary effort. Mr. John Scott, the headmaster of a London County Council school at Bethnal Green, was asked if he considered the under-feeding of children a serious evil, and he replied that it was very small
  724
  indeed. Altogether it was quite trivial. He said that after investigation by himself and others. There had been a great deal of exaggeration as to the evils which this Bill proposed to remedy. It was not the want of food which was to be blamed but the neglect of the parent to supply suitable food and to supply washing in regard to clothes, etc., and to take other steps which led to cleanliness. It was unnecessary that the State should give the care of a parent to these children. The local education authority had to furnish the building and the apparatus, but they knew nothing about cooking or the feeding of children or the management of a canteen. Moreover, the teachers themselves had many of them intimated that they did not wish to be associated with the supply or administration of food at all. Therefore the local education authority would have to supply food and administer these canteens themselves. Under these circumstances he regretted that the Poor Law authority was not substituted for the local education authority, because then some of the evils which he had indicated would not ensue; but even if the authority was the Poor Law board it would not remove his objection to the clause, because he believed the principle of it was wrong. In London alone the provision, the cooking, and the service of the food would come to over £1,500,000 a year [cries of "No"]. That was the estimate of Mr. Shepheard, the Chairman of the Education Committee of the London County Council, and hon. Members seemed to be innocent enough to anticipate that if the meals were provided the parents of children, would not take full advantage of them. Hon. Members did not understand human nature. If there was a good thing going the parents would see that their children got it, and at least £1,500,000 would have to be spent and the ratepayers would have to pay it. He brought forward this objection, as he wished to raise his voice against what he regarded as pure and undiluted Socialism.
  MR. BOWLESseconded, and said that this clause contained the principle of the whole Bill, and if it was knocked out there would very

  725
  little of the Bill left; he regarded both the Bill and the clause as extremely dangerous. Of course if they had a hungry child that child had got to be fed, and everybody agreed that the proper person to feed it was the parent. All must agree that where the parent failed to feed his child and carry out his moral obligation a moral obligation was imposed upon relatives to step in and help. Such a state of things constantly happened. If that failed the next thing was that some charitable institution, of which there were many, should step in and help. If the child's parents did not do their duty and there were no relatives or neighbours to step in, then he agreed that public charity in one form or another must necessarily be called in, and the only question was the form in which it should be applied, not only in the interest of the child but in the interest of the parent and of the public generally. It was a question of principle, and it was because this clause proceeded upon no principle at all or upon a highly mischievous principle that he had no hesitation in saying that it ought not to be put on the Statute Book. No excuse could be made for such a parent. If a man could afford to feed his children and yet allowed thorn to run the streets and go to school hungry he was a monstrous scoundrel. If he was in a state of destitution and could not feed his children, then it would be not only his right but his bounden duty to apply to the relieving officer of the district, who was bound to see that immediate relief was given. A parent might not like to apply to the relieving officer, and that dislike was profoundly honourable to the parents. But although he respected a parent who desired to try every possible plan before seeking relief in that way, he still said that a man who, in order to avoid coming on the rates, deliberately connived at the starvation of his children, for that was what it meant, was a man for whom nothing could be said. Every genuine case of a starving child therefore meant a cruel and negligent parent, and if the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill intended to grapple with this question in a real and satisfactory manner, it was to the cruel and neglectful parent, and not to the ratepayers, that he must go. The whole case for this clause rested on the
  726
  assumption that, so long as it was proved that the child was underfed, the conduct of the parent was a secondary matter. That was a detestable and abominable theory. This clause was fundamentally a mischievous clause which would do much harm, and it was because he was persuaded of that, that he felt constrained to take up the time of the House on this Amendment. There was no provision in our law to deal with starvation, because no man need starve in this country. Every man who starved failed in his duty to the country. There was complete machinery to deal with cases of destitution, and if the machinery worked ill then it should be amended. But it had not been proved that it did work ill; therefore let that machinery be used and let them not use novel and unusual machinery which would lead to infinitely greater evils than it sought to cure. It was because he looked at this matter very seriously, and because he thought this proposal might be seriously extended; that it held out that sure and certain promise, not merely to relieve those that were destitute, but to set up, under the cloak of relieving that most pathetic figure the hungry child, nothing less than a vast system of the State feeding of the children of the country, that he would support the Amendment if it went to a division.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 5, to leave out Clause 1."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'take,' in line 6, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHthought the hon. Baronet had unintentionally, misled the House as to the effect of the clause. The mover and seconder of its omission would readily admit that the great majority of the House did not agree with them. When this clause was read a second time the House unanimously agreed to the proposal and that there was an urgent need for the machinery that this clause provided. Under the clause no child could be fed at the cost of the taxpayers. All it did was to set up a different machinery. It was permissive in its operation, and no local authority need take advantage of it unless, there was the necessity.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSON:deprecated his hon. friends going to a division on this clause. It effected, no doubt, a very great change in the Bill as it was read a second time, but he thought there was hardly a complete understanding as to the real meaning and value of the machinery provided. He took it they were agreed that a hungry child ought to be fed. Well the first person to feed it was the parent; if he failed then the voluntary agencies came in, and in the last resort there were the guardians of the poor. But in the meantime the child had to be fed. He entirely agreed with all that had been said as to the iniquity of the parent who could pay and would not, but it must be borne in mind that in the meantime the child must not go hungry. There was, it was true, certain machinery already existing, but the difficulty about the present voluntary agencies was that they were sporadic. They were scattered about and were not always in the right place at the right time. He wanted to bring these voluntary agencies and the local authorities, who could institute a system of medical inspection which ought to go hand in hand with a system of feeding, together. He wanted to bring these two sources of supply into harmonious working, so that they should avoid overlapping and ensure that the food should be given when and where it was wanted and not when and where it was not wanted. Where they did work together the system worked exceedingly well. There was no doubt that in some of these poor districts where parents gave their children money to buy food the children spent it on unwholesome food and acquired what doctors called a slum stomach—a taste for pickles, sweets, cigarettes, &C. By this provision such children could get wholesome food, and would also learn to behave at meals. Hungry and destitute children would also be fed. If the clause was properly worked a demand for public money would not arise, except for matters provided for in the clause. Voluntary agencies could provide a very considerable sum, and if there was local patriotism no doubt a local fund would be forthcoming. The number of children whose parents could not pay was comparatively small, so that there ought to be a considerable return to the societies. He felt very strongly the desirability of keeping the provision of food as far as possible
  728
  out of the hands of the local authorities. They had had quite enough of making the children, and the work in the schools, a counter in the political game, and he should be very sorry to see the question of their meals made a cry at municipal elections. Besides, a voluntary agency could do what a local authority could not. The unwholesome condition of the children did not arise so much from the want of meals as from eating unwholesome food, from insufficient fresh air in their living rooms, lack of cleanliness, and other causes. He was afraid the working classes were apt to think that most evils could be cured by legislation, the grant of public money, and the appointment of an inspector, but such things as he had mentioned could not be cured in this way. Legislation could not ensure that children were sent to bed in good time, that their rooms were properly ventilated or that attention was paid to cleanliness. This could only be done by those voluntary agencies which worked among the poor. It was the life of the poor, which needed improvement, and which could only be reached by means of voluntary agencies, and their association with the local authority would give point and emphasis to their work. In this way-many of our well-to-do and comparatively unoccupied fellow-countrymen would be able to learn something of the life of their poorer neighbours to help poor families over their difficulties and improve the health of their homes.
  *MR. BRIDGEMANhoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment to a division. The clause was by far the least objectionable in the Bill, and by itself, he thought, it would do an immense amount of good. There had been a great deal of evidence to show the large amount of indiscriminate charity there was in London, and the amount of harm it did. If it did nothing else, this clause would show, at any rate, how to organize that charity in a sensible way so as to make the money go as far as possible. His only objection to the clause was that it did not provide sufficient machinery. He believed it would be very much better if the local authority were given power to enforce upon school managers the duty of forming sub-committees who might also inquire into questions appertaining to the health of the children. he was sure that would

  729
  have been a simpler way, and he was sorry the committee was to be called a canteen committee and confined to work of this kind. He should not vote for the Amendment, but he felt that the clause might have been made more effective if it had been made an obligatory duty upon the managers to carry it out.
  Dr. MACNAMARAsaid the promoters of the Bill were very much obliged to the two hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken. There was no new principle in this clause. It was in existence in London and other large towns, although no doubt a keen auditor might bring the local authority to book for allowing buildings, furniture, and apparatus to be used. It was time hon. Members looked at the Bill and realised that not a farthing of public money could be spent in respect of the purchase of food under this clause. The whole thing was hedged round by safeguards against economic abuse, and when they came to the clause dealing with the recovery of the cost of meals he would do all he could to assist hon. Gentlemen. On this very clause, however, last week, after the late Parliamentary Secretary had accepted its principle, hon. Members opposite debated it for eight and a half hours, and it was carried by 128 votes to seventeen. After all the inquiries held on this subject and the evidence taken, it was going rather far to take such a long discussion about that which well-informed Members agreed contained no new principle. Notwithstanding all this, sixteen and a-half hours had been spent, 220 speeches made, and fifteen divisions taken on the Bill in Committee. After the long debate upon this subject they might at any rate as soon as possible get to the two principles which were the only principles in this Bill, and which, of course, the House was entitled to debate at any length.
  MR. HUNTsaid there was nothing in the clause about necessitous children, and therefore he was afraid it would be possible to spend the ratepayers' money on children whose parents were well able to feed them. It ought to be made quite clear that the ratepayers' money should not be used in such circumstances.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELL:directed attention to the evidence of Mr. Shepheard before the Select Committee to allay the alarm felt by some hon. Members as to the effect of the Bill. Mr. Shepheard was asked—
  "You estimate that you can meet the necessities of the children with an outlay of about £45,000?"
  And the answer was—
  "That is our estimate. Then we hope and expect that present charitable funds will be continued. There is about £10,000 a year being expended in this direction through various charities, and I should hope this would come off the £45,000."
  Therefore, the £1,500,000 with which the House was startled dwindled down on examination to £35,000 a year. Remarks had been made about parental responsibility. The Committee reported as follows—
  "It has been often urged that the result of putting the duty on a public authority would undermine parental responsibility, but the Committee are forced to the conclusion that the present practice is by no means free from that danger."
  That was, he thought, a remarkable and a wise passage. He hoped contributions to charitable funds would continue, but by introducing a public authority the system was given a permanence, and he believed the public authority would watch carefully the action of parents in this matter. Alarmist statements had been made as to the effect this Bill would have, but the evidence could not have been carefully considered by those who made those statements. In deciding to feed her necessitous school children England was but following the example of all the other European nations.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYmoved to leave out the words, "on which the authority are represented." He did not think there was any need for these words, and he thought they might be detrimental, because if the object of the promoters of the Bill was really to encourage voluntary effort that would not be achieved by putting on the committee representatives of the local education authority. If it were thought wise that the local education authority should be connected with the committee, arrangements could be made to meet together and consult as to the steps to be taken.
  MR. LANE-FOXseconded.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, lines 9 and 10, to leave out the words, 'on which the authority are represented."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHagreed that as much freedom as possible should be left to the local education authority in constituting these committees, but the hon. Baronet strained these words a little beyond their real meaning. The words in the clause were that the local education authority might associate with themselves any committee on which the authority were represented. In certain emergencies there might have to be an expenditure of public money, and as the work had to be carried on with great care, subject to the approval of the authorities, it was absolutely necessary that the authorities should be represented.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid the hon. Gentleman had stated that there were certain cases in which that committee as constituted by section (a) would have to spend public money. Was that so"
  MR. LOUGH: If Clause 3 is adopted.
  LORD BALCARRESasked whether this committee, on which the local authority was to be represented, had no function besides that of actually selecting the food and paying the bill for it.
  MR. LOUGHsaid this committee would have to do more than buy food. They would have to see that the work was properly carried on.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. LANE-FOX:moved an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Tewkesbury Division to provide that the meals supplied to children should be prepaid. This, he said, was an Amendment of considerable substance and well worthy of consideration because it
  732
  was strongly supported by the Report of the Select Committee and also in the various documents placed before that Committee. A Report was furnished to the Select Committee by the hon. Member for Chippenham in which he said that 10,000 children in Rome attending the schools took advantage of a daily meal and everyone paid a halfpenny punctually on arrival. It must be obvious that the system of prepayment if possible was most satisfactory, because it insured in the first instance that they were dealing with the genuine cases which this Bill was intended to meet. Another excellent effect of the Amendment would be that it would distinctly draw a line which would indicate where pauper relief began in connection with this matter. That was a question which divided hon. Members in dealing with this subject. The objection felt to the giving of meals at the expense of the rates to the children of parents who were able to pay would be removed. Were the Government prepared to give some reason for disagreeing with what apparently was a unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee? The Committee went thoroughly into the matter, and their opinion was greater than any other that could be cited.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYseconded the Amendment. The only objection he could possibly see to it was that prepayment could not always be obtained if a child was waiting for a meal. That was not a sound objection, because there was a provision later in the Bill which met the case of necessitous children. It was evident that unless prepayment was got, the chances of recovering the money would be very small indeed. It would make the local education authority unpopular, and considerable expense would be entailed in recovering the money if the parents refused to pay. If the Amendment were adopted, all the legal machinery which would be required to recover the money would be avoided. A child might be supplied with meals contrary to the desire of the parent, who might be called upon to pay, although he had been absolutely ignorant of his child having had the food. He saw no good reason why the Amendment should not be accepted, provided that hon. Gentlemen opposite desired that the wicked parent should pay and that he should not be allowed to escape his parental obligations with impunity.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 20, after the word "charged" to insert the words 'by prepayment."—(Mr. Lane-Fox.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHsaid it was quite unnecessary for the mover and seconder of the Amendment to say a word in favour of prepayment. Anyone who was engaged in business preferred prepayment. The canteen committees would have to be worked in a business way, and nothing could be so desirable as to secure prepayment in every case. The hon. Member would ask why, while agreeing with him on that principle, he could not accept the Amendment. He would give a perfectly sound reason. A great many of the Amendments on the Paper sprang from the idea that they were setting up canteen committees. That was not what they were doing. They were laying down the constitution for the representative bodies who would afterwards have to make another constitution for the canteen committees who would carryout the work. They could not say in the Bill that there ought to be prepayment for meals, because there must be cases in which it would be impossible to observe that rule, however good it might be, if it were practicable. Reference had been made to the case of Rome. There was provision in the system adopted in Rome for dealing with hard cases. Although they accepted the principle of repayment they felt that the clause should be drawn so as to leave a wide discretion to the local authority.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that in Rome according to the Report laid on the Table of the House, if a child came to school obviously in want of food, the education authority bought a ticket from the feeding committee and gave the child a meal, making certain inquiries afterwards into the reasons why the parents had failed to provide the child with food. That system worked effectively in practice, and the children obtaining a meal without payment did not average more than 3 per cent. of those coming from the poorest districts. He need not say that he was glad the Government were following so good an example. In France there was what was known as the system of can-
  734
  teens where the children received meals. I The children brought a ticket, which was paid for sometimes by the parent, and sometimes by a charitable institution, but no one knew who had paid for the ticket.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he could not agree with his hon. friends in regard to the policy of the Government as to prepayment. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education said that prepayment was eminently desirable, but that he did not want to put it into the Bill because it would interfere with the discretion of the local education authority. The Parliamentary Secretary had refused the Amendment on purely administrative grounds. The hon. Gentleman must be the judge on that point; but he hoped that in the Departmental Circular embodying instructions to the local education authorities laying down the views of the Department, the Minister in charge of the Bill would state that in his personal opinion prepayment, wherever possible, should be made.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. HART-DAVIESmoved to insert in line 22, after the word "meal," "the expense attending the serving such meal." He would like to leave the local education authority as free as possible, but at the same time they should not only be relieved of the expense for the actual food supply, but of the cost of cooking and attendance.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that this Amendment meant much the same as one standing in his own name, to leave out of clause 2 the words "determined by the local education authority," and insert "sufficient to cover the full cost of providing, cooking, and serving that meal."
  MR. HART-DAVIESsaid that his object in moving his Amendment was to leave the matter rather vague.
  MR. CAVEseconded the Amendment. He had always understood that the words in the Bill included, not only the cost of food, but of getting the food ready.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In line 22, after the word 'meal,' to insert 'the expense attending the serving of such meal."—(Mr. Hart-Davies).
  MR. LOUGHsaid that the words of the Amendment had just the same force as he had tried to explain in regard to the other Amendment. The local education authority must be allowed to expend what they thought right in regard to preparing a meal. In the case of a small town, where it was thought necessary in connection with a public school to open a dining-room, the initial capital expenditure might amount to £15 or £20 a year. But during the first year the dining-room was opened perhaps not-more than a thousand meals would be provided, and only one penny could be charged for each, because otherwise the child would go home. If a charge was made to cover the whole expense it might amount to sixpence or sevenpence a meal; whereas, perhaps a year afterwards the dining-room would be crowded and the initial cost would be covered by a charge of a penny per meal. The difficulty of putting in words such as were suggested in the Amendment would hamper the local education authority, and he hoped that his hon. friend would not press it, because they must have a little confidence in the business tact of the local authority.
  MR. HART-DAVIESsaid he had no objection to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. FELL:moved an Amendment with the object of providing that the meals provided should not in cost exceed threepence. He thought it was desirable to limit the discretion of the local education authority. He had no doubt that some school canteen committees would be economical and supply the best possible meal at the least possible cost, but there might be school canteen committees who were extravagant, and it was impossible to say in such an event to what the cost of a meal might run. The parent was to be charged with the price of the meal, and the amount was to be recoverable from him, and he would know, if the Amendment were adopted, that under no circumstances could he be charged more than three-
  736
  pence. He thought his proposal would help all parties—the education authority, the canteen committee, and the parent, and he considered that the authorities should be guided in some way by a maximum sum being indicated. He did not anticipate that the cost of the meal would, in every case, reach the maximum, but there ought to be one beyond which the charge should not go.
  Amendment not seconded.
  *MR. CAVE:moved an Amendment to insert words which would lay it down that the amount charged for the meal should not be less than the estimated cost to the authority of providing, preparing, and serving it. He said the Bill gave no guidance as to the principle upon which the local authority should fix the sum to be charged for the meal, and there was nothing to prevent them from providing a meal which cost twopence halfpenny and charging a halfpenny or a farthing, so that they could in substance provide free meals, although making a small nominal charge. They were told that this was not intended, and that no public funds would be applied to the provision of meals under this Bill except in either cases under Clause 3, or where the parent was unable, through no fault of his own, to pay for the meal.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that no public funds would be available for food, but they would be available for machinery.
  *MR. CAVEsaid that this was the first time he had heard that admitted, but he wished to point out that unless the parent was unable to pay for the meal he ought to be made liable for the cost of it, and some words defining his liability should be inserted. He thought the best way was that the local education authority should fairly estimate the cost of the meal and charge what it cost them. He did not mean to include the capital charges in regard to the buildings and apparatus but merely the estimated cost of providing and serving the meal, his object being to make the whole thing self-supporting in regard to those children whose parents could pay. In the case of necessitous children no provision was made that the cost of the meals could be recovered from any other

  737
  source, and therefore it must come out of the education rate.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities) seconded.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 22, after the word 'amount,' to insert the words '(not being less than the estimated cost to the authority of providing, preparing and serving such meal.)"—(Mr. Cave.)
  Question proposed "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHsaid he heartily appreciated the courteous and sympathetic words in which the Amendment had been moved, but thought it would be unworkable, and would defeat the object with which it was proposed. It would be exceedingly difficult to estimate the cost, and it would work out perhaps to fractions of a farthing. There must be a round sum, and, as in any business, the loss on one day would be recovered on another. The cost must vary according to the number of children, so that if the Amendment were adopted in a large school it would be much less than in a small school, putting an impossible burden on an auditor. Did the hon. Member say that there was no alternative between an absolutely free meal and one for which the full cost was paid? At present they could get half the money for the meal from the child, and if these words were put in the local authorities would be precluded from taking what might be obtained for a meal. He could not believe the hon. Gentleman intended to do that. But this was one of the practical difficulties that arose with regard to a financial rule of that character. If, again, they asked for a prepayment it must be based upon au estimate and these qualifying words would not got rid of that difficulty. He could not accept the Amendment.
  *MR. BRIDGEMANsaid he was not convinced by the arguments of the hon. Gentleman. He congratulated him with having expounded his views with a little more lucidity than he did a few days ago, and was grateful to him for having given his reasons, because this was a question the Committee did not fully understand when it was last discussed. There seemed to be an impression that this
  738
  clause dealt with necessitous children, but it only dealt with children from whom the money could be recovered. It was only when they came to Clause 3 that they commenced to deal with necessitous children. The hon. Member for St. Helens, on the previous occasion, spoke upon this clause under the total misapprehension that it was to do with free meals for necessitous children. The intention of the clause was in the opposite direction. It was to see that the local authority should not be the loser by giving meals to children, whose parents could afford to pay, merely for the sake of convenience. And that was the Amendment of his hon. friend. The hon. Member in charge of the Bill said the Amendment was unworkable for three reasons. First he said it was impossible to ascertain the cost and whether a profit was being made on a particular meal or not. But a very little experience would enable the local authority to get out of that difficulty. It was perfectly easy to get an estimate of the cost, and that was all that was involved in this Amendment. Then it was said it would necessitate dealing in small fractions. The Amendment did not do that. It simply said there should be no loss. And with regard to the contention that it could not be estimated without going into small fractions, he pointed out that it was not necessary to estimate the cost to a farthing, and if it was estimated at a farthing too much the people who wanted their children to have a meal merely for the sake of convenience were perfectly well able to pay the extra farthing. That would also help the local authority to feed those who could not afford to pay. It was lastly contended that the Amendment would defeat its own object by preventing the local authority receiving part payment or pro-payment. If the cost was estimated he could not see how the Amendment prevented pre-payment, and with regard to part payment the hon. Gentleman had himself made that perfectly safe. If the parents were able to pay part, the voluntary associations would pay the rest, and the part that they paid would go to the local authorities. The Amendment left it open to the local authorities to take part payment of the actual cost of the meal to recoup themselves, yet the hon. Gentleman wished the House to oppose the Amendment. Did

  739
  he wish the local authority to be a loser when there was no need, or to saddle the rate with more than was necessary, or to make it easy for people able to pay to get a meal for 1d. which cost 2d.? There was no difficulty in this Amendment; it would be easy to administer it if the hon. Gentleman would accept it. He had not been lavish in the concessions he had made, and he was afraid the hon. Gentleman had been rather influenced in that by the fact that so few hon. Members had been present in opposition to discuss the matter. But although only seventeen or eighteen voted in the lobby on Friday it must be borne in mind that they reduced the Government majority to a lower point than almost any before, and he was convinced that many supporters of the Government stayed away in order to avoid the predicament in which they would have been placed in having to oppose the hon. Gentleman.
  *SIR W. J. COLLINS (St. Pancras, W.)said it was desirable to keep the various issues quite apart in dealing with this matter. He was astonished to hear the mover of the Amendment say that the principle that the price fixed by the local authority for a meal supplied should not cover the cost of the "machinery" as well as the cost of the food, was new to the House. There was a great weight of authority behind that principle. The Scottish Royal Commission, two Departmental Committees, and the Select Committee had suggested that the cost of the machinery should fall on the local authority and the cost of the materials upon the parents or the voluntary agencies. They had only to refer to the Scottish Commission to find the opinion expressed that in many cases it would be of inestimable advantage if these meals could be supplied, and that the cost of preparing them should be part of the school service. Another circumstance that had been lost sight of was the educational value of a meal supplied under these circumstances. The Report of the Medical Inspector of the Lancet who had recently visited the Indian schools, said it was there recognised that the instruction that could be given at meal times was as necessary as the education given in the schools. He urged the House not to forget the educational value of these meals and contended that experience in London
  740
  proved that 75 or 80 per cent. of the cost might be recovered from the parents.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONappealed to the Government not to accept this Amendment. In the first place he was a little suspicious that there was a desire to-night not to trust the local authority. If there was one argument more than another used on the Select Committee it was that they should trust the local authority. Those who had been the keenest upon that argument were now the most ready to depart from it. The parent must pay the full estimated cost of the meal, the only alternative being that the child must become a necessitous child. There was no middle course. The proper way to meet the difficulty was to leave more elasticity to the local authority. The local authority might have within its area a district where the better class working men and the middle class resided, and they might be prepared to pay a little more than the bare cost for convenience sake, and in those cases a profit would be made. Another part of the same area might be a poor working class neighbourhood where a number of unskilled labourers resided, and they might not be in a position to pay the full cost of the meals provided for their children. Surely they might leave it to the discretion of the local authority to charge more in the former case and less in the latter, according to the circumstances. If the local authority did not make the whole transaction pay, where would the money come from?
  MR. HAROLD COX: From the rates.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid that no public funds were provided. There was no power under this Bill connected with the school canteen system for the rates to be drawn upon in the event of the local authority failing to make this first part of the business pay. But they were not now dealing with necessitous cases. From the arguments which had been advanced he should have thought the reduction of the number of necessitous eases ought to be the chief aim of the hon. Member for Preston than whom no man had done more to prevent this Bill from

  741
  passing into law. They ought to leave the local authority absolutely free in this matter. For these reasons he sincerely hoped that this Amendment would not be pressed, because it would defeat the object the measure had in view, and it would drive many of the children into a category out of which they ought to do their best to keep them.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the hon. Member for Barnard Castle did not appear quite to understand the Amendment. The cost of the food had to be found by voluntary agencies, whilst the cost of its preparation and service had to be provided by the ratepayer, who would not be consulted in the matter at all, and the purpose of this Amendment was to secure that the amount repaid by the parents should go to meet the charge imposed on the ratepayer.
  *MR. HAROLD COX:maintained that parents who liked the convenience of their children dining at school ought to pay for chat convenience. These parents had no right to compel the ratepayers to pay for the convenience they secured. It had been said that the matter could be settled by leaving it to the local authority. They had had experience of the manner in which local authorities had acted. In the case of London, the London County Council was the local education authority, and when the education of London was handed over to them there were a number of schools in which fees were willingly paid. Those fees brought in a revenue of £20,000 a year, but the London County Council, wantonly abolished them. That council apparently thought that it was more democratic to compel the ratepayer to pay for other people's children than to permit the parent to pay for his own children. If this clause passed it would authorise the London County Council to sot up a system of restaurants all over London at the cost of the ratepayers. We wanted better education in this country, more teachers, and higher salaries for the teachers, but we could not get any of these things if the rate-payers were to be plundered for things
  742
  that parents really did not want. he therefore hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
  MR. GWYNXthought the object of this Bill was being misrepresented by the Opposition. There were two principal objects, one of which was primary and the other only secondary. In London and in England generally they had enacted that all children must go to school. The question was whether the children should be forced to go to school in a starving condition. If that was not the wish of hon. Members they would have to provide meals for a certain number of the children. It was in the interests of the ratepayers as well as in the interests of education generally that meals should be provided for necessitous children. The Amendment under consideration raised the question whether other children should be allowed to profit by the existence of the machinery which would be provided under this Bill. It also suggested that a charge should be made which would cover not only the food supplied but also the capital value of the building, machinery, and attendance. It appeared to him that the House was being asked to put the cost of the whole business upon a section of the community.
  MR. LOUGHmade an appeal to the Committee to decide this point.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYthought the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would recognise that they had been very moderate in their opposition to it. [Cries of "Divide,"] Hon. Members below the gangway who were so impatient made statements which would give a false impression in the country and the House, and therefore it was necessary to deal with them. The one argument appeared to be that the necessitous child should have his meal free, but this Amendment did not touch that point; it provided only that a charge should be made for the cost of the meal to a particular child. The charge would not cover the cost of the building and the providing and serving of the meal.
  Question put
  The House divided:—Ayes, 27; Noes, 251. (Division List No. 495.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fell, Arthur

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Starkey, John R.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Bertram, Julius

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hunt, Rowland

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Younger, George

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Nield, Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cave and Mr. Harold Cox.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Alden, Percy

  Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jenkins, J.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Dillon, John

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Joyce,.Michael

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Erskine, David C.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Barnard, E. B.

  Essex, R. W.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Lamont, Norman

  Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B (Hexham

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Fenwick, Charles

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Benn,Sir J. Williams (Devonport

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford

  Ffrench, Peter

  Levy, Maurice

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Billson, Alfred

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lough, Thomas

  Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lundon, W.

  Boland, John

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Gilhooly, James

  Lynch, H. B.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Gill, A. H.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs

  Brace, William

  Ginnell, L.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Glover, Thomas

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Branch, James

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Macpherson. J. T.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Gulland, John W.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Callum, John M.

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  M'Crae, George

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hall, Frederick

  M'Kean, John

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  M'Laren,,Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  M'Laren,H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Harrington, Timothy

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Harwood, George

  Marnham, F. J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Massie, J.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Clough, William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Meagher, Michael

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras,W.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Murnaghan, George

  Crean, Eugene

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Murphy, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Myer, Horatio

  Crombie, John William

  Hogan, Michael

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Crooks, William

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset,N.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Delany, William

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Walters, John Tudor

  O'Doberty, Philip

  Russell, T. W.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wardle, George J.

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Sears, J. E.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Watt, H. Anderson

  O'Malley, William

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Wedgwood, Josiah. C.

  O'Mara, James

  Shackleton, David James

  Whitbread, Howard

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Paul, Herbert

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Snowden, P.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Williams, J (Glamorgan)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Steadman, W. C.

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

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenoel)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Rees, J. D.

  Stewart-Smith, D. Kendal)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Summerbell, T.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Robert, G. H. (Norwich)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E).

  Robertson, Sir G, Scott (Bradf'rd

  Thorne, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Toulmin, George

  Robinson, S.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Roche, Augstine (Cork)

  Verney, F. W.

  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 23, to leave out the word such."—(Mr. Lough.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. BOWLESmoved an Amendment to provide that a parent should receive a statement of account for every meal furnished to his child "within a period to be prescribed by the local education authority." He thought this Amendment was absolutely necessary if justice was to be done to the parents in this matter. The clause gave the local education authority enormous powers in regard to the recovery of the cost of meals, and it seemed to him reasonable that a parent should know within what time he was expected to pay before proceedings would be taken against him. He supposed that an account would have to be rendered to every parent, and he suggested that the account should state the time after which the powers of the local education authority to recover payment would begin to run. This was one of the many gaps in the machinery of the Bill, and he hoped the Amendment would be accepted by the Secretary to the Board of Education who had not been very lavish in concessions to Members of the Opposition.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYseconded the Amendment. It was a reasonable proposal, because it only gave the parent a chance of knowing what he had to pay within a prescribed period. A parent might not know that meals were supplied to his child, but he was to be liable for the charge, even though he was in ignorance of what had been done. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said that they must leave all these things to the local authorities, but different local authorities would probably make different rules on this extremely important point. He appealed to the good sense of hon. Gentlemen opposite in order that some rule might be laid down ensuring that there should be some uniformity in the regulations made by different authorities. He hoped that he had made himself clear, and having gone so far to give elasticity to the local education authority, he invited the hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 23, after the word 'parent,' to insert the words 'within a period to be prescribed by the local education authority and set forth by them on the statement of account."—(Mr. Bowles.)
  Question proposed "That those words be there inserted in the Bill,"
  MR. LOUGHsaid he gladly recognised the spirit in which the Amendment had been moved. The hon. Member had said that there were many gaps in the machinery by which the Bill was to be carried into effect; but it was the business of the local education authority to fill in these gaps. The hon. Baronet had suggested that at the foot of the accounts sent to the parents it should be stated that if payment was not made in seven days the matter would be put into the hands of the solicitor of the local education authority. He thought that it would be ridiculous to make such a claim, and to put it into the Bill; and he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. BOWLESsaid that this clause went beyond machinery, for it empowered every local education authority throughout the country to supply meals to the children, and laid the duty on that authority to recover payment for them. He thought that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would see that the clause would impose a very grave injustice on some parents. He wished to move an Amendment to provide that the parents should not be forced to pay unless the meal had been supplied to his child with his authority or consent.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 2, after the word 'amount' to insert the words, 'or that the meal has been furnished without his authority and consent."—(Mr. Bowles.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHsaid he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that a broad principle was involved in the clause; in I fact it embodied the most definite principle in the Bill. The intention of the Bill was to enforce the duty of the parent to send his child to school properly fed and fit to receive instruction; and this clause had its root in the argument of the hon. Member for North Camberwell that he objected to the children being scarified. He could not accept the Amendment.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that this was a question purely of administra-
  748
  tion, and he hoped the Government would not allow the clause to pass without further consideration. He himself wanted the clause to work satisfactorily in regard to parents and children who were not necessitous. It seemed to him that such parents ought at least have some notice where a charge was to be made for the meals. He was sincerely anxious that the Bill should go to another place without any gap in it.
  *MR. HERBERTsaid he hoped the Government would give serious attention to this Amendment which seemed to him to be perfectly reasonable The clause did not deal entirely with necessitous children, nor with neglectful parents, and it might happen that a parent who did his duty by his children might provide them with money to get dinner day by clay, and the child might spend that money on sweets or cigarettes and, having no dinner otherwise, might be provided with dinner at school. Then, at an indefinite period afterwards, the local authority would send in a bill for meals of which the parent had no knowledge. That he thought would be a monstrous proceeding, and therefore there ought to be an obligation, upon the local authority to give notice at once of what they were doing to both the neglectful parent and the good parent.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had no doubt the same object in view as they had, but he had failed to grasp the point under discussion. The hon. Gentleman had said that where the parent did not provide his child with sufficent food, the object of the clause was to scarify the parent. The Amendment of his hon. friend was not to prevent the scarifying of the parent, who showed cruelty to his z J, but to protect him in doing his u. / If a parent gave his child a sufficient breakfast, and the child went down to school and found a very excellent breakfast for the other children being provided by the local education authority, he might be tempted to take a second breakfast. That was a very likely thing to occur. If the parent exercised cruelty towards his child a cheaper remedy than that proposed by the hon. Gentleman would be to invoke the intervention

  749
  of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. [Cries of "Divide."] By this Bill they were carrying legislation further than it had ever been carried before, and at all events hon. Members should put themselves to a little inconvenience to see that the provisions of the Bill were such that they could be administered without difficulty.
  *DR. MACNAMARAsaid his hon. friend had stated that they were passing a Bill the like of which they had never passed before. Quite true. And they ought to have done it long ago. What would happen under this clause? The local education authority gave a meal and it was to be given freely under the Bill unless one of two things happened; either the local education authority were to be satisfied that owing to the necessitous character of the area, funds other than public funds were not available or were insufficient in amount to defray the cost of meals, or that the parent was unable to pay. Now it was desired to insert another provision under which the parent should come forward and say that the meal was given to his child without his authority. Did not hon. Members who supported this proposal see that they were defeating their own object, because thriftless parents would always come forward and say that. They were giving them indeed the best excuse not to pay. A more stupid Amendment he could not remember.
  *MR. CAVEappealed to his hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment and was sure that he did not quite see what the effect of it was. Take the case of a man who was well able to pay for his child's food, but for selfish reasons refused either to give his child a proper meal at home or to consent to its being properly fed at school. In such a case the school authority out of humanity would have to give a meal to that child but would be unable, if this Amendment were carried, to recover from the father the twopence which it cost. He would ask his hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 7, to leave out the word 'represents,' and insert the words 'may be determined by the authority to represent."
  "In page 2, line 8, at the end, to insert the words 'less a reasonable deduction in respect of the expenses of recovering the same."—(Mr. Cave.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYmoved to leave out Clause 3. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had admitted that there were gaps in it. Clause 3 as it was at present drawn constituted a very big gap, and he proposed to fill it up by omitting the clause altogether. This clause provided that the local education authority might raise an amount not exceeding one halfpenny in the pound in order to provide food for the children. This was not the clause which invited the local authority to cooperate with any voluntary authority, or to provide any other machinery of a voluntary character. It was a clause simply to enable the local authority to levy a halfpenny rate for the purpose of providing food. He thought that this was an extremely bad clause and that the result of it would be that the local education authority would be empowered to provide food for the children which the parents of the child ought to provide themselves. All these provisions for affording certain meals or education to children at less than the actual cost had always been safeguarded by anxiously thought out provisions to the effect that there should be a limit put in the Bill. But in how many cases had that limit been maintained? If safeguards or limit of the rate were not put into this Bill what would be the result at the next election of any local education authority? In nine cases out of ten in the case of an election for the county council or the local education authority the cry would be "Vote for Smith and free meals for children." The result would be that the candidate who was prepared to give free meals to children would be returned. [Loud cries of "No."] Well, he was not quite so sure about that, and he thought it was for that very reason that there were so few hon. Members who were contesting the passage of this Bill. It was because they were afraid of the consequences that they were supporting it. Personally, he was not afraid of the use of any public money for this purpose whether it was the money of the State or from the rates, but if hon. Members

  751
  would have the courage of their opinion and say that they believed it was necessary for the lives of those people who were going to inhabit this country that they should be properly fed and educated at the cost of the State he should say he did not agree with them, but he admired their courage. When, however, they came down and said that there were going to be certain safeguards in regard to such a policy, and that only a certain amount was going to be spent upon a certain number of necessitous children, he had to ask the question "What would happen if there were more necessitous children than the halfpenny rate would provide for?"
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 9, to leave out Clause 3."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'resolve,' in line 9, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LOUGH:recognised the good example which the hon. Member had set by moving his Amendment very briefly, and said he would imitate him in his reply. He would like to remove certain misconceptions which appeared to prevail. Everything that was inserted in Clauses 1 and 2 would apply to Clause 3, which would be covered by the provisions of the earlier clauses. The hon. Member seemed to think that a popular cry at an election would be "Vote for Smith and free meals." But he did not think so. He thought it would be a most unpopular thing for anybody to advocate increased taxation at the present time.
  They had had enough of that, and he thought the people were in favour of economy. He thought what they wanted to do could be done without the clause being in the Bill at all, but on the whole he considered it was safer to insert these provisions. The clause was surrounded with safeguards, in fact with every safeguard which they could devise.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that with his hon. friend he felt very strongly that this clause carried certain dangers, but he would urge him not to go to a division. They had accepted the proposal that children who were absolutely in want and could not get the full advantage of the system of education provided, should in some form or another be provided with meals. It might be proper that the locality should raise a limited sum for this purpose, but what they had to consider was not the application of the clause in particular, but the safeguards which were put upon the local education authority in spending the ratepayers' money in providing meals for children whose parents could pay. Under the circumstances, although he was not altogether satisfied that the safeguards were sufficient and would press one or two Amendments on the Parliamentary Secretary later, he thought this Bill was one of which they had accepted the principle and therefore should not press this Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 267; Noes, 15. (Division List No. 496.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Benn, W (T'w'r H'mlets,S. Geo.)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Alden, Percy

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Billson, Alfred

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Boland, John

  Clough, William

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Brace, William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Barnard, E. B.

  Branch, James

  Cooper, G. J.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brigg, John

  Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexham

  Brooke, Stopford

  Cowan, W. H.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Crean, Eugene

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Benn, SirJ. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Crombie, John William

  Crooks, William

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Delany, William

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Robinson, S.

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dillon, John

  Levy, Maurice

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Russell, T. W.

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Lough, Thomas

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Lundon, W.

  Sears, J. E.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Erskine, David C.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Shackleton, David James

  Essex, R. W.

  Macdonald, J. M (Falkirk B'ghs.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sileock, Thomas Ball

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Farrell, James Patrick

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Fenwick, Charles

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Ferens, T. R.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Smith, F. E.(Liverpool Walton)

  Ferguson, B. C. Munro

  M'Crae, George

  Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Kean, John

  Snowden, P.

  Findlay, Alexander

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Gilhooly, James

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Stewart-Smith. D. (Kendal)

  Gill, A. H.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Ginnell, L.

  Massie, J.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Glover, Thomas

  Meagher, Michael

  Summerbell, T.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Gulland, John W.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Murnaghan, George

  Thorne, William

  Hall, Frederick

  Murphy, John

  Tomkinson, James

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Nicholls, George

  Toulmin, George

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Harrington, Timothy

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Verney, F. W.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Walters, John Tudor

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Wardle, George J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Hedges, A. Paget

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Grady, J.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  O'Hare, Patrick

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  O'Malley, William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

  O'Mara, James

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Whitehead, Rowland)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Paul, Herbert

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Hogan, Michael

  Pearce, Robert (Staff, Leek)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Pollard, Dr.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Hudson, Walter

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Centr'l

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

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

  Jackson, R. S.

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Jenkins, J.

  Reddy, M.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rees, J. D.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Joyce, Michael

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Kelley, George D.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Ridsdale, E.

  754

  755

  NOES.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hamilton, Marquess Of

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Craik, SIR Henry

  Lane-Foz, G. R.

  Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Bridgeman.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nield, Herbert

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Starkey, John R.

  Fell, Arthur

  Valentia Viscount

  MR. LANE-FOXmoved an Amendment with the object of limiting the operation of the clause to children in town areas. He could certainly claim to have a distinct mandate for this Amendment, for every single rural district council in his constitutency had petitioned him to oppose the clause. There was a good deal to be said for this Amendment, because the evil which this Bill was intended to cure had not arisen in rural districts. The rural councils distinctly objected to the machinery of this Bill being brought in. They objected to overlapping, and he thought their argument was sound. He did not think they ought to disestablish the existing authorities by a side wind, because in the urban districts there might be a problem which did not exist in rural districts. He appealed to hon. Members to be careful before they adopted a clause which might be necessary to the urban districts, but in the rural districts would have the effect of drying up the voluntary agencies which existed, and went far to mitigate the evil. In Hull this relief was carried on effectively at a cost of £900 a year, £300 of which was provided by two brothers, Mr. Wilson and Lord Nunburnholme.
  MR. BOWLESseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 9, after the word 'authority' to insert the words 'in an urban area."—(Mr. Lane-Fox.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHagreed that there was little demand for the Bill in rural districts. But the Bill was permissive, and it need not be put into operation if not required. The County Councils Association passed a resolution that so long as the Bill was permissive they had no objection to it. There might be individual parishes in which crises might occur, and it would be well to have
  machinery to cope with its existence. If all went well in rural districts then the Act would never be put into operation.
  *MR. BRIDGEMANsaid the argument which had been put forward that the clause was inserted to meet the case of a crisis was absolutely worthless. In a rural parish with a rateable value of £2,000 a ½d. rate would raise about £4, and with five meals a week at 2d. each, a ½d. rate would only feed five children for twenty weeks.
  MR. S. COLLINSsaid that those who had spoken on behalf of the Opposition had constantly expressed themselves in entire sympathy with the objects of this Bill. He found upon looking at the numerous Amendments which had been put on the, Paper, that the Bill contained eight clauses, and hon. Members above the gangway were opposing five clauses out of the eight.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment.
  MR. ROGERShoped the Government would not accept this Amendment. One of the strongest arguments against it was that they had not got in the rural districts the voluntary agencies which they had in the towns. He had some knowledge of a local authority which had no less than 350 schools under its control, and he did not believe that in one of those schools they received any voluntary assistance at all. He was sure that if they accepted an Amendment of this kind they would do a very great injustice to rural districts. The agricultural labourers were amongt the worst paid of industrial workers, and consequently there was sure to be a certain number of very poor children, and in order to deal with them it was very desirable that the local authority should have the power which this clause provided. He was not so sure that the last words of this clause were at all wise, and if the

  757
  right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could see his way to make this a charge on the general county rate instead of upon the parish concern it would very materially assist the poor parishes.
  MR. LANE FOXasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONmoved an Amendment requiring the local authority to furnish to the Board of Education a report by a medical inspector in making application for power to spend money out of the rates for food, such report certifying that there were children within their area unable by reason of lack of food to take full advantage of the education provided for them. He thought it was desirable that the Board of Education, which would have thrown upon it the responsibility of deciding whether this rate should be levied or not, should have the material facts before it for determining whether there was real need for such a step. It was not sufficient that the local authority should simply say that some of the children were underfed. It would be impossible for the Board of Education to make special inquiries in every locality, and it was not desirable that such a heavy strain should be placed upon the officials of the Board of Education. To avoid this he thought the local authority should be instructed to supply the Board of Education with such facts as would enable them to make an order at once. He thought the Board of Education ought to have some assurance from a medical authority that there were children unable to profit by the instruction offered because they were underfed and because no funds were available for the provision of meals. The information supplied by the local inspector would be sufficient for the Board of Education to act upon if they were satisfied that no voluntary agencies existed. He asked the House to give this Amendment serious consideration because it would relieve the Board of Education of a very serious responsibility and would give a great stimulus to the appointment of medical inspectors.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 9, after the word, 'authority,' to insert, the words 'after receiving the
  758
  report of a medical inspection."—(Sir William Anson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHregretted he could not accept this Amendment as it might prove a formidable barrier to the operation of the clause. The hon. Gentleman opposite had said that it was undoubtedly in the power of the local education authorities to have a medical inspection. He doubted that, and, at any rate, he was not sure that the local authorities would exercise the power. The Education Bill was not yet passed and there was no means of ensuring that there should be medical inspection.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLwas sorry the Amendment had not been accepted. The medical inspection of children had been adopted in Manchester and many of the great towns. He did not think they could leave entirely out of view the opinion expressed unanimously by both Houses of Parliament within the last few weeks. A clause had been adopted in the Education Bill which made it the duty of the local education authority to provide for the medical inspection of children before or at the time of their admission to a public elementary school.
  Dr. MACNAMARAsuggested that the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University should use his influence with his friends in the House of Lords to pass the Education Bill. He would then have his medical inspection.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that the Report of the Departmental Committee stated that a definite system of medical inspection had been established in a large number of school areas. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could not have read the Report. In view of the statement it contained the hon. Gentleman's reply was absurd.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 12, after the word 'and' to insert the words 'have ascertained that."
  "In page 2, line 14, to leave out the word such."
  "In page 2, line 14, after the word 'meals,' to insert the words 'provided under this Act."—(Sir William Anson.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY:moved an Amendment requiring the consent of the local board of guardians before the Board of Education authorises expenditure out of the rates for the provision of food for necessitous children. The guardians were conversant with relief work; the education authority were not. The guardians were able to ascertain whether or not people were necessitous, but the local education authority had no machinery for doing that work. He thought the Amendment would go far to carry out the object which the hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill had in view, namely, that only necessitous people should be fed out of public funds.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 15, after the second 'Board,' to insert the words 'subject to the consent of the local board of guardians."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
  Question proposed "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHsaid this had already been fully discussed, and for reasons given he could not accept the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONmoved to insert after "rate" the words "during such period of time as the Board may direct." It was not desirable that because there occurred a period of distress the local authority should have the right to levy a permanent rate. He felt sure that the Parliamentary Secretary would see the necessity of imposing some limit of time for the duration of this privilege unless he wished to produce the result that the local authority should have the right to levy a permanent halfpenny rate instead of only in a temporary period of distress.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 17, after the words 'out of the rates,' to insert the words 'during
  760
  such a period of time as the Board may direct."—(Sir William Anson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHsaid that the Government had given very careful consideration to this Amendment, but they had come to the conclusion that it was unnecessary. The provisions of the clause were very elastic. The local authority would apply to the Board, and the Board might authorise such expenditure as was considered necessary; it was not a question of a continual rate of a halfpenny. The object the hon. Baronet had in view would be secured by the Interpretation Act, 1899, in which it was provided that the board, unless an Act expressly ordered otherwise, could withraw an order.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONasked who was to call the attention of the Board to the fact that a halfpenny rate was not necessary?
  Mr LOUGHsaid that that might be done in many ways. A question might be asked and it would be fully considered.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. HUNT:moved an Amendment to insert after the word "sum," the words "for necessitous children only." He wanted to make it quite clear that the rates should only be used for necessitous children.
  MR. BOWLESseconded the Amendment. He had an Amendment on the Paper which raised the same point in other form. The point was of great importance. They had been told over and over again by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill and by the hon. Member for North Camberwell that they need lot alarm themselves as to the effect of this Bill, because in the vast majority of cases the meals would be paid for, and that the rates would only be used in very exceptional circumstances, and only in any case where the child was necessitous and the parents were unable to pay for the meals. This Amendment had the effect of carrying out those repeated assurances. The question was whether such victuals

  761
  as were paid for out; of the rates were to be given to necessitous children or to the children generally. He hoped they would receive an explicit answer from the Government on that point.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 16, after the word 'sum,' to insert the words 'for necessitous children only."—(Mr. Hunt.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHsaid that the object of the Amendment came very near to another which had been discussed an hour before. The restrictions in the Amendment differed from those in the Bill in regard to the use of the money which might be raised from the rates. The hon. Gentleman said that that money should not be used except for necessitous children. They must stick to the provisions and the restrictions which they had put into the Bill, and, as he had pointed out before, this clause must be interpreted in connection with Clauses 2 and 1 and could not be separated from them. It was an integral part of the Bill, but it could not be used without falling back upon Clauses 1 and 2. The safeguards which were provided were that there should be no charge upon the rates unless the parent said that he was unable to pay. That was the one broad restriction imposed by the Bill. Another restriction was that the local authority should pass a resolution to the effect that some of the children in the district could not take advantage of the system of education provided for them unless they were provided with food. Those were the safeguards which were imposed, and they were the best they could invent, and whatever hon. Gentleman might think of them they must stick to them.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that whatever difficulties there were in regard to the consideration of this clause the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had brought upon himself by accepting an Amendment to the clause. As the clause originally stood it referred to necessitous areas, and in regard to them the whole area was to provide a halfpenny rate. But the Amendment
  762
  accepted by the Parliamentary Secretary altered the clause materially, and it no longer dealt alone with the necessitous area, but with individual children who were alleged to be underfed. He was bound to say that after the way in which his Amendment, limiting to some period of time the operation of this clause had been dealt with, they were bound to look very carefully upon the necessary limitations to be imposed in regard to the operation of the clause. It was not the area which it was important to consider but the children. A local education authority might find that certain of the children attending the elementary schools were unable from lack of food to take advantage of the educational facilities which were supplied in those schools. The schools were unable to find money for the purpose of the provision of meals, and they had to go to the local education authority and ask for an order under which they might provide those meals. As the Bill at present stood that order might run for all time in that particular area. Under those circumstances he thought they should have to press this Amendment on the Government in order to insure that the benefits of the clause were not applied to purposes for which they were never intended, and that the children whom it was intended to benefit should receive all that they were entitled to. He urged the Government to accept the Amendment which would make it impossible so far to alter the character of the schools as to enable this halfpenny rate to be shared in by people who were perfectly well able to pay for the feeding of their own children.
  *MR. CAVEsaid he did not wish to pledge himself to the words of the Amendment. In fact he preferred words which appeared later on the Paper and which were intended to produce the same result as this Amendment. But he was strongly in favour of the principle of this Amendment. Let them take the case of an area of an ordinary character where there were two or three children who were necessitous but no funds other than public funds were available for feeding such children. In such a case the clause as it stood appeared to empower the education authority to apply to the Board of Education for an order which would justify the authority in

  763
  providing food out of the rates, not only for the few necessitous children, but for all the children in the education area. Was it the desire of the House that in a case where there were only two or three poor children the whole of Clause 3 should be brought into operation and the cost of the food for children in the whole of the area paid for out of the rates?
  MR. LOUGH: The hon. Member forgets Clause 2.
  *MR. CAVEsaid he had not forgotten Clause 2, and he was going on to refer to it. He was obliged for the interruption because it enabled him to deal with the question. As he understood it, what that clause meant was that the authority could charge the parent of a child who was able to pay a price for the meal.
  MR. LOUGH: They must charge the parent with the price of the meal.
  *MR. CAVEsaid he agreed that they must charge for the meals, but they need not charge the cost of the meal. They were only bound to make some charge, and the amount charged might be only a fraction of the cost. That strengthened the argument in favour of the principle of this Amendment. It had been suggested that power could not be given to an authority to raise a rate to feed a few poor children. But that was the Paris system, where the parents who were able to pay paid, and the children whose prrents wera unable to pay got tickets which enabled them to get the meal. He had not made this speech in any spirit of interfering with the passing of the Bill, but he felt that a case in which there were only two or three children to be fed should receive further consideration.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he was very much obliged to the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, because he had given him a fair indication of what he meant was safeguarded by it. He understood that one of the safeguards was that the cost of the provision of meals should be recovered from those parents who could pay, and that those who could not pay should receive the price of the meal out of the public
  764
  funds. That was an important admission, because up to the present the hon. Member had always stated that he was not going to apply this provision to all children. Now, however, the hon. Member clearly stated that meals were to be provided for all children. In other words, every child in the school was to be provided with a meal which was to be paid for out of public funds unless its parents could pay. The ratepayers would have to provide for the rest. The sum would have to come out of the rates. [Cries of "No."] If that was not so, surely there was no sense in not accepting the Amendment, because they all understood that it was really the desire of hon. Members opposite to provide meals for everybody, to recover the amount of those meals if they could, and if they could not to let it fall upon the rates.
  *DR. MACNAMARApointed out that the intention was not to provide meals for all the children out of the public rates or other public funds and get the money back when they could. The genius of this clause was to provide for the necessitous child, and to make those pay who could afford to do so. He had great sympathy with that object, but if hon. Members would look at the early parts of Clause 6they would see that the Bill was really meant for the relief of necessitous children. It was laid down in the Bill that, where the local authority decided that there were children in their area who were unable by reason of lack of food to take advantage of the system of education provided, they should have food provided for them. Those were the necessitous children who were entitled to take advantage of the system provided. And if the funds, either charitable or otherwise, were not sufficient the local authority was given power to raise a halfpenny rate. If the words of the Amendment were put in they would be surplusage. Knowing what he did of the mysteries of the law he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he would find in the end, if his Amendment was carried, that he had put words into the Bill which would have an effect entirely different from that which he intended to bring about. For the rest, this clause was so hedged round with safeguards that public money could only

  765
  be spent upon the children who really were suffering from want. He thought that with all the safeguards which had been applied, not only in this case, but in the case of Clause 2, they might dispose of this Amendment and proceed to the consideration of the others on the Paper.
  MR. HICKS BEACHthought that the hon. Member's argument was very much in favour of his hon. friend's Amendment, because during his argument he had used the very words which his hon. friend wished to put in. He used the words "necessitous children" and those were the words which they wished to have inserted They wished to have it made perfectly clear that the funds which were to be raised from the rates should only be used for the purpose of assisting necessitous children. That they had always understood was the intension of the Government, but from the recent declarations of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education he understood that the intention of the Government was not to provide for necessitous children, but to provide meals for all children whose parents, whether they could pay or not, would like those meals to be provided. That was a very different thing from what they understood before. He had very considerable doubt about the advisability of putting a charge of this kind upon the rates at all, particularly after reading the evidence given before the Select Committee which dealt with this Bill. He would refer to the evidence of the gentleman who came from Bethnal Green, who said there was no difficulty at all in feeding the necessitous children, and that there was ample money in London and to spare for that purpose. Then the witness who came from West Ham said that voluntary subscriptions had met all their difficulties in feeding necessitous children in that place, and that they had no difficulty whatever in getting voluntary subscriptions. The very least the Government could do was to make their meaning quite clear by inserting words of the nature proposed, and confining the section entirely to the case of necessitous children. It was all very well to say that in the case of other people who were not necessitous the local authorities would recover the money,
  766
  but if the evidence were looked at it would be found that one witness after another stated that it was very difficult to get the money out of the parents. One witness was asked in plain terms whether the game was worth the candle, and he said that it was not, that the sum recovered was so small that it was not worth while spending money on its recovery.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTappealed to the Solicitor-General to explain to the House what in his view would be the effect of this Amendment upon the clause.
  *SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid that having served on the Committee upstairs he wished to say that if he shared the fears of hon. Members opposite that under Clause 3 public funds would be resorted to for other than necessitous children he would support the Amendment; but he was quite satisfied that that would not be possible under the Bill, inasmuch as the provisions of Clause 2 applied in these cases also.
  MR. HERBERTsaid everyone agreed that the meals which had to be provided out of the rates should only be given to necessitous children, but he thought there was no necessity as the Bill stood for a local authority to recover the whole amount of the cost of the food given to children of parents who were not really necessitous. Probably the difficulty arose owing to Amendments made in Committee, and the wording of Clause 3 did not very well express the meaning. He would suggest that the words "in such meals" should be left out and the words "to such children" should be substituted.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONthought the House required some legal advice on the point, for he failed to understand why the Government could not accept the Amendment.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON, South Shields)was surprised that hon. Members should be so inconsistent as to expect him to explain the effect of an Amendment which they were moving. He had not had the advantage of following the debate, but he was bound to say that he did not think any prolonged or skilful inspection was necessary to see that these

  767
  words were superfluous. The word "such," especially from a legal point of view, was one of the most valuable words in the English language, and used in the clause as qualifying the word "food" it met the purpose of the Amendment. The words of the Amendment would add somewhat needlessly to the complication of the section.
  *MR. CAVEsuggested that in place of "such meals" the words "the food required for providing meals for such children" should be inserted.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 36; Noes, 244. (Division List No. 497.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Nield, Herbert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Rutherford. W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bertram, Julius

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Smith, F. E (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Starkey, John R.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edmds

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hills, J. W.

  Younger, George

  Cave, George

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Hicks Beach and Mr. Hunt.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Clough, William

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gill, A. H.

  Alden, Percy

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Gulland, John W.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Cooper, G. J.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Astbury, John Meir

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hall, Frederick

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr-Tydvil)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Crean, Eugene

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Crooks, William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexham

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Delany, William

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Dewar, John A. (Inversness-sh.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romf'd

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

  Dillon, John

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Boland, John

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Hogan, Michael

  Brace, William

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Hudson, Walter

  Branch, James

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Brigg, John

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Jenkins, J.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Burns, Rt. Hn. John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jowett, F. W.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Joyce, Michael

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kelley, George D.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Findlay, Alexander

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  O'Malley, William

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Levy, Maurice

  O'Mara, James

  Steadman, W. C.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lough, Thomas

  Paul, Herbert

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Summerbell, T.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset E.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Radford, G. H.

  Thorne, William

  Mac Veigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Tomkinson, James

  M'Callum, John M.

  Reddy, M.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Crae, George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Verney, F. W.

  M'Killop, W.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Walsh, Stephen

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

  Walters, John Tudor

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

  Massie, J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wardle, George J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Robinson, S.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Whitbread, Howard

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Murnaghan, George

  Runciman, Walter

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Murphy, John

  Russell, T. W.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Nicholls, George

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sears, J. E.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Nuttall, Harry

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Williamson, A.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Milkenny)

  Shackleton, David James

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  O'Donnell, T. Kerry, W)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  O'Grady, J.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  *MR. CAVE:moved to leave out the word "section" in line 18, and insert the word "Act." Under the clause as it stood the local authority could not spend more than a halfpenny rate for the provision of food, but they could spend more upon providing the meal and serving it, and this was what he wished to limit The original intention of this Bill was to limit the entire expenditure under it to a halfpenny rate, and that was the object of his proposal. The insertion of limits of this kind very often produced economy and prevented extravagance. He begged to move.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 18, to leave out the word 'section' and to insert the word 'Act."—(Mr. Cave.)
  Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHsaid it was impossible to accept this Amendment. The Government wished the machinery provided in Clauses 1 and 2 to stand quite apart from Section 3, which dealt with the amount of the rate the local authority might impose. The effect of the Amendment would be that no machinery could be provided, and that no canteen could be opened on what might be called

  771
  voluntary principles. The local authority would have to levy the halfpenny rate before effect could be given to Clause 1 if they adopted the Amendment.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid the Committee recommended that the local authority might have recourse to the rates for the provision of the cost of the actual food, the local rate for this purpose in no case to exceed a halfpenny in the pound.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendments proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 19, after the first word 'any,' to insert the words 'local financial."
  "In page 2, line 19, to leave out from the word 'year,' to the word 'shall,' in line 21."—(Mr. Lough.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY:moved to omit line 27, the effect of which Amendment would be to disfranchise parents who did not pay for meals with which their children had been provided. He believed that disability should be put on a parent if he did not pay. Whatever might be said to the contrary, a parent became a pauper if he did not pay. The Amendment would not disfranchise a parent who paid for the meals supplied to his child.
  MR. HICKS BEACH,:in seconding the Motion, said if parents who did not pay for the meals were not disfranchised a real injustice would be inflicted on those who did pay. Under the Transvaal Constitution which had just been published it was proposed that people who had received relief within six months before the election were to be disfranchised. It seemed to him that the Government ought to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, to leave out line 27."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
  Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHsaid it was the intention of the Government that disfranchisement
  772
  should not take place for the supplying of meals under the Act. The tendency in Acts of this kind, for many years past, had been not to impose the heavy penalty of disfranchisement under circumstances such as this Bill would set up. He might mention that under the Vaccination Act of 1867, the Elementary Education Act of 1870, the Medical Relief Act of 1885, and the Public Health Act of 1891, those who accepted relief were not disqualified from voting. They lectured a parent who had not paid, they sent him a bill, they tried to make him pay, and, in the last resort, they could send him to gaol. If they did all these things for the price of a meal, he thought they might say they had done enough.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONthought the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill might have given the House one more instance. Last year the late Government in the Unemployed Bill specially laid it down that no disfranchisement would follow on receipt of relief in regard to employment.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDappealed to his hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 2, line 30, to leave out from the word 'disability,' to end of clause."—(Mr. Lough.)
  "In page 3, line 12, at the end, to add the words 'or in the collection of the cost therefore."—(Mr. Lane-Fox.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  *SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)said he must ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes in order to raise a very important question in moving the rejection of Clause 7. Two Bills were originally introduced, one dealing with England and the other with Scotland. The English Bill was discussed at considerable length, and the Scottish Bill was passed at eleven o'clock without the slightest discussion. The latter Bill

  773
  was cast in a very different form from when it came down from the Select Committee. The Select Committee heard ample evidence. Those who on that Committee were acting with him had nothing to do with the summoning of the four witnesses from Scotland who were examined. Everyone of those witnesses unhesitatingly condemned this Bill, and indicated that there was no general opinion in Scotland in favour of it. Their evidence also showed that there were resources of private charity in the large towns and cities and also in the country districts which were amply sufficient to meet all necessitous cases. The Bill was based on English conditions and on English statute law and altogether disregarded the position in Scotland. He had had to do with the administration of education in Scotland as permanent head of the Education Department for over twenty years, and during the whole of that time he had urged that Scotland should be dealt with by separate Acts of Parliament if it was to be dealt with at all satisfactorily in the interest of the public service. One instance he would give where that course had not been followed, and where Scotland had been compelled to accept a Bill which dealt primarily with England. He meant the Teachers' Superannuation Act. He know from his own experience that that Act had worked untold hardships on the teaching profession in Scotland, and had seriously interfered with the work of education in Scotland. He did not think that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh and the hon. Member for the Dumfries Burghs, who were both intimately acquainted with the administration of education in Scotland, would be inclined to differ from him in his argument that separate Acts in regard to education were absolutely necessary if the work of education in Scotland was to be conducted satisfactorily. He asked the House to consider whether it was a fair way to deal with Scotland to introduce this clause, which implied a very large change in the social and economic condition of one kingdom on principles which were applicable solely to another. The Bill had received absolutely no discussion on the Second Reading, and only four witnesses from Scotland had been examined in regard to it before the
  774
  Select Committee, all of whom were opposed to its provisions. It was passed in that Committee in spite of the hostile attitude of many Members, including many hon. Members opposite. It was he himself who moved that hostile Motion, and as he had said, many Ministerialists supported him, and the Scottish application was passed by one vote only. He would ask hon. Members what would have happened if in a Select Committee dealing with a Bill relating to England a proposal was carried in the teeth of a unanimous body of adverse evidence against the Bill. The Bill might be a good one or it might be a bad one. It might have points in it which were for the advantage of Scotland; but Scotland had a right to be consulted and to have a separate Bill laid before the country so that Scottish Members could obtain a distinct expression of opinion from their constituents. What was the evidence from Scotland beyond the evidence which came from that country? [Cries of "The Royal Commission."] In regard to the Royal Commission no one was more responsible for getting it appointed than he was himself. he sat upon it, and he was prepared to adhere to every word of the Report of that Commission. He would like to ask the hon. Gentleman opposite if he was prepared to adhere to the Report of that Commission? If he had so adhered they would have had a very different Bill from that which they were now discussing. But they were not confined to the evidence of the witnesses before the Royal Commission, because before the Select Committee they had the evidence from all the great Boards in Scotland, including witnessess from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, and Govan, and they all spoke against this proposal. Indeed he knew of no evidence in its favour from any school board or any body in connection with them. None of them had passed resolutions in favour of the Bill. It was only that day that he heard that the Association of School Boards, representing the whole of the School Boards of Scotland, came to a resolution adverse to this Bill. He would quote one opinion which he was sure would have some weight. It was that of Miss Flora Stevenson, who had carried on a very useful work in connection with school boards in Scotland. Miss Stevenson had been

  775
  removed from their midst, but it was only a short time ago that she received the very fitting honour of being admitted to the freedom of the city of Edinburgh. On that occasion she spoke some words which in his opinion were prophetic. She said that they had in Edinburgh for thirty years tried to solve the problem of dealing with destitute children, and she thought that it would be an evil day for Scotland if the Legislature put upon the school boards the duty of providing meals for underfed children. He wished to ask this question. Was this Bill fit for Scotland, and did it take into account the conditions under which Scotsmen lived? In conversation the other day with the Secretary for Scotland he pointed ont that he felt some difficulty about the exclusion of voluntary schools from the aid which was given under the Bill. The Bill was drawn for schools under educational authorities in England, but it entirely disregarded the position of Scotland, in which there were voluntary as well as rate aided schools. He had pointed that out to the Secretary for Scotland and alluded to the difficulty which he felt. The conversation took place at one o'clock, and afterwards, between one and three o'clock, Amendments were put upon the Paper without being entered upon the votes which completely changed the system in Scotland. That motion was made by the Secretary for Scotland with scarcely a word of explanation, and it provided that these voluntary schools should be aided from the rates. he was very glad to find such a thing done, but he was surprised to find that it had been received with such ready assent from hon. Members opposite. He thought however that hon. Members would agree that a momentous change of that sort ought not to be made by such methods and by an Amendment put down at two or three o'clock on a Saturday morning. Did hon. Members understand what this meant? These institutions had no connection with municipal bodies, and yet they were to receive assist-
  776
  ance from the rates in regard to the furnishing of lands, buildings, officers, and other services. They would have to build additional rooms and furnish them, and in this way they would incur great expense. Another objection was that while under the Education Act medical inspection was given in England no such provision was given in Scotland, but this Bill ought to be based on a previous medical inspection. All ill health and all mal-nutrition were not due to a failure to provide food, and the Government had not adopted as part of the Bill a provision for medical inspection in the case of Scotland. He thought it was only fair that a similar provision should be made for Scotland as was made for England. Not only that, but in England they had local education authorities which were municipal bodies. These bodies dealt with a large range of population and dealt with it in a variety of aspects. What was the case in Scotland? The school boards were nearly a thousand in number, and many of these were small boards scattered over small areas in the country. They were told that the Bill was optional. That in Scotland would be one of its chief disadvantages, because some small school board might adopt it and so force the hands of their neighbours all over the length and breadth of Scotland. Was that a fair way of conducting legislation? He asked that they should be given a Bill of their own based upon their statute law and suitable specially to the needs of Scotland. It was for these reasons that he, apart from any objection to the Bill, asked that Scotland should have the opportunity of dealing with the measure in her own way after the chief authorities of the country had been consulted. Therefore he begged to move the omission of the clause.
  MR. BARRIEseconded.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line B, to leave out Clause 7."—(Sir Henry Craik.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 7 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. McCRAEsaid that a great service had been rendered to the cause of education in Scotland by the hon. Member who had just spoken, and he congratulated him on his speech, which was national rather than imperial in tone, and he was not sure that his broadness of doctrine would be appreciated upon the side of the House upon which he sat. He had yet to learn, however, why this Bill should not be applied to Scotland? It was said that it was not necessary in Scotland, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that from official inquiries that had been made by the Royal Commission there was great need for this Bill in Scotland, and he went so far as to say that if Scotland was excluded from the operation of the Bill it would be a great injustice to that portion of the Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman had said that they ought to have a separate Act for Scotland, and no doubt in many cases a separate Act was advisable. But this Bill was so simple that he really did not think it was necessary to bring forward a separate measure When hon. Members talked at length on the clauses of a small Bill such as this, if the case of Scotland was not considered on a Saturday morning till three o'clock, he was afraid that the responsibility for that condition of affairs rested upon hon. Members around him, but it was not encouraging to them to bring in a separate Bill for Scotland. The hon. Member seemed to think that Scotland was not in favour of this Bill, but at a meeting held in Edinburgh they were unanimously of opinion that this clause should apply to Scotland. The hon. Member had referred to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. He said that they would not go the length of recommending State aid for the feeding of children. But the Royal Commission of which the hon. Member was a distinguished member said, and in doing so went beyond their remit,
  778
  that food should be given at schools in certain cases and that the charge should fall upon the rates. He quite agreed that the Royal Commission did not recommend that the meal should be provided by the local education authority, but they did advise that in certain cases the expense should fall upon the rates. Did the hon. Gentleman remember the the evidence put before the Royal Commission by the Member for Oswestry, who was chairman of the Physical Training Sub-committee of the London School Board? The hon. Member told them that all these things could be done by voluntary effort. He said he was quite sure that there were no children really underfed now in the London Board Schools. The Commission accepted his evidence as to be relied upon, but he was afraid that the evidence they had got since showed that that opinion was not accurate, and he was sure the hon. Member himself would bear him out in this sense, that if it had been pointed out to the Royal Commission that the state of affairs in London had been as it now was they would have found that it could not be met by voluntary effort. He did not hesitate to say that the Royal Commission, feeling the great importance of this question, and recognising the necessities of large towns like Edinburgh and Glasgow, went outside their remit and recommended that something should be done. He would say, moreover, that not only in the towns but in the rural districts there was great necessity for these provisions, and he could not imagine how any Member from Scotland could advocate that that country should be denied of her share of the privileges of the Act.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire)said the Government could not accede to the Amendment. He did not share the hon. Baronet's opinions as to the feelings of Scotland with regard to the Bill. The real answer to the opposition was that it was open to local authorities to apply the Bill if they wished. There was

  779
  evidence of physical deterioration in Scotland as in England, as there was evidence of the existence of parents who were unable to fulfil their parental obligations. He did not see how it would be possible or proper to pass this Bill without extending its provisions to Scotland. The small Amendments made at his instance in the Bill during the Committee stage were not proposed without full consideration. Under the Education Acts for Scotland, while the school boards had no obligations to the voluntary schools, they had obligations to the children, and it was a short but perfectly legitimate stop that the obligation should be extended in respect of this matter, and that the children of all schools should be treated alike.
  MR. GULLANDagreed that Scotland should be treated by separate Acts, if they could get them; but during the long life of the late Government no fewer than three Education Bills were introduced for Scotland andall throe failed to pass, and in a matter such as this where they could get a Scottish reform in a general Bill they should have it. The opposition was by no means so strong as it was before the inquiry of the Select Committee.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: The Edinburgh School Board petitioned since this Bill passed through Committee.
  MR. GULLANDadmitted that the majority on the Edinburgh School Board was at first eleven to two, and on the amended Bill nine to five, showing that opinion was changing. The inquiry that had recently taken place in the poorest parts of Edinburgh in respect to the children had shown the great necessity
  780
  for work of this kind. The voluntary funds in Edinburgh often ran short and the meals had to be stopped. This Bill was required not only in the large cities, but in the country districts of Scotland, where children came long distances to school, often in bad weather.
  MR. C. E. PRICEsaid the opposition of the hon. Baronet came ill from one representing a body of men so far removed from poverty. He (Mr. Price) represented a district largely composed of people who would benefit by the passing of the Bill, and where it was urgently needed. The Bill need not apply to Scotland unless the people liked it, and in that sense it was truly Home Rule. The treatment this measure had received from the point of view of Scotland showed the necessity of having a Parliament to settle their own affairs.
  Question put.
  Tha House proceeded to a division, and Mr. SPEAKER stated that he thought the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the division was frivolously claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who challenged his decision to rise in their places, and he declared the Ayes had it, thirteen Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
  Adjourned at twenty-four minutes after Twelve o'clock.