Commons Sitting of 15 December 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 4173 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION FOR IRELAND.
  Copy presented, of Report on the Trade in Imports and Exports at Irish Ports during the year ended 31st December, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION FOR IRELAND.
  Copy presented, of Eighth Annual General Report of the Department, 1907–8 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FISHERIES (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Reports of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland on the Sea and Inland Fisheries of Ireland (Part II. Scientific Investigations) for the years 1906, 1907, and 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY (EXTENSION FROM BANAVIE TO MALLAIG).
  Copy presented, of Seventh Annual Report by the Board of Trade as to the condition and working of the Banavie and Mallaig Railway, the rates and charges for traffic, and the receipts and expenditure of any Company in working the Railway, for the year 1907–8 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 365.]
  EAST INDIA (CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT).
  Copy presented, of a full text of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Oral Answers to Questions
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Introduction of Penny "Post-Telegrams."
    MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the Postmaster-General, in view of the continuous deficit in our telegraphic system, if his attention has been called to the introduction of penny post-telegrams, i.e., telegrams sent over the wires to fall into the next delivery by postmen on reaching their destination at, say, ten words for 1d. and ½d. for each additional word; and whether, seeing that such a scheme would have large commercial possibilities and would be a boon to the public and the trader he is prepared to favourably consider the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am not prepared to adopt the suggestion to which the hon. Member refers. The large loss of revenue by reduction of the initial charge for a telegram from 6d. to 1d. would be only in a very slight degree recovered by any saving that might be possible in the boy messenger staff in towns. In the case of telegrams for country districts, where the cost of special delivery is somewhat more appreciable, the scheme would often be largely inoperative because the postmen start before the telegraph offices are open in the morning. The suggestion is probably based on erroneous statements regarding a system of "letter telegrams" recently introduced experimentally in

    1543
    France. The minimum charge for these letter telegrams is 5d. and the service is subject to considerable limitations and restrictions.

    Unestablished Postal Duty at Kildwick, Yorkshire.
    MR. SNOWDEN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a postman's walk at Kildwick, Yorkshire, occupying seven hours or more daily, has been performed for many years by an unestablished postman who has now retired; and whether it is his intention to turn this into an established walk, in accordance with his expressed desire to reduce auxiliary labour in the Post Office, and the departmental evidence tendered to the Hobhouse Committee to the effect that a postman's duty of more than six hours a day was bound to be an appointed one.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The duty in question does not exceed six hours a day, of which about five hours are occupied in walking. Under these circumstances the duty will for the present be maintained as an unestablished post. I may, however, state that the man now7 employed is not eligible for an established appointment.

    Dining Accommodation for Lombard Street Post Office Staff.
    MR. B. S. STRAUS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Lombard Street Post Office has been temporarily removed to other premises and that no provision has been made for any dining arrangements for the staff; and, seeing that the removal is estimated to extend upwards of six months, whether he will consider the question of making some arrangements for meals on the temporary premises during this period.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It is not practicable to make any arrangements for meals at the temporary office, but the facilities for obtaining meals in the immediate neighbourhood are so ample that no practical inconvenience is caused to the staff.

    International Opium Commission—Terms of Reference.
    MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now give the House the Terms of Reference of the International Opium Commission which is to meet in Shanghai in February next.
    (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The United States Government have communicated to us the terms of their instructions to their delegates. These instructions are as follows: (1) To devise means to limit the use of opium in the possessions of this country; (2) to ascertain the best means of suppressing opium traffic, if such now exists among the nationals of this Government in the Far East; (3) to be in a position so that when the Commission meets at Shanghai our representatives may be prepared to co-operate with the representatives of participating Powers, and with them to offer definite suggestions of measures which these Governments may adopt for the gradual suppression of opium cultivation, traffic, and use within their Eastern possessions, thus assisting China in her purpose of eradicating the evil from her Empire; (4) to be able to inform the whole Commission when it assembles regarding regulations and restrictions in force at present in this country, and to formulate and discuss proposals for amending such regulations in points in which they may be found, in the course of the joint investigation, to affect the production, commerce, use, and disadvantages of opium in the Far East." The British delegates are being furnished with instructions on similar lines, but it is not known how far this basis has been accepted by the other participating Government for the guidance of their delegates.

    Pay of Christmas Casual Sorters at South- Eastern District Parcels Office.
    MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether men are being engaged at the South-Eastern Parcels Office, Union Street, E.C., at wages less than 24s. per week; and

    1545
    whether he will take steps to bring the wages of these men in harmony with the promise given by the Prime Minister on 26th October last.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The only officers at the South-Eastern Parcel Office to whom the hon. Member's Question can refer are the Christmas casual sorters during the short period of training. These men have to acquire some knowledge of sorting before any practical use can be made of their services. For a few day's they are paid at the rate of 20s. a week. After passing the test, they are paid at the rate of 24s. a week.

    County.

    District.

    Particulars of Buildings to be effected.

    England:—

    Cambridge

    Milton

    Houses and buildings.

    Cheshire

    Ledsham

    Twenty-two houses.

    Cornwall

    Mabe

    House.

    Gloucestershire

    Coombe Hill

    Cottage.

    Isle of Wight

    Carisbrooke

    House.

    Lincoln (Holland)

    Deeping St. Nicholas

    Four cottages.

    Lincoln (Kesteven)

    North Ranceby

    Two cottages.

    do.

    Walcot and Digby Fen

    Four cottages.

    Staffordshire

    Bridgeford

    Two houses.

    Worcestershire

    North and Middle Littleton

    House.

    Wales:—

    Denbighshire

    Llangynhefal

    House and buildings.

    do.

    Henllan

    Two houses.

    Montgomery

    Caersws

    House and buildings.

    Radnor

    Llanyre

    Ditto.

    The above table does not include adaptation and sub-division of existing houses.

    Dwellings erected under the Small Holdings Act, 1907.
    MR. LEVY LEVER: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if, having regard to the continued depopulation of the country districts owing to the dearth of cottage accommodation, he will state the number of dwelling-houses that have been erected by virtue of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907, and in what districts.
    (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The following table gives the information for which my hon. friend asks—

    Taxation of Natives of the Congo.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been directed to the official Budget for the Congo issued by the Belgian Government, in which the estimated yield from the taxes on rubber and other natural products levied upon the natives is shown to be equal in amount to the revenue derived from the same source under the former administration, which the Secretary of State has described as slavery; and whether he can say if it is to be inferred from these Estimates that there is no intention of diminishing the crushing burden imposed upon the native population.
    (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) My attention has been directed to this point, but it would be premature to draw any inference from it as to the policy which the Belgian Government intend to pursue in the matter of reforms before the discussion on the Congo Budget in the Belgian Parliament, which will give the Belgian Government the natural opportunity for explaining their intentions.

    Conditions of Factory Life in India.
    MR. SHACKLETON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have decided to take any action as a result of the recommendations of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the hours of labour and other conditions of factory life in India; and will the recommendations of Sir Hamilton Freer-Smith's Committee, on the same subject, be also taken into consideration by the Government of India.
    (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The Government of India are awaiting the opinions of the local governments, to whom the Report of the Commission has been referred, before deciding as to the action to be taken on the recommendations contained therein. The recommendations of Sir Hamilton Freer-Smith's Committee will undoubtedly be considered in connection with the Commission's Report.

    Imprisonment of Chinese Coolies in the Transvaal.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the number of Chinese coolies convicted of crime in the Transvaal during the past two years; whether those sentenced to long terms of imprisonment are allowed to go free before the completion of their sentences at the date on which their engagement for the mines expires; and, if so, whether, in view that such acts as an encouragement to the committal of crime, he will take steps for the discontinuance of the same, and will he state the number of those so liberated.
    (Answered by Colonel Seely.) I am not in possession of the figures asked for, nor am I aware that any Chinese have been liberated in the way suggested. Under the labour importation laws the Government has power to send back to China labourers convicted of any offence, and sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine, either during the period of imprisonment or on the expiration thereof, and this power has, I know, been exercised in many cases.

    Development of Irish Industries.
    MR. FIELD: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he will consider the expediency of establishing within the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland a special section under an independent board of business men and manufacturers, with adequate funds at their disposal for the development of industries, the carrying out of experiments on the raw material available in Ireland, the formation of a foreign inquiry office with a view to securing markets for the existing industries, the establishing of a central technical institute where instruction might be given in industries capable of development, and also inviting the co-operation of the Irish industrial development associations.
    (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) Many of the operations referred to in the Question are, to a considerable extent, already carried on through the agency of

    1549
    the Department and the various technical institutions in connection therewith. The establishment of a special section of the nature referred to depends largely on financial considerations. The Department have, at present, no funds for the purpose, all the moneys at their disposal being fully hypothecated.

    Women Inspectors and Examiners under the Board of Education.
    MR. COOPER: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether any, and, if any, how many, women general inspectors or examiners in the elementary education branch, the training of teachers and higher elementary schools division, or inspectors of elementary schools, secondary schools and technical institutes, and evening schools, are employed in his Department; and will he give the number in each branch.
    (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I must refer my hon. friend to the Answer I gave to this Question on 11th November last, to which I need only now add that the services of the women inspectors are not restricted to any one branch of the Board's work or to any particular grade of schools. There are no women examiners at the Board of Education.

    Irish Education Rates.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that in 1892 the Chancellor of the Exchequer fixed the proportion of education grants for England, Scotland, and Ireland as £80 11s. 9d.; whether this proportion was sanctioned by the Treasury and the House of Commons, and when it was found in 1895 that Ireland had not received her equivalent the arrears due were paid; whether in 1902, on the passing of the English Education Act of that year, an equivalent was acknowledged to be due to Scotland and Ireland, and the amount voted to these countries; whether by the Act of 1892 school fees were almost entirely abolished in Ireland and the Act of 1898 prevented Poor Law unions from contributing any money from the rates to education, thus, by these Acts of Parliament, taking away all local support from schools; whether the Government alone has power to give
    1550
    Ireland authority to raise money locally for education; and, having thus assumed entire responsibility for Irish education, what steps will be taken to give Irish children equal educational facilities with children in Great Britain.
    (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The Irish school fee grant under the Act of 1892 was originally fixed roughly on the basis stated. It is true that "arrears" were subsequently granted calculated on another basis. The additional grant to Scotland for the year 1903–4 and the Ireland development grant, corresponding to the additional English grant under the Act of 1902, were calculated on the basis of population. The Ireland development grant was given as a final settlement of Ireland's claim under this head, and was fixed by the Ireland Development Grant Act, 1903. I have no information on the remaining points raised in the Question, which concern my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant.

    Increase Grant to cover Cost of Collection Local Taxation Licences.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: TO ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of the transfer of the duties in connection with local taxation licences from the Inland Revenue to municipal bodies, whether, in case of the grant made by Parliament not being sufficient to cover the cost to such bodies, he is prepared to give consideration to such cases by making an increased grant, and so as to make up any deficit.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) As I stated in my reply to a Question by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Uxbridge Division on the 7th instant, if the grant which is at present made to county councils is found, after due trial, to be inadequate, I shall be glad to consider any representations on the subject which may be made to me.

    Production of English, Irish, and Scottish Distilleries.
    SIR J. DEWAR: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the respective total production during the years 1904, 1905, 1906, and 1907, of the distilleries of England, Scotland, and Ireland, classifying the

    1551
    distilleries of each, country under the headings of distilleries using pot stills only, distilleries using patent stills only, and distilleries using both pot and patent stills.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.)—Table showing the Total Production of Spirits in the Distilleries of England,

    Country.

    1904.

    1905.

    Distilleries using pot stills only.

    Distilleries using patent stills only.

    Distilleries using both pot and patent stills

    Distilleries using pot stills only.

    Distilleries using patent stills only.

    Distilleries using both pot and patent stills.

    Gallons at proof.

    Gallons at proof.

    Gallons at proof.

    Gallons at proof.

    Gallons at proof.

    Gallons at proof.

    England

    —

    8,317,669

    3,667,015

    —

    8,618,625

    3,907,978

    Scotland

    11,440,981

    10,146,083

    4,786,493

    11,455,712

    8,438,833

    4,185,107

    Ireland

    3,229,905

    1,650,962

    7,961,226

    3,344,025

    2,905,754

    5,891,34

    Superannuation Allowance of the Clerk of the Crown and Peace in Ireland.
    MR. WALDRON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Section 4 of the Superannuation Act, 1859, applies to the office of Clerk of the Crown and Peace in Ireland; whether the Treasury are empowered, when any person holding such office retires, to add a certain number of years to those actually served in the situation in computing the amount of superannuation allowance; whether any precedent exists whereby a person holding the office of Clerk of the Crown, Clerk of the
    Scotland, and Ireland during the years ended 30th September, 1904, 1905, 1906, and 1907, respectively, the Distilleries of each country being classified under the headings of: (1) Distilleries using Pot Stills only; (2) Distilleries using Patent Stills only; and (3) Distilleries using both Pot and Patent Stills—
    Peace, or the conjoint office, has received a pension with the addition of years under Section 4; whether a Treasury Minute, dated 30th December, 1888, was issued to State Departments declaring that the grant of additional years would be superseded in the case of any officer appointed after 30th November, 1888; is he aware that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer undertook to Parliament on 30th November, 1888, that existing officers would not be affected by the new regulation; have the Treasury, notwithstanding the promise made by the Chancellor of the

    1553
    Exchequer in 1888, without the authority of any statute such as it was then stated would be introduced, and without notice to existing officers prior to resignation applied the Minute of 20th December, 1888, to persons then actually excluded from it; and has he sanctioned this departure from the undertaking of his predecessor given through the House of Commons to existing officers.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The answer to the first, second, third, and sixth Questions is in the negative. The Minute referred to in the fourth Question is not applicable to the office in question, which has never been brought under the section. The answer to the fifth Question is in the affirmative; and the answer to the seventh Question is that no departure has been made from the undertaking referred to.

    Transfer of Dog Licences.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the practice of the Board of Inland Revenue, after the death of a person owning a dog for which a licence had been duly taken out, to require the executor who has become the owner of the dog to take out another licence for the same dog for the current year.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Dog licences, which are not on the same footing as establishment licences, are not transferable. The law requires the person keeping a dog after the death of the owner to obtain a fresh licence.

    Recommendation of the Commission on Congestion.
    MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government propose to make any provision in the new Irish Land Bill for the purpose of giving effect to the recommendations made in Section 296 of the Final Report of the Royal Commission on Congestion in Ireland.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The recommendations in question are under consideration.

    Mullingar District Lunatic Asylum Finance.
    MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now say how soon the promised statement on the finance of the Mullingar District Lunatic Asylum will be available.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I hope to be able to furnish the statement in question to the hon. Member within the next few days.

    Women Inspectors in Irish Offices.
    MR. COOPER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and, if any, how many, women are inspectors in the Departments of the Local Government Board, Department of Agriculture and Technical Education, Royal College of Science, National Education Board, and General Prisons Board, Ireland.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Two women are employed as temporary inspectors under the Local Government Board, one woman has recently been appointed as inspector of national schools, and there are three women inspectors under the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland. There are no women inspectors on the staff of the Royal College of Science or of the General Prisons Board.

    Evicted Tenants—Application of Mr. James M'Cullagh.
    MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Mr. James M'Cullagh, evicted from a farm in Innishmore, County Fermanagh, Ely estate, and will they soon be in a position to comply with the application; have they agreed to purchase untenanted lands on the Ely estate; and, if so, how soon is it expected the lands will be vested.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received this application, and will consider it in connection with the allotment of such untenanted land as they may acquire. The farm

    1555
    referred to is in the occupation of another tenant. The Commissioners are in negotiation for the purchase of untenanted land on the Ely estate, but cannot at this stage say when they may be vested.

    Irish National Schools struck off the Rolls.
    MR. BARRIE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many National schools, with an average attendance of twenty and upwards, have either been struck off the rolls during this year or have been notified that they will be struck off at the end of it; how many of these are under Roman Catholic management; and how many have Protestant managers.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that forty-seven such schools, twenty-eight under Roman Catholic and nineteen under Protestant management, have been struck off, and that six, three under Roman Catholic and three under Protestant management, have been notified that they will be struck off or suspended from 31st December, 1908. In the great majority of cases the schools struck off are amalgamated with other schools.

    Schools closed-Transfer of Teachers.
    MR. BARRIE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland where a National school under charge of a schoolmaster is closed and its pupils transferred to a school presided over by a schoolmistress, will he request the Commissioners to make arrangements whereby the disemployed schoolmaster will be transferred to the

    Date.

    Wholly Boycotting.

    Partial Boycotting.

    Minor Boycotting.

    Total number of all cases of Boycotting.

    Cases.

    Persons.

    Cases.

    Persons.

    Cases.

    Persons.

    Cases.

    Persons.

    30th November, 1908

    15

    68

    11

    42

    193

    730

    219

    840

    schools with which his late pupils are incorporated; and, failing that, will the Board continue the grant for a reasonable time, to give the displaced teacher a reasonable opportunity of finding other employment.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that, in the case of the amalgamation of adjoining boys' and girls' schools, it is their general practice to recognise the master of the boys' school as principal of the combined school, and the mistress of the girls' school as privileged assistant. In exceptional cases, however, it may happen that, owing to want of efficiency on the part of the master, the manager of the schools may not wish to appoint him as manager of the combined school. In such a case the master could not under the regulations in force be recognised as assistant teacher under a woman principal, and the Commissioners do not consider it desirable to alter their rules on that subject. Grants are not withdrawn from a school without reasonable notice to the manager.

    Boycotting in Ireland.
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of cases and of persons boycotted in Ireland on 30th November, 1908, in the same form, in which the information was given in Parliamentary Paper No. 89, of last session.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.)—
    Return of the number of cases of boycotting and of persons boycotted throughout Ireland on 30th November, 1908.

    Schools to be closed—Waiving of Notice on Increase of Attendance.
    MR. BARRIE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in cases where national schools notified for striking off the rolls at the end of the year have shown substantial increases in attendance during recent months he will ask the Commissioners to waive these notices until it is seen how attendances are maintained in these schools during a further period.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education are not prepared to give a general consent such as is asked for, but, if the facts of any case are brought under notice, their they will consider the question of continuing grants to the school on its merits.

    Cattle Driving in Ireland.
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of

    County.

    October 1908.

    November 1908.

    Clare

    20

    23

    Galway

    —

    3

    Kerry

    —

    2

    Kilkenny

    —

    1

    King's County

    —

    1

    Longford

    2

    —

    Louth

    —

    1

    Mayo

    —

    4

    Meath

    11

    16

    Queen's County

    —

    2

    Roscommon

    —

    2

    Sligo

    7

    15

    Tipperary

    2

    2

    Westmeath

    2

    2

    Total

    41

    74

    Ireland if he will state, by order of counties, the number of cattle-drives reported by the Royal Irish Constabulary to have taken place in Ireland, for the months of October and November, 1905.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) No cattle-drives were reported during the period mentioned.
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state, by order of counties, the number of cattle-drives reported by the Royal Irish Constabulary to have taken place in Ireland for the months of October and November, 1908.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The following statement gives the particulars required—

    Restoration of Irish Evicted Tenants.
    MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if, in view of the statements that all the untenanted ranch land in Ireland is insufficient for the relief of evicted tenants and of congestion and is the excuse for withholding relief, he will explain why the Estates Commissioners continue giving parcels of that land to grabbers of evicted farms and to graziers of large tracts, and disregard complaints o evicted tenants and of congests, whether made directly or through this House; and whether he will give any assurance that well-founded complaints on specific cases of this nature will in future receive attention.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Advances for the purchase of untenanted lands are made by the Estates Commissioners in accordance with the law, and all representations received by them are duly considered.

    Evicted Tenants—Case of William Logan.
    MR. KETTLE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an application for reinstatement has been received by the Estates Commissioners from William Logan, an evicted tenant, who formerly held a farm on the estate of Colonel Irvine, near Omagh, County Tyrene; and whether any steps have been taken to restore him to his own or an equivalent holding.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have not received any application for reinstatement from William Logan.

    Security of Tenure of Irish School Teachers.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a Return ordered by this House on 24th February last states that out of 14,398 National school teachers in Ireland, who signed agreement forms with managers, only 845 executed forms providing for a referee, and that the referee in almost every one of these cases was chosen by the manager; if he can say how often he has referred
    1560
    this question to the National Commissioners, with a recommendation to provide a remedy, and with what result; and what steps, if any, does he propose to take to insure security of tenure to those teachers who are liable to unjust and arbitrary dismissal.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The number of cases in which agreements providing for the appointment of referees had been executed up to the date of the Return is correctly stated. I have no means of ascertaining how the referees were chosen. I have repeatedly stated the Commissioners of National Education are of opinion that it is desirable that a referee should be available in the case of dismissal of teachers, and two of the four forms of agreement between managers and teachers provide for the appointment of a referee. The Commissioners, however, have no power to compel the adoption of a form of agreement which contains that provision.

    Teaching of Cookery and Laundry Work in Irish Schools.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the inspectors in Circuit (8) are urging that cookery and laundry work be added to the present curriculum in national schools, and if they have authority from the Commissioners of National Education to threaten the withholding of increments and promotion if these subjects are not introduced by teachers; and whether the Commissioners have made any provision for equipping schools for these subjects, or if it is intended to impose this monetary obligation upon the teachers who have already many such burdens to bear.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education are not aware that the inspectors in Circuit (8) have been making exceptional efforts to secure the teaching of cookery and laundry work. In cases where cookery is not taught, and where prima facie there seems to be no reason why it should not be taught, inspectors have been requested to say whether they have brought the provisions of the rule on the subject under the notice of the managers

    1561
    but they have not been instructed to threaten the withholding of increments or other penal action. Under the Commissioners' rules increments may be withheld from the teaching staff of schools in which cookery is not taught, unless special sanction has been obtained for the omission. As regards the concluding portion of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question asked by the hon. Member for East Kerry on the 10th instant.

    Suggested Rifle Range at Cappantimore and Glenagross.
    MR. JOYCE: To ask the Secretary of State for war whether his attention has been called to the fact that the lands of Cappantimore and Glenagross, situate within two or three miles of Limerick, were inspected some time since by the military authorities with the view of establishing a range for military purposes; was the report in every way favourable and was it approved of; is he aware of the fact that a range so situated would be of considerable advantage, and that money would be saved to the Government owing to the facilities afforded by the central position in which Limerick is placed, both by land and water, for the conveyance of troops and stores; and whether, having regard to those facts, due consideration will be given to the claim put forward to have a range established at this place.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The proposed range is within four miles of Limerick, but is five miles from the barracks. It is unsuitable for field practices but in other respects is favourably reported on. As, however, the terms asked for a lease are considered excessive, it is doubtful, unless they can be modified, whether any saving would result to the Government by establishing a range there.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Submarines.
    MR. MIDDLEMORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the number of submarines built or building
    1562
    for the French, German, and British Navies.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): According to statements published in the respective countries, the numbers are—France built, forty-nine; building and projected, fifty-six. Germany built, two, building and projected, ten. For England the number of submarines built is forty-five; for those building and projected I am not prepared to give the figures.

    Naval Manœuvres.
    MR. MIDDLEMORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what were the greatest number of armoured vessels manœuvred under the command of Admiral Sir Arthur Wilson at one and the same time.
    MR. MCKENNA: The Answer to the hon. Member's Question is forty-six.

    Anti Torpedo Armaments.
    MR MIDDLEMORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the difference in export opinion on the subject, he will consider the possibility of substituting a heavier anti-torpedo armament than is now carried by H.M.S. "Warrior," H.M.S. "Natal," H. M. S. "Achilles," and H. M. S. "Cochrane."
    MR. MCKENNA: The Admiralty do not propose to make any change.
    MR. MIDDLEMORE: DO the Admiralty consider the present armament heavy enough to resist the attack of big torpedo vessels?
    MR. MCKENNA: I have explained that the Admiralty do not consider it in the public interest to give the information asked for.

    Admiralty China Contracts.
    MR. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in asking for tenders for earthenware and china for use in the Navy, any British earthenware and china manufacturers are requested to tender, or whether tenders are asked only from firms of middlemen who often buy the

    1563
    rough ware in foreign countries and have it decorated here and sold to the Admiralty as British-made goods.
    MR. MCKENNA: There is a notice on the form of tenders for earthenware and china that manufacturers only will be accepted, and we have never had any reason in this trade to suppose that contractors have supplied ware other than of their own manufacture.
    MR. JOHN WARD: Is it not the fact that there are no manufacturers on the list, and that only middlemen are invited to tender?
    MR. MCKENNA: So far from that being the case the information given me is that on our list we have no one but manufacturers and no middlemen at all. I shall be happy to inquire as to individual cases if the hon. Member has any information to give.
    MR. MYER: Is it not the custom of the Admiralty to expend the taxpayers' money to the best advantage by obtaining commodities in the cheapest market?
    MR. MCKENNA: When we are asking for manufactured articles we endeavour to get them from the manufacturer himself.
    MR. LUPTON: Is it not the fact that the best goods at the lowest prices are got through middlemen?
    MR. MCKENNA: I cannot say that that is the experience of the Admiralty.
    MR. LUPTON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will inquire as to the experience of private firms.

    Portsmouth Admiralty Contract.
    MR. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the number of men employed by Messrs. Morrison and Mason, contractors for the new lock, Portsmouth, upon that work, the number of navvies who are receiving less than 6d. per hour, and the number of labourers who are paid 5d. per hour; and whether he has seen or received from the local contractors'
    1564
    association a protest against the contractors for the Admiralty paying any workman less than 6d. per hour, on the ground that it is the recognised minimum wage of the district.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: May I also ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Messrs. Morrison and Mason, contractors, Portsmouth, are paying 5d. per hour to men engaged in the construction work applicable to building; whether he is aware that the master builders' association have agreed to and do pay 6d. per hour for all labourers employed on work of this kind; whether he has been informed that the corporation pay 6d. per hour for all men employed on the roads in the mortar and stone yards; whether he is aware that this firm by paying 5d. per hour are acting contrary to the wishes of the master builders and the workmen's trades unions of the borough; will he take the necessary steps to ascertain the recognised rates for this class of work by making an appeal to the borough surveyor, the president of the master builders' association, and the secretary of the trades council; and will he act upon the recommendation made by any two of the above-named gentlemen should they make a recommendation, or what steps does he intend to take to support the Fair Wage Resolution of this House, which the men's unions claim is being violated.
    MR. MCKENNA: In reply to these Questions, the lock contractors at present employ sixteen men at 5d.; eighty-seven men at 5½d.; thirty-seven men at 6d. It cannot be said that any of the men employed at less than 6d. can be classified as navvies. No protest such as is referred to in the Question of the hon. Member for Stoke has been received, but a letter has been received from the Master Builders and Building Trades' Association in the following terms: "In reply to your favour of yesterday's date as to wages of outside navvies or excavators, I beg to inform you that the rules I sent you only apply to workmen engaged on buildings, and I regret I have no knowledge of the general rate of wage for navvies and excavators engaged on other works, such as docks, bridges, piers, etc., and I am not aware of the existence of

    1565
    any trade union rate for this class of workmen. No doubt such firms as Sir John Jackson, Ltd., Messrs. S. Pearson & Son, Ltd., Messrs. Walter Scott & Middleton, would be able to give you the information you require." As to the other points on which I am interrogated, I have not yet received information which would enable me to reply.
    MR. CURRAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the building trade generally 6d. per hour is recognised as the standard wage?
    MR. MCKENNA: There is no dispute as to that.
    MR. BRAMSDON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Portsmouth Corporation pay the labourers who are engaged by the hour at the rate of 6d?
    MR. MCKENNA: That may be, but there is a distinction between different classes of labour employed by the council, and I understand in some cases they only pay 4½d. per hour.
    MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: Are not these contractors an enterprising Scottish firm who have encountered a good deal of hostility from other firms in the trade from whom they have taken much work?
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that master builders recognise that all men employed in construction work for builders are entitled to 6d. per hour, which is paid by all contractors at Portsmouth? Does not the president of the Master Builders Society assert that these men are also entitled to 6d.?
    MR. MCKENNA: I have read the exact terms of the letter I have received.
    MR. JOHN WARD: Is it not the fact that builders employ navvies for excavating work for foundations and pay them 6d. per hour?
    MR. MCKENNA: I agree that for work generally done by navvies 6d. per hour is the rate paid. I will inquire into further points raised by hon. Members.

    War Office Earthenware, etc., Tenders.
    MR. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his Department invite tenders for the supply of earthenware and china goods and utensils from any British earthenware and china manufacturers, or whether only firms of middlemen are placed upon the contractors' list for this purpose by his Department; and if he can say in what other branch for the supply of war material manufacturers are prohibited from tendering, and the tenders of middlemen only are invited or received.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): It is an established rule of the War Department to avoid dealings with middlemen and to limit orders for manufactured articles to actual manufacturers as far as possible. It is open to any manufacturer to ask to be invited to tender, and all such applications are most carefully considered. No competent and satisfactory manufacturer is prohibited from tendering for any article.
    MR. JOHN WARD: Would it not be better to submit these tenders to open competition, so that all manufacturers may have an opportunity of tendering?
    MR. HALDANE: I do not think the effect would be any more satisfactory. Manufacturers can apply for permission to tender. We scrutinise the list, and everybody who is satisfactory is allowed to tender.

    Irish Soldier's Pension.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Commissioners of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, can state for what reason they increased to 2s. 6d. per day the pension to Thomas Tuohy (No. 6125), late of the 1st Connaught Rangers, for a period of three months beginning on the 19th February last; whether they can explain why they have now reduced to 1s. 6d. a day the pension to this man, although he was twice wounded at the battle of Pieter's Hill, and has still seven parts of a bullet in his right leg, which, in consequence of the wound, is one and a half inches shorter than the other leg; and whether they will consider the advisability of restoring his pension to the former amount of 2s. 6d. a day.
    MR. HALDANE: This man's permanent pension is 1s. 6d. a day. The increase to 2s. 6d. a day was a temporary grant allowed to him when he was admitted to the Royal Infirmary, Dublin. It is usual for the Chelsea Commissioners to grant an increase of pension in such cases for three months to cover the period in hospital and subsequent convalescence.

    Indian Medical Service.
    MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the difficulties in the path of capable Indians desirous of presenting themselves at the competitive examination for the Indian Medical Service held in England, and of the disadvantages under which they are placed as compared with the people of this country; and what steps he proposes to take in order to remove these disabilities from the people of India, and to afford them reasonable opportunities for rising in the medical service of their country.
    I beg also to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the professors of the Medical College, and the physicians and surgeons at the General Hospital, Madras, are military officers attached to the Indian Medical Service and lent to the civil authorities; whether medical gentlemen outside the ranks of this service are debarred from filling those posts, and are allowed to serve only in subordinate ranks; whether he is aware of the discontent amongst members of the subordinate service, owing to their being shut off from the higher appointments for want of a commission in the Army; and whether he proposes to make any recommendations to the Government of India on the subject.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): The professors of the Medical College, and the physicians and surgeons of the General Hospital, Madras, are at present officers of the Indian Medical Service, which is recruited for both military and civil duty. Medical officers outside that service are not shut off from higher appointments, although in practice they seldom attain the highest posts. The Secretary of State does not consider the present condition of the matter to be satisfactory, and is in communication
    1568
    with the Government of India as to the desirability of promoting the growth of an independent medical profession in India, and of extending the employment of civil medical practitioners recruited in India.
    MR. KETTLE: Is it a fact that at present Indian gentlemen who wish to join the Indian Medical Service have to come to London for the examination?
    MR. BUCHANAN: If they intend to join the Indian Medical Service the candidates have all got to come to this country for their examination.
    MR. KETTLEasked whether the Secretary of State for India would include some reform in regard to this matter in the general scheme of Indian reforms.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I have no doubt that is included in the inquiries of the Secretary of State.

    The Unrest in India.
    MR. MACKARNESSasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the grave rows coming from India, and in view of the importance of giving encouragement to well-affected subjects of the King in India, he would allow to be made known without delay what measures were to be proposed for reform of government in that country.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): My hon. friend may be assured that the statement will be made at the earliest possible moment.
    MR. MACKARNESS: Before the House rises?
    MR. ASQUITH: Oh, yes. Before the House rises for the session.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he had received any information in regard to the arrests of Aswini Kumar Dutt and Krishna Kumar Mitra; and whether the arrests had been made under the ordinary law, or under the new Act passed the other day.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid the two individuals about whom the hon. Gentleman

    1569
    inquired had been arrested under Regulation 3 of the Act of 1818.
    MR. MACKARNESSasked whether there had not been nine arrests.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, nine in all; but the hon. Member's Question was in reference to two persons.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEasked if there was any connection between the arrests on the eve of the day when the statement was to be made by the Secretary of State and the statement itself, and if the Government at home were advised that the arrests were to be made.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid that there was no connection, and he was sure that nobody deplored more than the Secretary of State that it had been necessary to put the regulation in force at the moment. The Secretary of State was aware of the arrests being made.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEasked if their were any circumstances that required the regulation to be enforced at the moment, other than had existed for some time.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid it was only under great pressure and upon serious representations made by the acting Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal and of Eastern Bengal, and after very careful investigation by the Government of India of the evidence against these individuals, that it was decided to take this particular action.
    SIR H. COTTONasked was it a fact that this extra ordinary action—[Cries of "Order."] He was quite in order; it was extraordinary action—out of the common—this extraordinary action, the arrest of these individuals, was taken because there was no evidence to proceed against them in a criminal Court.
    MR. SPEAKER: That is not a proper Question to ask.
    MR. REESasked whether a regulation similar to this existed and was enforced in all the native States in India and whether similar
    1570
    power existed in respect to the East Africa Protectorate.
    MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members should give notice of Questions that require research.
    DR. RUTHERFORDasked, were these gentlemen to be deported without trial?
    MR. BUCHANANsaid they would be dealt with under the terms of the regulation.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: In the circumstances, does the right hon. Gentleman think such action is calculated to allay the unrest in India?
    SIR H. COTTONasked, had not certain of these gentlemen been proceeded against in a criminal Court and acquitted of the charges brought against them?
    MR. BUCHANANsaid he could not answer that Question.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEasked the right hon. Gentleman if he could in general terms say what was the effect of the section referred to.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid Regulation 3 of the Act of 1818, a copy of which could be seen in the library, empowered the Government to make arrest, if it was considered necessary, for the security of the British dominions from internal commotion, to take such action.
    MR. SPEAKERhere interposed and said further Questions should not be put without notice.

    Vaccination in Ceylon.
    MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if vaccination in Ceylon is done with calf lymph or with human lymph.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): The Medical Reports for 1906 and 1907 state that glycerinated calf lymph was supplied in sufficient quantities to all parts of the island from the Central Calf Vaccine Depôt at Colombo.
    MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to an alleged case of forcible vaccination by a municipal vaccinator at Kollupitiya, in Ceylon; if the municipal vaccinators are paid according to the number of cases they vaccinate; and if he will order the prosecution of the municipal vaccinator for assault.
    COLONEL SEELY: I have seen a letter in a Ceylon newspaper, but I have no further information on the subject, nor am I aware how the vaccinators are paid. The Answer to the last Question is in the negative, but I will communicate my hon. friend's Question to the Governor.

    Straits Opium Commission.
    MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received the Report of the Straits Opium Commission; and whether he will lay it upon the Table.
    COLONEL SEELY: The Report has just been received. It will be laid on the Table in due course.

    Chinese Anti Opium Societies in Hong Kong.
    MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can inform the House as to whether the recent riots in Hong Kong are now completely over; whether he is aware that many of the Chinese there are afraid to form anti-opium societies for fear of offending the Colonial Government; and whether he will give instructions that the Colonial Government shall encourage and aid in the formation of such societies by every reasonable means.
    COLONEL SEELY: As regards the first part of my hon. friend's Question, I have no information of any very recent rioting, though the situation still has to be carefully watched. As regards the remainder of his Question, I would refer him to the Answer which I gave on the 19th October to a Question put by my hon. friend in very similar terms.
    MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: In view of the anxiety of the people to establish these societies, will the Government send
    1572
    out instructions to the officials on the spot to encourage the movement?
    COLONEL SEELY: The local Government is fully seized of our views and appreciate them.
    MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: But will it give effect to those views?
    COLONEL SEELY: Of course it will.

    Hong Kong Opium Dens.
    MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received from the Governor of Hong Kong his Report as to what action is being taken to close the opium dons there in fulfilment of the instructions to do so of the Secretary of State on 5th May last; whether anything has yet been done; and whether he will lay upon the Table the correspondence on the subject.
    COLONEL SEELY: The Governor's recommendations are now under the consideration of His Majesty's Government. Correspondence on the subject will be laid before Parliament in due course.
    MR THEODORE TAYLOR: Will it be before the end of the session?
    COLONEL SEELY: I am not quite sure, but it will probably be next month.

    Canadian Immigration Laws.
    MR. WATT: I beg beg to ask the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to say whether his Department proposes to take any action with regard to the forced return from Canada of the Glasgow boilermakers, and of the refusal of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company through their London agents to pay either wages or damages; and, if so, will he say what action is proposed to be taken.
    COLONEL SEELY: I am now informed by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that the boilermakers in question were sent home at their own request, with the exception of one man named Hunter of whom the company has no record.
    MR. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men have made affidavits to a contrary effect? Why is it in these matters the Government always accept the official version?
    COLONEL SEELY: I was not aware of the fact mentioned by the hon. Member, and I will make further inquiries.

    Forced Native Labour in the Congo.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEForest of Doan): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is within his knowledge that the system of stationing armed soldiers in villages to force the collection of rubber by natives still obtains in the Kasai region of the Congo; and that, owing to the demands thus made for rubber, the natives of Bakuba, Bakete, and Pianga districts have no time to cultivate their farms and are threatened with starvation, while the investigation held by the Congo authorities after the visit of the British Consul to the region was perfunctory and in part conducted by an official already involved in the charges of irregularity of administration.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): I have received reports from His Majesty's Consul at Boma on the condition of the natives in the Kasai region of the Congo State, which are being considered. Information to the effect stated in the Question has reached me from an independent source, but there has been no opportunity of corroborating it officially.

    Kasai Company's European Agency.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will cause full information to be obtained in regard to the nature of the punishment, if any, inflicted upon European agents of the Kasai Company now under arrest; and if he will take the earliest opportunity of laving before the House the Report of the British Consul on his visit to the region affected by the charges.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: With regard to the first part of the Question, I am asking His Majestys' Consul at Boma for information, I hope to lay before Parliament
    1574
    in the course of next month Mr. Thesiger's Report on his tour in the Kasai district, and other papers respecting the condition of the natives in the Congo State.

    Shanghai Opium Commission.
    MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now give the House the terms of reference of the International Opium Commission which is to meet in Shanghai in February next.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The United States Government have communicated to us the terms of their instructions to their delegates. These instructions are as follows:—"1. To devise means to limit the use of opium in the Possessions of this country. 2. To ascertain the best means of suppressing opium traffic, if such now exists, among the nationals of this Government in the Far East. 3. To be in a position so that when the Commission meets at Shanghai our representatives may be prepared to co-operate with the representatives of participating Powers, and with them to offer definite suggestions of measures which these Governments may adopt for the gradual suppression of opium cultivation, traffic, and use within their Eastern possessions, thus assisting China in her purpose of eradicating the evil from her Empire. 4. To be able to inform the whole Commission when it assembles, regarding regulations and restrictions in force at present in this country, and to formulate and discuss proposals for amending such regulations in points in which they may be found, in the course of the joint investigation, to affect the production, commerce, use, and disadvantages of opium in the Far East." The British delegates are being furnished with instructions on similar lines, but it is not known how far this basis has been accepted by the other participating Governments for the guidance of their delegates.

    Congo Colonial Law.
    SIR GEORGE WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to Article 36 of the Congo Colonial Law, voted by the Belgian Parliament, which provides that the decrees, regulations, and edicts of the Congo State shall retain full force of law under the Belgian

    1575
    administration; and if he can say whether this provision applies to the decree and regulations of 1891–2 and to the edicts subsequently promulgated under which the natural products of the soil have been appropriated by the administration and the concessionaire companies.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Until the Belgian Government have had time to formulate a scheme for carrying out the assurances respecting the better treatment of natives and freedom of trade already given, and for a more precise definition of which His Majesty's Government have asked in their Memorandum of 1st November last, which has been presented to Parliament, it would seem to be necessary that the administration should be carried on under existing regulations. The particular point referred to in the end of the Question, which is a very important one, is dealt with in the Memorandum of His Majesty's Government, to which the reply of the Belgian Government has not yet been received.

    Congo States Administrative Staff.
    SIR GEORGE WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the announcement that with one exception the whole of the executive staff of the Congo States administration has been attached to the Belgian Colonial Ministry; and, having regard to the Resolution voted by this House in February last, and to the condemnation passed by His Majesty's Government and by all parties in the House upon the Congo States administration, if he will consider the advisability of making some representations to the Belgian Government upon the matter.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Resolution referred to in the Question dealt with the system in force in the Congo. The question of how far a change of personnel is essential to a change of system can hardly be dealt with as an abstract and general question, and in any case I cannot make further representations until a reasonable time has elapsed for the receipt of a reply to the Memorandum already before the Belgian Government.

    Income-Tax.
    MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor
    1576
    of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the practice of surveyors of income-tax requiring the production of balance sheets for the assessment of income-tax in cases of private firms and private companies; whether he can state under what authority this production is required; if he is aware that their production causes anxiety to traders, inasmuch as they are sometimes placed before the local Commissioners of Taxes, who may be competitors in trade; whether he is aware that in most cases surveyors claim the right to retain these balance sheets, and decline to make the usual and proper allowances for depreciation, otherwise agreed, unless permitted to do so; and whether he will give instructions that this subject may be made a matter of inquiry, with a view to the practice being discontinued.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): The matter referred to by the hon. Member has been the subject of several very full replies in this House, more especially those given on the 28th February, 1907, and the 19th of May, 1908, to my hon. friends the Members for the Thornbury division and for Ashton-under-Lyne, respectively, copies of which I shall be glad to send him.

    Ancoats Pension Claimant.
    MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Mrs. Fanny Royster, of Ancoats, Manchester, aged seventy-one, has been refused an old-age pension because she was sent to the workhouse hospital in May last by her doctor, owing to a severe attack of pneumonia; whether such refusal is in accordance with the Old-Ago Pension Act, if so, whether he can see his way to give her a compassionate allowance; and whether he will take steps early next session to remedy this grievance.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have not received particulars of the case referred to, but the question whether disqualification would or would not arise in such circumstances would depend upon the precise facts of the case, upon which the decision rests with the local pension

    1577
    committee, subject to appeal to the Local Government Board. I have no power to grant compassionate allowances to disqualified applicants for pensions, and, until the precise application of the existing disqualification has been determined on appeal, it would be premature to consider the question of amending it by legislation.

    Elementary Education Grant.
    MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, following the precedents of the Old-Age Pension Act and Budget, 1908 he can see his way to deal by a separate Bill to the Budget in 1909 with the £13,500,000 allocated to elementary education, so as to constitute the teachers of the elementary schools a branch of the Civil Service free from the imposition of all ecclesiastical tests, and so as to provide that the whole of those moneys shall only be expended upon those elementary schools that are completely controlled by popularly elected education authorities.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: My hon. friend's Question should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

    Children and Hop Picking.
    CAPTAIN CLIVE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at Brierley Hill 174 parents and guardians were summoned by the Staffordshire education committee for not sending their children to school during the hop-picking season, and that fines amounting to about £80 were imposed; that in many cases the defendants pleaded great poverty, and that in some instances the children were said to be taken hopping because they were in ill-health; whether he has observed that similar prosecutions in previous years have been ineffective in preventing parents from taking their children to benefit in health and wealth by hop-picking; and whether he can take any steps to remit or reduce these fines and discourage similar prosecutions in future.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): The matter has been very carefully considered by the Staffordshire Education Committee, and I have
    1578
    no reason to doubt that their decision to fix the holidays for the Staffordshire schools so as to end before the hop-picking begins is not only right in itself, but is in accordance with the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the school-children's parents. This being decided, the justices have no option but to enforce the law. I am satisfied that they impose penalties for breaches of the law with discrimination and due regard to the considerations touched on in the question. No cases have been brought to my notice which call for an exercise of the prerogative.
    MR. COURTHOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these unfortunate persons are unable to leave their children behind them and must, therefore, suffer continued prosecution or lose their employment?
    MR. GLADSTONEwas understood to reply that many parents were averse to the practice of taking the children into the hop gardens.
    MR. COURTHOPEasked whether hopping was not regarded as a healthy occupation from which children greatly benefited?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid it was reported that the children contracted serious diseases while hop-picking. The local education authority had gone exhaustively into the question.
    MR. COURTHOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman go into the hop gardens next season and judge of the circumstances himself?
    MR. GLADSTONE: That would not give me the information. Besides it is the local education authority whose officers are responsible in this matter.
    MR. ARKWRIGHT: Do the right hon. Gentleman's remarks apply to all the hop-growing districts of the country?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I replied to the Question on the Paper.

    Vaccination Declarations.
    MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government

    1579
    Board whether he is aware that Mr. F. G. Bowsher, 161, Shirland Road, Paddington, was unable to make the declaration under the Vaccination Act, 1907, within four months of the birth of his child on account of illness which confined him to the house; that Mr. Bowsher made the declaration as soon as he was able to go out, namely, on 2nd December last, and that the Vaccination Officer refused to accept this on account of it being made eight days too late; and whether he will consider the desira-ability of the vaccination officer exercising his discretion and not prosecuting Mr. Bowsher for the non-vaccination of his child, as Mr. Bowsher is only a postman and cannot afford to pay the penalty usually imposed under the Vaccination Acts.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I understand that the child was born on the 24th July last, and that on the 4th September Mr. Bowsher himself registered the birth at the Register Office, when the notice of vaccination was handed to him. A further notice was sent to him on the 23rd October. The period during which a declaration of conscientious objection could be made expired on the 23rd November, and on the 1st December the Vaccination Officer called at the house, when Mr. Bowsher informed him that he had been ill, but he did not say for how long, though the Vaccination Officer tried to elicit information on the point. I cannot undertake to interfere with any action the Vaccination Officer may decide to take in this case.
    MR. LUPTON: Was the notice usually sent out at the expiration of three months sent in this particular case?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I gather so.

    Conviction for Assaulting a Workhouse Boy.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a farmer residing at Diddlebury, Shropshire, who is a member of the Ludlow Board of Guardians, and who was fined £10, including costs, at the Ludlow County Police Court on the 30th ultimo
    1580
    for assaulting an orphan and workhouse boy, aged fourteen years, in his custody and care, in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering and injury to health, viz., by entering the boy's bedroom at 5.45 a.m., pulling the clothes off him, and boating him with a knotted stick across the legs, back and arms; and whether, if he has not already done so, he will ascertain the precise terms of the arrange-meet (inter alia, the number of hours per day the boy had to work and the pay he received) entered into between the Ludlow Board of Guardians and the farmer in question as to the placing out of the boy in the defendant's custody and care.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I have made inquiry on this subject and I understand that substantially the facts are as stated in the Question. I am informed that when a boy is placed out in service by the guardians of the Ludlow Union it is customary for arrangements to be made for the payment to him by the person with whom he is placed of a small sum per week for his services, but that in the case mentioned this was not done. Nor was any arrangement made with regard to the boy's hours of work. I will give attention to the method adopted in this Union for placing boys in service.

    Distress in Macclesfield.
    MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received an application from the town council of Macclesfield for sanction to create a Distress Committee; and whether he can state if his Board is prepared to grant the application.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I received such an application on Thursday last and am in communication with the town council on the subject.

    Pension Claimants.
    MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his Department can take steps to ensure support for persons who are claiming pensions but who, according to information given to the House, have been disqualified for an old-age pension contrary to the stated intention when the disqualification sections of the Act were being framed.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I am not sure what the cases are to which my hon. friend refers, but the reply to the Question must be in the negative. Claimants who are found to be disqualified of course remain in the same position as they would have been if the Act had not passed.

    Pension Disqualifications.
    SIR GEORGE WHITE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that at Walsoken a man eighty-three years of age, who has never cost the parish one penny, but is receiving a total of 5s. 6d. per week from three sons through the relieving officer, has been deemed ineligible for a pension by the pension officer though the revising barrister allows his vote; and whether he is entitled to be put upon the pension list.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I have no information as to the case to which my hon. friend refers, and I am not in a position to express any opinion with regard to it. I can only say generally that if a claimant has been in receipt of relief he is disqualified for a pension, even although the amount of the relief is repaid by relatives.

    Housing and Town Planning Committee.
    MR. JOWETT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will inform the House how many public officials were in attendance during the sittings of the Housing and Town Planning Committee, in addition to the two clerks to the Standing Committee; what are the names of the said officials; and what offices they hold.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Besides the Committee clerks, one of the Parliamentary Counsel and three or four of the officers of the Local Government Board were usually present, and when the Scottish clauses were under consideration one or two of the officers of the Scottish Office attended. I do not think it necessary to state the names of the officers referred to.

    Moore Street, Glasgow, Meat Market Letter Deliveries.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the morning letters of the Moore Street
    1582
    Meat Market in Glasgow are not delivered until 8.30 to 8.50 a.m., while the letters for firms on the other side of the street are delivered between 7.30 and 8 o'clock; whether he is aware that business is done in that market amounting to about two and a half millions sterling per annum; that a large part of that business is for instant despatch to catch morning trains before ten o'clock; that the delay of his Department hampers and inconveniences the conduct of this trade; and, if so, will he take steps to expedite this delivery of letters.
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): Under normal conditions the morning delivery of letters in the Moore Street Meat Market, Glasgow, should be effected before 8.0 a.m. It seems possible that the employment of a postman who was new to the duty has resulted in a somewhat later delivery recently, but no complaints have reached either the postmaster of Glasgow or myself. Arrangements are being made to ensure delivery at the proper time.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his Department, earlier than 1906, offered to the Moore Street Meat Market in Glasgow to deliver their morning letters between 7.30 and 8 o'clock instead of one hour later than that if they would agree to pay 8s. per week for such service; and, if so, will he say whether his Department still insists that that sum should be forthcoming before it will give the market proper facilities for carrying on their business.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: In December, 1905, the Glasgow Wholesale Meat Traders' Association were informed that a special early delivery of their correspondence could not be afforded except under the conditions of the Express Delivery Service. It was estimated on the basis of the average amount of correspondence received at that time that the fees for the Express Service would amount in all to about £20 a year. As I have already stated in my reply to another Question of the hon. Member's, the delivery in the Moore Street Meat Market is effected by 8 a.m., and I fear it will not be practicable to afford an earlier delivery unless the firms concerned elect

    1583
    to make use of the Express Delivery Service.

    Pontypridd Postal Scale of Pay.
    SIR ALFEED THOMAS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can now give the result of the recommendations of the classification of the Pontypridd Office.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The classification of Pontypridd is shown on page 59 of the Parliamentary Paper No. 206 issued in July last. It is in accordance with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee, the units of work being 282, which places it in Class III., the range of units of which is 240 to 800. The index number of the cost of living as ascertained by the Board of Trade is 102. The maximum pay is for sorting clerks and telegraphists, males 48s., females 32s. and for postmen 25s. a week. In addition to these maxima the sorting clerks and telegraphists can earn an allowance of 3s. a week for technical knowledge and the postmen, after periods of unblemished service, can earn good conduct stripes of the value of 1s. each up to a maximum of six stripes 6s. a week.

    Medical Inspection of Schools.
    MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if steps have yet been taken to carry into effect the promise of his predecessor in office, made to a deputation from the County Councils Association in February last, to give financial aid to local education authorities in respect of the cost of organising and carrying out medical inspection in schools; and, if so, will he state the nature of the proposals and when they will come into operation.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): My predecessor's statement referred to the additional money proposed to be provided in connection with the Education Bill. I am not in a position at present to make any statement as to the possibility of giving increased Exchequer grants in aid of elementary education.

    School Attendance Prosecutions in Staffordshire.
    CAPTAIN CLIVE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education
    1584
    whether his attention has been called to the action of the Staffordshire Education Committee in prosecuting 174 parents and guardians for not sanding their children to school during the hop-picking season; whether he is aware that these prosecutions have been undertaken annually without preventing a recurrence of the offence; and whether he will make it possible, by legislation or otherwise, for town children to enjoy this health-giving holiday without breaking the law.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir; so far as I can find out, the attention of the Board of Education has not been called to any of the matters referred to in the Question. The duty of carrying out the law of school attendance and of enforcing the local bye-laws does not rest with my Department. It is within the powers of a local education authority to make various arrangements if they think fit to do so for dealing with this matter, by bye-laws, or by arranging the time for school holidays, without any fresh legislation.
    MR. COURTHOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the local education authorities that an extension of holidays might be given in these cases?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I have inquired into the matter and do not see any immediate necessity for my intervention.
    MR. CLELAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland the holidays are arranged so as to enable children to work during these seasons?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I believe it is so, and I see no reason why something of the same kind should not be done in England.

    Board of Works China, etc., Contracts.
    MR. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his Department invite tenders for the supply of earthenware, china, or decorative tiles from any British firm of earthenware, china, or tile manufacturers, or whether firms of middlemen only are placed for this purpose upon the contractors' list of his Department.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. L. HARCOURT,): Only British manufacturers are invited to tender for china and earthenware supplies in general. No foreign firms or middlemen are invited. Tiles for buildings are sometimes included in the builders' contract, but more generally are obtained direct from the makers if they are in a position to fix them, otherwise from middlemen who undertake to provide and fix. With the exception of a very small quantity of hearth and stove tiles, it is believed that all tiles are of British manufacture.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of calling for tenders by open advertisement, so that anybody can tender, instead of confining it to a small selected list?

    County.

    District.

    Particulars of buildings to be erected.

    England.

    Cambridge

    Milton

    House and buildings.

    Cheshire

    Ledsham

    Twenty-two houses.

    Cornwall

    Mabe

    House.

    Gloucestershire

    Coombe Hill

    Cottage.

    Isle of Wight

    Carisbrooke

    House.

    Lincoln (Holland)

    Deeping St. Nicholas

    Four cottages.

    Lincoln (Kesteven)

    North Ranceby

    Two cottages

    Lincoln (Kesteven)

    Walcot and Digby Fen

    Four cottages.

    Staffordshire

    Bridgford

    Two houses.

    Worcestershire

    Northand Middle Littleton

    House.

    Wales.

    Denbighshire

    Llangynhefal

    House and buildings.

    Denbighshire

    Henllan

    Two houses.

    Montgomery

    Caersws

    House and buildings.

    Radnor

    Llanyre

    House and buildings.

    The above table does not include adaptation and sub-division of existing houses

    MR. L. HARCOURT: I will consider that point.

    Dwelling Houses on Small Holdings.
    MR. LEVY LEVER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if, having regard to the continued depopulation of the country districts owing to the dearth of cottage accommodation, he will state the number of dwelling-houses that have been erected by virtue of The Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907, and in what districts.
    THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): The following table gives the information for which my hon. friend asks:—

    Administration of the Small Holdings Act.
    MR. LEVY LEVER: I beg to ask the Hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will seriously consider the advisability of immediately increasing the staff of commissioners, sub-commissioners, and inspectors in order to deal with the numerous applicants for small holdings in those counties where great delay has occurred, which is causing widespread disappointment and dissatistion.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: An increase of the staff available for work under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts has become necessary, and proposals in that direction are now under consideration. I think it necessary the appointments should be made as soon as possible.
    MR. MORRELL: Will the Board bear in mind the desirability of having a report prepared by the Commissioners for every county as required by the Act?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.
    MR. MOREELL: The difficulty in preparing the reports arises from the inadequacy of the staff.

    Lews Parish Councils Finance.
    LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland on what date and for what amount the Treasury guaranteed a bank overdraft in favour of parish councils in the Lews; to what extent has this advance been exhausted; and for how many weeks longer will the councils be able to meet their obligations.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The Treasury on 6th November authorised the Congested Districts Board to give a guarantee for overdrafts not exceeding £1,000 to each of the parish councils of Barvas, Lochs and Uig. The advance to Uig is exhausted. Lochs has a balance of £216 estimated sufficient to meet paupers aliment, etc., for two months. Barvas has a balance of £184, which is expected to suffice for the same period.

    Local Government (Scotland) Bill.
    MR. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can now inform the House why the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, which passed the Scottish Grand Committee on 8th December, with several pages of Amendments, was not printed and circulated to Members in time for the consideration of the Bill by the House after midnight on 10th December.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I am informed that every attempt was made to secure the circulation of the Bill as amended in time for the Report stage, but it was not found possible to issue it until Friday morning. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for this opportunity of explaining this matter, and of apologising to the House for the explanation which I gave on the spur of the moment and in good faith the other night, which was not correct.

    Edinburgh Court of Session Clerk.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the ordinary clerk of the second division of the Court of Session in Edinburgh is senior partner in a firm of solicitors to the Supreme Courts, and that his firm is often engaged in doing work in the Court in which its partner is the clerk; if so, will he say whether this arrangement has the sanction of his Department; and whether, in view of the fact that other solicitors suffer disadvantage by this arrangement, he will take any action in the matter.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,): The ordinary clerk of the second division of the Court of Session is a partner in a firm of solicitors. He is, however, not entitled to carry on Court practice, and I am assured that so far as any Court business is concerned, he has absolutely no interest therein. No arrangement in any other sense would be sanctioned. In these circumstances no action is called for.
    MR. WATT: Does not the firm of which he is the head practice in the Court?
    MR. THOMAS SHAW: He was appointed by the last Government, and is not allowed to have any interest in the business.

    Magan Estate, Westmeath.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now say when the successful applicants for the untenanted land on the Magan Estate, Westmeath, purchased by the Estates Commissioners, will be put in possession of the portions allotted to them, respectively.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Estates Commissioners are not yet in a position to say when these lands will be allotted.

    Westmeath Evicted Tenants.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the names of the evicted tenants, including representatives of deceased evicted tenants, in Westmeath who have not yet been reinstated though their evicted farms are untenanted, and the length of time each of those families has been evicted.
    MR. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the Question asked by him on the 2nd instant.
    MR. GINNELL: But that Answer merely referred me to another reply which referred to jealousies among the evicted tenants.
    MR. BIRRELL: And which added that the Estates Commissioners were satisfied that it would be most undesirable to publish the names of those tenants who had failed to satisfy them as to the justice of their claims.
    MR. GINNELL: That is exactly the point.

    Fetherston Estate, Westmeath.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now say when the successful applicants for the untenanted land on the Fetherston estate, Killulagh, Westmeath, will be put in possession of the portions allotted to them respectively.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are not yet in a position to say when the allotment will take place.

    Pakenham Estate, Westmeath.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now say when the successful applicants for the untenanted land on the Pakenham estate, Westmeath, purchased by the Estates Commissioners, will be put in possession of the portions allotted to them, respectively.
    MR. BIRRELL: Arrangements are being made to put the successful applicants into possession this week.

    Irish Local Government Records.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board for Ireland has power to require county and rural district councils to keep complete sets of documents of permanent use and interest, such as the Returns of Advances now being issued by the Land Commission; if not, whether the advisability of keeping them will be suggested to those local bodies; and whether sets of those Returns will be supplied gratis to local bodies desiring to keep them.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have no power to require local authorities to keep complete sets of such documents, and they feel some diffidence in making recommendations which would impose additional expense on the rates. The Answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

    Irish Peat Bogs.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the absence of any general scheme for dealing with large peat bogs in Ireland in connection with the transfer of land ownership now in progress and the waste of material of potential value likely to result; whether, when bogs are too large for the requirements of the tenants on an estate, he will consider the desirability of having the ownership of them vested in the councils of the counties or districts in which they are situate; and whether vendors of estates comprising such bogs will in future be required to include the entire bogs in order to make them generally available.
    MR. BIRRELL: It would not be possible to devise any general scheme for

    1591
    dealing with turf bogs in Ireland in connection with land purchase. As each estate containing turf bogs comes in for sale a scheme must be prepared to meet the particular circumstances of the case. The Land Commission inform me that in such cases bogs are very seldom reserved to the vendor. I see no reason for departing from the existing system.

    Irish Teacher's Pension.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what pension would a second-class male national teacher in Class B be entitled to at the age of sixty-three, also at sixty-four.
    MR. BIRRELL: At the age of sixty-three a teacher is entitled to a pension of £38, and at the age of sixty-four to a pension of £42 a year.

    Drumcharley School Teacher.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he say how long after the ago of sixty-three did Mr. Thomas Quigley, late teacher of Drumcharley (2) National School, Tulla, County Clare, serve as teacher before retiring on pension; did he pay premiums to the pension fund during the extra time he served; and, if so, will he be allowed a proportionate share of pension or have the premiums refunded.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am informed that Mr. Quigley served as a teacher for nine months after reaching the age of sixty-three, and that he paid premiums to the pension fund during that period. The Pension Rules do not provide for the grant of a proportionate part of the pension or for the repayment of the premiums in such a case.

    Proposed Inspection of Irish Schools.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Intermediate Board will take steps to have the views of the heads of schools in Ireland as to the lines on which the proposed inspection is to be introduced before the scheme obtains the sanction of the Lord-Lieutenant.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of Intermediate Education inform me
    1592
    that they have already received and are considering a largo number of communications from heads of schools and others as to the lines of the proposed inspection.
    MR. BOLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman make himself acquainted with the views of the head masters, and press them on the Intermediate Board?
    MR. BIRRELL: I am always glad to hear the views of the head teachers, but my power with the Intermediate Board does not admit of my forcing my will upon them.
    MR. BOLAND: Perhaps it could be done through the Lord-Lieutenant.

    Cost of School Inspection.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that neither in England nor in Scotland, nor under the Irish Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, is the cost of inspection defrayed out of school grants; and can he state whether it is now proposed to pay the inspectors appointed by the Intermediate Education Board out of the funds of that Board as distinct from the school grants.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Answer to the first part of the Question appears to be in the affirmative. The inspectors appointed by the Board of Intermediate Education will be paid out of the income of that Board, no portion of which is specially set aside for the payment of school grants.
    MR. BOLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that by reason of these payments for inspection there will be no diminution of the school grant?
    MR. BIRRELL: I cannot give that assurance. The income of the Intermediate Board is a stated income, and no portion is specially allotted to one purpose or another, as is the case in England and Scotland. But I hope the result will be as the hon. Member wishes.

    Outrages in Ireland.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the

    1593
    number of outrages in Ireland recorded as agrarian and non-agrarian, respectively, in which firearms were used, during the periods of eleven months ended 30th November 1906, 1907, and 1908, respectively.
    MR. BIRRELL: During the first eleven months of each of the three years mentioned the numbers of outrages in which firearms were used, classified as agrarian and non-agrarian, were as follows: 1906, agrarian twenty, non-agrarian thirty-six; 1907, agrarian fifty-six, non-agrarian fifty-three; 1908, agrarian 128, non-agrarian sixty-five.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of indictable crimes of agrarian and non-agrarian character, respectively, recorded under the heading injury to properly, in the years 1906 and 1907, and in the period of eleven months ended 30th November, 1908.
    MR. BIRRELL: The number of indictable offences recorded under the heading of injury to property in each of the periods mentioned were as follows: 1906, agrarian twenty, non-agrarian 120; 1907, agrarian twenty-nine, non-agrarian 152; 1st January to 30th November, 1908, agrarian eighty-five, non-agrarian ninety-nine.

    Cowfin (Clare) Outrage.
    MR. MACCAW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on 22nd November, shots were fired in a wood at Rockforest, Cowfin, County Clare, at a party of men, two of whom were injured, accompanying a farmer named W. Burke, who was proceeding to visit Miss Cahill, whom he married on 27th November, and that on 28th November shots were tired at the wedding party while on their way home under the protection of the police, who returned the fire; will he state how many shots were fired by the police on the occasion; whether any arrests have been made; and whether the outrages were of an agrarian character.
    MR. BIRRELL: On the first occasion shots were fired as stated, and two men were injured. Shots were also fired at
    1594
    the wedding party on their way home on the night of 28th of November. The police fired fourteen shots in return. It was dark at the time and no arrests were made. The police are doubtful as to the motive of these attacks.

    Waterville Road Contracts.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that three road contractors, namely Maurice Coffey, Timothy Currane, and John Shea, tendered for road contracts in the Waterville district at a low figure, being under the impression that the grovel on the foreshore outside Waterville was available; whether he can state why these contractors are now compelled to draw stones and gravel from the neighbourhood of Ballinskelligs, which is a considerable distance away, whereby the expense is enhanced and the road contracting done at a loss; and whether he will have inquiry made into the matter with a view to having an equitable settlement.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir H. KEARLEY,): I have boon informed by the persons named in the Question that they contracted for the repair of roads in the belief that they were at liberty to remove materials from the foreshore for that purpose. It has since been explained to them that the foreshore in question being prima facie the property of the Crown no materials can be removed therefrom except with the permission of the Board of Trade, and as the Board received a complaint, which they satisfied themselves by local inquiries was well founded, that the removal of materials from the foreshore of Ballinskelligs Bay contributed to the erosion of the adjacent land, they felt it necessary to prohibit such removal in future. I do not think that further inquiry will be likely to modify this decision.

    Parliamentary Ceremonial.
    MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the dignity and convenience of Members of this House, he will confer with the Lord Great Chamberlain with the object of securing bettor accommodation for the Commons when they are commanded to attend His Majesty in the

    1595
    House of Lords at the ceremonial opening of Parliament.
    MR. ASQUITH: The present arrangements were made in pursuance of the recommendations of a joint committee as lately as 1901. If my hon. friend can satisfy me that there is a general feeling that they do not adequately provide for the dignity and convenience of Members of this House, I shall be glad to enter into communication with the Lord Great Chamberlain.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is there any general desire on the part of Members of this House to go to the House of Lords just now?
    MR. BYLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman fully recognise that the Members of this House are rather scurvily treated when duty obliges them to accept the hospitality of the House of Lords?
    [No Answer was returned.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked what Bills the Government proposed to take that night after the Lords' Amendments to the Children Bill had been disposed of.
MR. ASQUITH: We propose to take seriatim the Orders of the day.
MR. FORSTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a special effort to make progress with the Hops Bill?
MR. ASQUITH: The moment that I am satisfied that the Hops Bill is uncontroversial, the Government will give it all consideration.
SIR F. BANBURY: How many Bills are to be taken to day?
MR. ASQUITH: As many as we can get within a reasonable time.
MR. COURTHOPE: Are we to understand the Hops Bill will not be proceeded with unless the Amendments on the Paper are withdrawn?
MR. ASQUITH: It will not be proceeded with unless I am satisfied it will be treated generally as an agreed measure.
MR. CARLILE: What is the right hon. Gentleman's definition of a "reasonable time"?
[No Answer was returned.]
MR. MOONEY: Is there any intention of proceeding with any one of the three Irish Bills on the Paper for to-day?
MR. ASQUITH: Yes, sir. We hope to get the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill.
MR. MOONEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware a promise was given of a day's notice before this Bill was taken?
MR. ASQUITH: I am not aware of that; I hope we may proceed with the Bill.

Ordered, That the Standing Orders, as amended, be printed. [No. 366.]
INCEST BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 406.]

CHILDREN BILL.
Order for the Consideration of the Lords' Amendments read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,)said that six out of seven of the Amendments were drafting Amendments which were inserted in another place on the Motion of the Government. The House must remember that a measure so long and complex must necessarily give rise to very numerous points of drafting. Although to a great extent it was a consolidation measure, it should be remembered that there was hardly a single clause which was purely a consolidation clause. Of the numerous Amendments, which filled fifteen pages

1597
of the Paper, only about twenty were more than mere drafting Amendments, and as they came to them he would rise and say a few words of explanation. Only five raised points of real substance, apart from the Amendments on the Scottish and Irish clauses. He should move to disagree with the Lords' Amendment on page 19, line 21, which dealt with the class of persons to inspect voluntary homes, and he should propose an alteration to the Lords' Amendment on page 30, lines 10 and 11.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords' Amendments be now considered."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that as he understood the right hon. Gentleman these many pages of Amendments were due to the fact that they were not able to deal in this House with all the points raised nor to make the Bill water-tight before it went to the other House.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords' Amendments considered accordingly.
Lords' Amendments—
"In page 1, line 9, after the word 'parents,' to insert the words 'or having no parents.'"
"In page 2, line 31, after the word 'thereunder,' to insert the words 'Subject as aforesaid, that Part of this Act shall apply to an infant whose nursing and maintenance has been undertaken for reward before the passing of this Act in like manner as it applies to an infant whose nursing and maintenance has been so undertaken after the commencement of this Act, and as if any notice given under the Infant Life Protection Act, 1897, had been a notice given under this Part of this Act.'"
"In page 3, line 17, after the word 'proper, to insert the words 'nursing and.'"
"In page 3, line 18, after the word 'their,' to insert the words 'nursing and.'"
"In page 4, line 12, after the word 'obstructs,' to insert the words 'or causes or procures to be obstructed.'"
"In page 4, line 19, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'or the Infant Life Protection Act, 1897.'"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 4, line 22, after the word 'insanitary,' to insert the words 'or has been removed
1598
under the Infant Life Protection Act, 1897, by reason of the premises being so unfit as to endanger its health.'"—
MR. H. J. TENNANTsaid he would move to disagree with the Lords in this Amendment in order to ask whether it was in accordance with the Under-Secretary's desires.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid it was purely a drafting Amendment. The reasons for which a child could be removed from the care of a baby-farmer under this Act were slightly different, rather in language than in substance, from those under the Act of 1897, and the Amendment was merely to show that the Bill applied to both categories of children.
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendments—
"In page 4, line 23, after the word 'person,' to insert the words 'who has been.'"
"In page 4, line 24, after the word 'or,' to insert the words 'under the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904.'"—
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 4, lines 25 to 27, to leave out the Paragraph (d)."
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the reason for the omission of this paragraph was that it had been thought that a local authority ought not to have power of its own motion to declare certain persons unfit to have the care of infants. It was really almost a judicial procedure, for which local authorities were not very well qualified. The clause, as a matter of fact, provided that local authorities could declare that any person should be unfit to have the care of an infant if an infant had already been removed from that person on the ground that the premises were unfit or that the child was badly treated, or if the person had been convicted of an offence against the Act for the prevention of cruelty to children. Paragraph (d) was, therefore, unnecessary, and was thought to give a somewhat excessive power.
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendments—
"In page 4, line 28, after the word 'keeping,' to insert the words 'or causing to be kept.'"
"In page 5, line 3, to leave out the words 'its care and maintenance,' and to insert the words 'care of it.'"
"In page 5, line 12, after the word 'obstructing,' to insert the words 'or causing or procuring to be obstructed.'"
"In page 6, line 4, to leave out the words 'such a person,' and to insert the words 'or the benefit of such a person as aforesaid or to any person on his behalf.'"
"In page 6, line 5, to leave out the words 'or other,' and to insert the words 'society or.'"
"In page 6, line 9, after the word 'false,' to insert the words 'or misleading.'"
"In page 6, lines 20 and 21, to leave out the words 'to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds or.'"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 6, line 22, after the word 'months,' to insert the words 'or to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds.'"
MR. H. J. TENNANTsaid that as far as he could make it out the Amendment was doing away with the fine. He did not know whether the House thought this was an offence where persons ought to be without the option of a fine.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the Bill as it stood read that a person should, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding £25, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months. That was unusual wording, for as a rule the imprisonment went first and the fine afterwards, and the effect of the Amendment was that a person should be liable to imprisonment or a fine; it did not omit the fine.
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendments—
"In page 8, line 10, after the word 'fails,' to insert the words 'to take steps.'"
"In page 8, lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words 'to the child or young person,' and to insert the words 'or the likelihood of such suffering or injury to health.'"
"In page 10, line 15, to leave out the word 'habitually.'"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 10, line 29, to leave out the word 'encourages.'"
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid this was slightly more than a drafting Amendment. It was proposed to re-insert the word "encourages" later on. The word left out was "favours." The alteration was made in the Motion of the Lord Chief Justice on the ground that "favours" was unduly vague in view of the infliction of such severe penalties.
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendments—
"In page 10, line 30, to leave out the word 'favours,' and to insert the word 'encourages.'"
"In page 10, line 34, to leave out the word 'favoured,' and to insert the words 'caused or encouraged.'"
"In page 10, line 35, after the word 'girl,' to insert the words 'who has been seduced or become a prostitute,' and to leave out the words 'conduced thereto by,' and to leave out the word 'allowing,' and to insert the word 'allowed.'"
"In page 10, line 37, to leave out the word notoriously,' and to insert the word 'known.'"
"In page 12, line 19, to leave out the words 'Part of this.'"
"In page 13, line 9, after the word 'and,' to insert the words 'that Court or any Court of like jurisdiction.'"
"In page 14, line 34, to leave out the word 'by,' and to insert the word 'under.'"
"In page 15, line 37, after the word 'Court, to insert the words 'which made the order or any Court of like jurisdiction.'"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 17, line 21, to leave out from the word 'purpose,' to the end of the subsection, and to insert the words 'Provided that such persons shall be either inspectors or assistant inspectors of reformatory and industrial schools, members of the medical profession, or persons of experience in the management and training of children.
Read a second time.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid this was the only Amendment with which he should ask the House to disagree. He thought their Lordships had misunderstood what was really the purpose of Clause 25 of the Bill, and had inserted provisions which went far beyond the intentions of that clause. There were, at present, a number of charitable institutions existing for the care and maintenance of children. Cases occurred, however, in which these homes, diverted from their original purpose or even conforming

1601
to an original purpose which was evil, became places run for profit, where children were neglected, where cruelties sometimes occurred, and where profits were made from the subscriptions of the charitable, for the benefit of the persons maintaining those institutions. Under the law as it at present stood, there was no power for anyone to enter a home unless he got a magistrate's warrant. Any evil might go on, but although, for instance, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children might hear rumours that all was not well in an institution, unless they could convince a magistrate that there was cause for the issue of a warrant they could not get any power of entry. To meet that admitted evil, they inserted words in the Bill to the effect that there should be a right of entry, that persons should be authorised to visit and inspect these homes which were supported wholly or partly by voluntary contributions, homes, that is, which were not liable to be inspected by any Government Department, such as industrial schools or institutions receiving grants from the Local Government Board. It was not intended to establish any staff of Government Inspectors for this purpose; the case did not warrant it. The evils in view were, happily, exceedingly few. The homes, on the other hand, which received children were very numerous; there were many hundreds belonging to all denominations all over the country, and if they were to impose on a Government Department the duty of inspecting all these homes they would be imposing on the State a financial charge which the circumstances of the case did not warrant. Besides there was no precedent for requiring inspection of this character where there was no Government grant, and if there was no grant an inspecter could not require the managers of a home to improve the accommodation, because he could not make the refusal to conform to his requirements the ground for withholding a Government grant. No one proposed that there should be a Government grant to benevolent institutions of this kind, and therefore, after consultation with the persons interested, they proposed in the Bill that the persons who should have the power of entry should be the officers of a society for the reception or protection
1602
of poor children or for the prevention of cruelty to children, subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State might prescribe, and the officers to be specially authorised by the Secretary of State. In other words, they proposed that the Inspection of Homes Association, which already existed, and under which a number of homes were now voluntarily inspected, should be given powers by the Secretary of State for their officers to visit these charitable institutions where they thought it necessary, and further that selected officers of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children should also be empowered by the Secretary of State to perform these functions. There was a provision in the clause to the effect that where any such institution was carried on in accordance with the principles of a particular religious denomination, the Secretary of State should, if so desired, appoint a person of that denomination to visit such institution, so that the susceptibilities of the Roman Catholics were especially considered, after consultation with them. The House of Lords proposed to omit the words providing that officers of a society might be appointed by the Secretary of State to perform this function, and in place thereof to insert a provision that such persons should be inspectors or assistant inspectors of reformatory or industrial schools, members of the medical profession, or persons of experience in the management and training of children. With regard to the inspectors and assistant inspectors of reformatory or industrial schools, they already had very nearly as much as they could do, and they would probably be called upon to inspect the places of detention provided under the Bill, so that it would be impossible for them to visit numbers of institutions in the country, still less to perform the police function of keeping a watch on institutions where it was suspected that something wrong might be going on. With regard to members of the medical profession, it was extremely unlikely that they would be able to obtain doctors to perform this function, and with reference to the "persons of experience in the management and training of children," those words, while very wide, were not nearly so good as the original words in the Bill. Certainly all the inspectors of

1603
the societies they had in mind were persons with this experience. They did not want to perform the purpose they had in view by a side-wind, and they thought it better to express in the clause what really was its purpose. He had no reason to think the House of Lords would object to the omission of this subsection, he did not imagine that it would give rise to any grave constitutional conflict between the two Houses.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid that the point raised by this Amendment was, if he remembered rightly, one which was considerably discussed in Committee, and he did not think that everyone present in Committee would quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this was an Amendment due to a misunderstanding by the Lords. The right hon. Gentleman had brought forward as an argument against the Amendment that it would be impossible to carry out this inspection, and, secondly, that it would be improper to ask the schools to submit to the visits of these inspectors because no grant would follow their inspection. After all, the main thing was that those institutions, of whatever sort they were, were to be subject to inspection, and surely they were beginning an entirely new move in placing this system of inspection in the hands of persons who were the servants of voluntary and private societies. It was this to which the right hon. Gentleman asked them to give their consent by refusing to agree with the Amendment of the House of Lords. It was surely a new thing that those charitable institutions were to be inspected not by officers of the State, who were under discipline and had directions as to how they were to act, and who were answerable as to their conduct to the Secretary of State and ultimately to Parliament, but by self-elected busybodies. [Cries of "No, no."] He was not using the word without reason. No doubt they were selected by the right hon. Gentleman for the particular duty for which they
1604
were appointed, but they were men and women who were elected by private benevolent societies. He did not wish to decry these societies; but they had their denominational prejudices, and a general bias in visiting these voluntary institutions which did not altogether agree with their views. They ought not to begin a new epoch of inspection by handing over these institutions to busybodies appointed by private voluntary societies. The reason which the right hon. Gentleman gave for this departure was that they could not get persons of proper qualifications to take up the duty of inspection; that they could not get qualified medical men or persons experienced in the training of children to undertake the duty. Surely the argument failed. If inspectors were to visit those institutions with the authority of the Secretary of State, let them be paid by the public Department to which they would be responsible. He defied the Government to make themselves responsible for any vexatious investigations which these voluntary inspectors might make, prompted, it might be, by sectarian or denominational influences. Therefore he wished the House to agree to the Lords' Amendment.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Home Department stated as a reason why he disagreed with the Lords' Amendment that he was sure that the House did not wish to set up a new Government Department, with all its expenses, in order to make these inspections. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman's contention if that were to be the result the acceptance of the Lords' Amendment. But he would point out that the whole clause as amended by the Lords was optional, that the Secretary of State might appoint inspectors if he thought fit. The clause, as now amended, ran—
"The Secretary of State may cause any institution for the reception of poor children or young persons, supported wholly or partly by voluntary contributions, and not liable to be inspected by or under the authority of any Government Department, to be visited and inspected from time to time by persons appointed by him for the purpose."

1605
That was to say, that the Home Secretary might appoint anyone he liked. Then the clause went on to say that such persons appointed as inspectors, should be either inspectors or assistant inspectors of reformatories and industrial schools, members of the medical profession, or persons of experience in the management and training of children. The whole thing was permissive. The Secretary of State might appoint anybody he liked. The Lords' Amendment would only limit the choice of the Secretary of State to certain classes of people. The first two classes, he thought, would be rather difficult to obtain, and in that he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. As to the third class, "persons of experience in the management and training of children," he had no doubt that there were many excellent people interested in particular societies who were often most active in that regard, and who might come under the description of "busybodies," and he did not think it would be advisable to appoint those people for the purposes of inspection. But he thought that it might be left to the discretion of the Secretary of State to appoint anyone he liked rather than limit him to the appointment of an individual belonging to a particular society. For these reasons he would have much pleasure in agreeing to the Lords' Amendment.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHEERY Liverpool,)said that this clause enabled the Secretary of State to appoint, if so desired by the managers of any institution which was carried on in accordance with the principles of any particular religious denomination, where practicable, a person of that denomination to visit and inspect the institution. He had himself been for fifteen years President of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in Dublin, and he could testify from experience the enormous amount of good that had been done to the poor of Dublin by the inspectors of that society. They were all excellent men, well qualified to do the work; although they were not medical men. They were very often ex-soldiers or ex-constabulary men, at any rate men in a responsible position of society, and he thought that the
1606
clause as originally passed would greatly increase their powers of doing good work. It would be economical to appoint them, and also greatly increase the usefulness of such societies to which he had referred. He thought that the Secretary of State might be trusted to see that proper persons were appointed, and therefore he believed that it was best to retain the clause as it originally stood in the Bill, and that the Lords' Amendment should be disagreed with.
LORD EDMUND TALBOTsaid he supported the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland. He confessed that he thought that the words in the original Bill were very much better than the Amendment inserted by the Lords. It appeared to him that the control of the Secretary of State was perfectly safeguarded.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid that he supported the Lords' Amendment because it dealt with the description of the men who were to be appointed inspectors, that was, that they were to be either inspectors or assistant inspectors of reformatory and industrial schools, members of the medical profession, or persons of experience in the management and training of children. He insisted that under that power the Secretary of State, if he chose, could appoint a member of any particular society, such as was referred to by the Attorney-General for Ireland.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Where the special directions of Parliament are given.
MR. RAWLINSONwent on to contend that if a man was appointed, on his merits, an inspector by an official of the State, then the latter would be responsible for him, and it would be better than if he were appointed as an officer of a particular society. Surely it was better to appoint a man on his merits than as an officer of a particular society.
MR. NAPIERsaid that possibly the Lords' Amendment was not inconsistent with the Bill as it was

1607
originally drawn, and he thought there would be no contravention of the original intention of the Government if, instead of accepting that part of the Lords' Amendment which struck out of the clause these words, they tacked on at the end a slight addition. The intention of the Government was that the persons nominated by the society, and adopted by the Government, should be persons of experience. One could see that the words at the end of the Lords' Amendment, "or persons of experience in the management and training of children," might possibly rule out the ordinary inspector of one of these societies. He would not necessarily be a person of experience in the management and training of children, and one supposed, therefore, that strictly he would not be deemed to come within the Lords' Amendment. But the Government desired, and rightly desired, that the inspectors of these societies should be nominated by them, and entitled in certain instances to inspect. That intention could be perfectly carried out if the Government were to move the acceptance of the Lords' Amendment with a slight alteration of the phraseology, by substituting, instead of the words "or persons of experience in the management and training of children," the words "persons of experience with respect to the management and training of children." That would enable them to appoint persons who had not themselves taken part in the management and training of children, but who had from time to time inspected homes of this character, and who would, therefore, be excellent judges. In that way he thought the Lords' Amendment might naturally give effect to what the Government desired.
MR. STUART WORTLEY, was understood to say that the right hon. Gentleman had quite rightly pointed out that it was a well-known Departmental rule that if Parliament had indicated a certain desire or given instructions they should be obeyed administratively by any Department. His difficulty was that a Department, if they left these words almost directly referring to the officers of a particular society, would feel it was practically incumbent upon it to limit its action to those officers. He agreed that
1608
those institutions which claimed to supersede the parental office to some extent, and which invited public subscriptions for that purpose, did not stand altogether in the position of private institutions, and they were all agreed that abuses, where they existed, must be put a stop to; but it was rather an important matter to remember that they should not allow premises to be entered, if necessary, by force, and persons put on their risk if they refused entry, except by public officers. The reason why he rather preferred the formula adopted by the House of Lords to that in the Bill as it left the Commons was that they had indicated that he was to be a public officer. The hon. Gentleman had admitted that these cases were very few and far between, so that the financial consideration could not have much weight, and he was sure that the able officer would be found who was ready and willing to undertake this duty. It was, to his mind, however, not quite a satisfactory thing to think that they might appoint to examine what was going on under one society the officers of another. He could not think however, that there would be any sectarian prejudices, because he could not imagine any Secretary of State being so ill-advised as to make an appointment; which would result in such a state of things. On the whole, however, he preferred the formula of the House of Lords.
SIR FRANCIS CHANNINGsaid it was perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, that the Amendment of the House of Lords gave an alternative of other inspectors or persons of experience, but he would appeal to those who had considered the effect of drafting in provisions of this kind to take into account that if they introduced a specific description in a clause they undoubtedly limited its effect. The risk of any sectarian interference was entirely excluded by subsection (3) of the clause, and he would point out to those hon. Members who took exception to the clause, as proposed by the Government, that these homes were of extremely varying types, both as to the religious denominations that started them and the objects to which they

1609
were directed, and they varied in a great many other circumstances. He thought the attempt to limit or prescribe was a mistake, and it was better to leave a perfectly free hand to the Secretary of State to select the class of persons who could deal most advantageously and most properly with this most serious and difficult question of inspection. He thought it would be a very great mistake if that free hand were not given to the Secretary of State.
MR. BOWLESagreed that the Secretary of State should have a free hand, and said it was for that reason he earnestly supported the Amendment which had come down from the other House. It appeared to him that the Amendment, so far from limiting the discretion of the Secretary of State, enormously, and, as he thought, wisely and properly increased it. The Attorney-General for Ireland had told them that certain societies in which he was interested, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and the Society for the Protection of Homes, did good work and were excellent societies. That might well be, and if the Secretary of State desired to appoint one of the officers of these societies there was nothing to prevent him from doing so, so long as the person was one who had experience in the management; and training of children. He did not know whether that was considered to be an improper limitation, but to him it appeared a very proper one. But what was the real objection to the Amendment? He had often heard it said outside the House that many clauses of the Bill had really, and in fact, been dictated a good deal less by regard for the children and the interests concerned than by regard for the interests of certain societies such as those which had been mentioned. He, for his part, did not feel, and he thought the House of Commons ought not to feel, any such obligation to societies dependent upon public subscriptions in competition with others. This clause was drawn and, it could not be denied, if it was carried out, would and must have that effect. For his part, he agreed that it seemed to limit the appointments to this very difficult office to officers of these two societies.
1610
That was really what it came to. It limited the appointment to people who might be the very worst possible people.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is not limited to them.
MR. BOWLESsaid the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that it gave a direction to the Home Office which the Home Office would find it difficult not to carry out.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: If this system proves unsatisfactory it can be changed.
MR. BOWLESsaid then they were to take the risk of its turning out unsatisfactory. The officers of these private societies would be under two allegiances. They would have, in the first place, an allegiance to the Government and the Secretary of State, and, in the second place, their duty to the society, who, he supposed, maintained them. That was a very bad thing for the public interest, on general grounds. The clause did not say that the Secretary of State "shall" cause an institution to be inspected. It said he "may" cause. How was it to be found out that an institution was being carried on in such a way as to need inspection? Everybody knew that complaints would be made by these very officers whom he was going to appoint to find out whether the complaints were well founded. That was a position which the House ought not to sanction, and if it was done, at any rate it ought to be done on the responsibility of the Secretary of State in each case, and not upon a general order or direction of the House. He could not conceive of any reason which would induce any Government or any person to resist this Amendment in the interest of the children. He certainly saw no reason at all, except that which he was bound to say was not without operation, or had not been without operation in some portions of the Bill, namely, a desire not so much in the interests of the children as to heist up the powers, already great, of one or two of the most admirable institutions the country could boast of. He thought this was a very good and proper Amendment, and if it went to a division he should support it.
MR. BARRIEsupported the Lords' Amendment, knowing what he did of the work of the National Society. That society, he was satisfied, had no desire to have a monopoly of these appointments. They only desired that where certain institutions not unknown to hon. Members of the House were suspect, they should have power to remove that suspicion. The excellent work which the society was doing was common knowledge, and as
one of those responsible for the appointment of these officers he thought the Government was fortunate in having the assistance of such persons. He supported the Amendment in the interest of the children who had not been properly cared for.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 198; Noes, 41. (Division List No. 455.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Erskine, David C.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Maclean, Donald

Acland, Francis Dyke

Everett, R. Lacey

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Fenwick, Charles

M'Crae, Sir George

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Ferens, T. R.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Marnham, F. J.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Molteno, Percy Alport

Ambrose, Robert

Fuller, John Michael F.

Mooney, J. J.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Gill, A. H.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Barker, Sir John

Ginnell, L.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

Morrell, Philip

Barnard, E. B.

Glendinning, R. G.

Morse, L. L.

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

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard.

Beale, W. P.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Beauchamp, E.

Grant, Corrie

Myer, Horatio

Beck, A. Cecil

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Bertram, Julius

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Napier, T. B.

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

Gulland, John W.

Nolan, Joseph

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Boland, John

Hall, Frederick

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Bowerman, C. W.

Halpin, J.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Brace, William

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Hart-Davies, T.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Brigg, John

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Bright, J. A.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Brooke, Stopford

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Haworth, Arthur, A.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Bryce, J. Annan

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hemmerde, Edward George

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Radford, G. H.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Byles, William Pollard

Higham, John Sharp

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Carr-Comm, H. W.

Horniman, Emslie John

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Charming, Sir Francis Allston

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Cleland, J. W.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Clough, William

Jardine, Sir J.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Robinson, S.

Cooper, G. J.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke

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

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kekewich, Sir George

Rose, Charles Day

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Rowlands, J.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lambert, George

Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lamont, Norman

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

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

Lehmann, R. C.

Sears, J. E.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Seddon, J.

Duckworth, Sir James

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Dunne, Major B. Martin (Walsall

Lynch, H. B.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Wiles, Thomas

Steadman, W. C.

Walsh, Stephen

Wilkie, Alexander

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Waring, Walter

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

Summerbell, T.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Watt, Henry A.

Winfrey, R.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Yoxall, James Henry

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Whitbread, Howard

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

Toulmin, George

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Verney, F. W.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Vivian, Henry

Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex F.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Renwick, George

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Hunt, Rowland

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Balcarres, Lord

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Stanier, Beville

Banner, John S. Harmood-

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Bowles, G. Stewart

M'Arthur, Charles

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

Bull, Sir William James

Magnus, Sir Philip

Valentia, Viscount

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

Carlile, E. Hildred

Morpeth, Viscount

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

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

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Courthope, G. Loyd

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Sir Henry Craik.

Cross, Alexander

Remnant, James Farquharson

Fell, Arthur

Renton, Leslie

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords' Amendment—
"In page 17, line 22, to leave out the words two justices,' and to insert the words 'one justice.'"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 22, lines 3 and 4, to leave out the words 'and that person did not plead guilty or admit the truth of the information.'"
MR. HERBERT SAMUELpointed out that although a person might not be able to deny his guilt he should have a right to appeal on the ground that his sentence was unduly severe.
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendments—
"In page 17, to leave out Clause 34."
"In page 23, line 19, after the word 'person,' to insert the following new subsection: '(3) This Part of this Act shall apply in the case of a child or young person who has, before the commencement of this Act, been committed to the care of a relative or other fit person by an order made under the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904, as if the order had been made under this Part of this Act.'"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 23, line 30, to leave out the words 'or other person having the powers of a constable and.'"
MR. HERBERT SAMUELdid not move to disagree with this Amendment, which only had to deal with a very small class of persons who had the power of constables, such as railway and market constables. It was thought by the other House that it was not desirable that those people should have the power of seizure of tobacco.
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendments—
"In page 23, line 36, to leave out the words 'any other person,' and to insert the words 'a park-keeper.'"
"In page 23, line 37, to leave out the words 'that person,' and to insert the word 'he.'"
"In page 24, line 1, to leave out the words 'Provided that,' and to insert the words 'and,' and after the word 'constable,' to insert the word 'or.'"
"In page 24, lines 1 and 2, to leave out the words 'or other person as aforesaid.'"
"In page 24, line 2, to leave out the word 'not,' and to leave out the word 'person,' and to insert the word 'boy.'"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 24, line 3, after the word 'smoking,' to insert the words 'but not a girl.'"
Read a second time.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that this Amendment raised the great question of the right of search. Students of international law would know that the right of capture was generally held to involve the right of search. He gladly accepted this Lords' Amendment, which restored to the constable the right of search, the omission of which, at the instance of some hon. friends, he had been obliged to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with Lords in the said Amendment."
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsupposed it was useless to do more than protest against this arbitrary Amendment. It was, he was bound, to say, almost a new departure to give an ordinary constable power to search a lad. It was to him a most repulsive thing, and was entirely at variance with his ideas of police.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that, so far as he could read the Amendment, the effect would be that the constable would have the power to search a lad, but not a girl. ["Hear, hear."] An hon. Member said "Hear, hear." As he understood, this power was given because the Government and their supporters were of opinion that smoking was deleterious to persons under sixteen years of age. Were the Government not of opinion that it was deleterious to a girl as much as to a boy? He quite agreed that the search was a very great alteration in the customs and habits of the English people, but if it was deleterious to a boy under sixteen, and if it was necessary in order to prevent it, to give powers of search to a constable, why not give the same power with regard to girls? Why should a girl have a privilege which a boy did not? What would a "suffragette" say to that? He understood that right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury bench advocated the equality of the sexes. He generally desired to agree with the Lords in most of their Amendments,
1616
and the right hon. Gentleman did not, but in this case he hoped he would not agree with the Lords, or if he did, that he would make the Amendment a sensible and proper one to apply to all young people, irrespective of sex, or appoint female inspectors for female children who smoked. They were coming to this that they would all be inspected, whoever they were, on every possible and conceivable occasion. If this was the dreadful fate which was in store for the younger generation, he hoped his right hon. friend and himself would have passed away long before it came about. He besought the Government to be fair and just to both sexes, and put the same limitation upon the female sex as upon the male.
Lords' Amendments—
"In page 24, line 25, to leave out the word 'uniformed.'"
"In page 24, line 26, after the word 'messenger,' to insert the words 'in uniform.'"
"In page 24, line 30, to leave out the word 'any,' and after the word 'material,' to insert the words 'in such form as to be capable of immediate use for smoking.'"
"In page 25, line 25, after the word 'period,' to insert the words 'and, when used in reference to proceedings for the purpose of enforcing an attendance order, includes any person who, by virtue of any enactment, is deemed to be a child for the purposes of the Education Acts, 1870 to 1907.'"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 29, line 6, to leave out the words 'Court of Summary Jurisdiction,' and insert the words 'Petty Sessional Court.'"
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid there were several Amendments to this effect, which were slightly more than drafting, and he ought to explain them. In certain Acts passed previous to 1879 a single magistrate not sitting in a Court-house had the powers of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction with regard to certain offences. They thought a single magistrate sitting in his own private room ought not to have in any circumstances the large powers which were contained in this reformatory and industrial school part of the Bill, and that they ought to be limited to

1617
Petty Sessional Courts properly constituted. For that reason they had made that alteration in the wording of the existing law in order to effect that purpose.
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 29, line 20, to leave out the words 'commute the order to such sentence of imprisonment,' and insert the words 'in lieu of the detention order make such order or pass such sentence.'"
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid this was in order to enable the Court, if it thought fit, instead of passing a sentence of imprisonment, to make a probation order under the Probation of Offenders Act.
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendments—
"In page 29, lines 21 and 22, to leave out the words 'sentence of imprisonment,' and insert the words 'order or sentence.'"
"In page 29, line 22, to leave out the words 'awarded for,' and insert the words 'made or passed in respect of.'"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 30, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'other than the mother of the child.'"
Read a second time.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid this was an Amendment of some importance, to which he would ask the attention of the House. The subject was discussed at very great length in the Standing Committee, and the clause in the Bill as it left the House was the outcome of that discussion. The clause dealt with classes of children who might be sent by Courts to industrial schools, sometimes on account of some small delinquency they had themselves committed, but usually for the reason that it was necessary for the protection of the child that it should be separated from bad surroundings and brought up in the better atmosphere of an industrial school. Among the classes of cases which could, under the present law, be sent to an industrial school were
1618
children who frequented the company of reputed thieves or common or reputed prostitutes. In response to many suggestions from various quarters it was thought desirable instead of the plural in that sentence to use the singular, because cases occurred where children were in the company of a single prostitute, and it was highly desirable that the child should be taken away from such company and be sent to an industrial school. It was pointed out, however, that as soon as the singular was used instead of the plural, they had this position—that the child might be sent to an industrial school if it frequented the company of its own mother who was a prostitute, although she might have the ordinary feelings of natural affection and might do her utmost to save the child from contamination. As the result of long discussion in Committee, it was decided that this should only take effect in cases where the mother of the child was not the person concerned. Other parts of the clause enabled children to be sent to industrial schools where they were liable to contamination, whether or not the person from whom the contamination might come was the mother. For instance, Paragraph (g) of the Bill as it left the House dealt with the case of a child when lodging or residing in a house or part of a house used by any prostitute for the purpose of prostitution, or living in circumstances likely to cause, encourage, or favour the seduction or prostitution of the child. These were wide words, but the Lord Chief Justice and others did not think they were wide enough, and objected to these words "other than the mother of the child," which applied to the previous paragraph (f), and they insisted, against the protests of the Government, on omitting them. They still felt, as was felt by1 many Members, that it was too strong a thing to say that a girl was to be taken away or might be taken away from her own mother, and sent to an industrial school, merely for frequenting the company of that mother, perhaps not living in the same house, certainly not living in any place used for the purpose of prostitution—because in that case the child could be taken away, whether the prostitute were the mother or not—but merely for frequenting the company of the mother. That, it seemed

1619
to them, gave too great a power, especially when under the Bill they made it the duty of the police for the first time to bring before the Court all the children who came within the categories specified in this Clause 59. It would therefore be the duty of the police in any case where they were aware of a child, not living in the same house, but visiting or being visited by its own mother who was a woman of immoral character, immediately to bring the child before the Court with a view to getting it committed to an industrial school. He did not, however, propose to disagree with the Lords' Amendment, but he proposed to move a consequential Amendment which would be in the nature of a compromise, and which would, he thought, effect the purpose Lord Alverstone had in view, and at the same time would safeguard the clause in the manner they desired. Lord Alverstone had in view cases in which the child might be frequenting the mother who was a prostitute, and might be exposed to contamination, but not in such a way or to such an extent as to bring the child within the category of (g) in the clause. Therefore, he felt these words would meet the objections entertained by the other House and would carry out their purpose—
"Provided that a child shall not be treated as coming within the description contained in paragraph (f) if the only common or reputed prostitute whose company the child frequents is the mother of the child and she exercises proper guardianship and due care to protect the child from contamination."
He hoped that would meet the views of the House and would be accepted.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
SIR F. BANBURYhoped he might encourage hon. Members opposite to disagree with the House of Lords. He thought if they would summon up their courage and disagree with the Lords on this Amendment, they would have the support of a great number of Members on that side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had said truly that it was a very strong order to take away from the mother the care of her child. The mother might be
1620
anxious that the child should not be brought up in the life which she had led. One ought to consider that the feelings of the mother, even if she was a prostitute, were the same as the feelings of another mother who had had a better opportunity and not been led away into the paths of evil. But it might be very conceivable that the woman had no alternative, after having unfortunately gone astray, but to continue that particular life. She might be leading it because she was obliged to, and she might be taking all care of her child to prevent it falling into the same life. It did not follow that because a woman was a prostitute, or was even living a life of a prostitute, that she was bereft of maternal feelings and was not looking after the interests of her child. If she was not doing that, that was really living a regularly bad life and bringing her child up that way. The right hon. Gentleman had told them clause (g) would meet that point. All they had to fear was that possibly by some error clause (g) might not be put into operation. He did not think that was at all likely to arise, and if it did he would sooner that one case should escape than that such a very great trial to the feelings of a mother should occur as having her child taken away from her. He was inclined to think the Lords had erred in a small degree on the side of morality, and had not quite considered the effect of their Amendment. He hoped, therefore, the House would not agree with the Lords' Amendment. The Under-Secretary said he was in favour of a compromise. He thought it would be better if the Government took up the attitude of disagreeing with the Lords' Amendment. The Amendment was that the mother was to exercise proper guardianship and to protect her child from contamination. How were they going to find out that she did that? It would introduce an element of very great difficulty if they had to prove that she really did exercise due care. He thought that the Amendment really would not meet the object which he believed both sides of the House had, at heart. He hoped that the right Gentleman would reconsider his determination and disagree with the Amendment made in another place.
MR. HUGH LAWsaid in regard to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, it had been suggested to him that there might be some doubt as to the person on whom the burden of proof would rest in order to show whether the mother was exercising proper guardianship. Was the proof to be given by those who proposed that the child should be sent to an industrial school, or was the burden of proof to be on the mother? In the second place, what exactly was meant by "contamination"? Had the Government in mind mental as well as physical contamination? It had been suggested to him that the word "contamination" might be taken to mean moral contamination. If there was any doubt, he would ask the Under-Secretary to consider whether it might not be necessary to add other words to make it quite clear, and he would suggest that the words "protected from defilement or contamination" might be used, the object being to make it quite clear that the word "contamination" carried the clause further than the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. H. J. TENNANTasked whether this was an agreed clause between the right hon. Gentleman and the Lord Chief Justice. It did not seem to him that the word "contamination" was sufficient, and the words suggested by the hon. Member for Donegal would avoid any ambiguity.
MR. STUART WORTLEYwas understood to say the danger was that a woman might be subject to the punishment of having her child taken from her against her will on the sole ground that she was leading an immoral life, and they should not forget, in dealing with this case, that there were what were called Government Grant hunters, who got grants for industrial schools by sweeping as many children as they could into them, and with the least amount of discrimination. He admitted that the case was very different where the mother failed to exercise proper guardianship, and due care to protect her child from defilement or contamination. He supported the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary, who had succeeded in meeting the difficulty.
MR. CHERRYsaid that as a general rule the Onus of proof rested with those who made the assertion, and as a general rule the onus of proof was on the prosecution, but if the mother wished to have her child under her own protection then she would have the benefit of the clause, and the onus of proof would be on her. It was an onus which could be very easily discharged, because if she had really been looking after her child she would be able to prove it.
MR. BONAR LAWasked whether she would have to satisfy the Court.
MR. CHERRYthought that was already in the clause.
MR, H. J. TENNANT: That was my question.
MR. CHERRYthought as the words stood that the mother would be required to satisfy the Court. No question would arise on that point. As regarded the point in reference to the word "contamination," he did not think it was a word which in law was called "a term of art." It had the ordinary meaning that any person of commonsense would put upon it. He should take it that "contamination" meant either mental or physical contamination. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield he would point out that they were not dealing with the punishment of the mother. All that the Bill proposed to do was to save the child. He could conceive a case in which the mother would rather bear the punishment of separation from her child than see it contaminated.
MR. POWERthought there was a great deal in the suggestion of his hon. friend the Member for Donegal. It should be made clear that the contamination was to be mental or physical, and the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was too vague as it stood.
MR. MACLEANsaid the Amendment of the Lords altered the law as it had been for the last thirty years, and the words relating to the mother of the child had been introduced for the first time in consequence

1623
of a strong appeal made by the majority of the Committee upstairs. He had a practical knowledge of these matters, and he thought the Amendment to the Lords' Amendment as proposed by his right hon. friend fully and amply met the case.
MR. BYLESsaid that if the hon. Baronet the Member for the City went to a division, he would go into the lobby with him. He did not know how to express his strong objection to taking children from their mothers, even mothers leading immoral lives. He believed it to be the actual fact that in some cases mothers were so anxious to bring up their children well, and have them properly educated, that they resorted to habits of immorality in order that they might earn money to defray the expense of having them properly cared for and instructed. He agreed that his right hon. friend had done his best by his words of compromise between the form of the Lords' Amendment and the original form of the clause, but he should vote with the hon. Baronet opposite.
MR. COCHRANErather sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but he did not like the words "from contamination," which appeared to be ambiguous and not at all easy of interpretation. The Attorney-General for Ireland, who had given an opinion, was not able exactly to define what "contamination" meant.
MR. CHERRY: I said it was not "a word of art," and had no special meaning in law. It is a word which has an ordinary signification, that any person of commonsense would understand.
MR. COCHRANEsaid the words "from contamination" did nothing to strengthen the clause. The mother was to exercise proper guardianship and due care for the protection of her child, and that would cover every contamination or any other evil. It would only weaken the clause to put in the words "from contamination." He suggested the omission of those words.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid all words were open to criticism, and he
1624
thought the proposal of the hon. Gentleman to leave out the words "from contamination" would also possibly be open to objection, because no one would know what the child was to be protected from. On the advice of his right hon. friend the Lord Advocate and his right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland, he thought it would be better to leave the Lords' Amendment as it stood.
Consequential Amendment made—
"In page 30, line 20, at the end, by inserting 'provided that a child shall not be treated as coming within the description contained in paragraph (f) if the only common or reputed prostitute whose company the child frequents is the mother of the child and she exercises proper guardianship and due care to protect the child from contamination.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Lords' Amendments—
"In page 30, line 17, to leave out the word 'child,' and to insert the word 'person.'"
"In page 30, line 22, after the word 'Court,' to insert the words 'of Assize or Quarter Sessions or a Petty Sessional Court.'"
"In page 30, line 29, to leave out the words 'Court of Summary Jurisdiction,' and to insert the words 'Petty Sessional Court.'"
"In page 31, line 29, to leave out the words 'Court of Summary Jurisdiction,' and to insert the words 'Petty Sessional Court.'"
"In page 32, line 20, to leave out the words 'young person,' and to insert the words 'person apparently of the age of fourteen or fifteen, years.'"
"In page 32, after Clause 60, to insert Clause (a): '(a) Where under the provisions of this Part of this Act an order is made for the committal of a child or young person to the care of a relative or other fit person named by the Court, the Court may, in addition to such order make an order under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, that the child or young person be placed under the supervision of a probation officer. Provided that the recognizance into which the child, if not charged with an offence, or the young person is required to enter, shall bind him to appear and submit to the further order of the Court.'"
"In page 32, line 30, to leave out the words 'herein-after,' and to insert the words 'in this Act.'"
"In page 33, line 2, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to the determination of the place of residence of a youthful offender or child.'"
"In page 34, line 34, to leave out the words 'or a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.'"
"In page 34, line 35, to leave out the words 'or Court of Summary Jurisdiction.'"
"In page 36, line 27, after the word 'liable,' to insert the words 'on summary conviction.'"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 38, line 28, after the word 'service,' to insert the words 'including service in the Navy or Army.'"
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid this was purely a drafting Amendment, inserted to remove any possible ambiguity as to the meaning.
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendments—
"In page 40, lines 32 and 33, to leave out the words 'to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.'"
"In page 40, line 34, after the word 'labour,' to insert the words 'or to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.'"
"In page 41, line 28, after the word 'imposed,' to insert the words 'under this section,' and after the word 'local,' to insert the word 'education.'"
"In page 41, lines 28 and 29, to leave out the words 'under this section.'"
"In page 42, line 4, after the word 'local,' to insert the word "education.'"
"In page 42, line 10, to leave out the words 'or a Court of Summary Jurisdiction,' and after the word 'local,' to insert the word 'education.'"
"In page 42, line 14, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words 'that is to say, as respects reformatory schools, the council of a county or county borough, and as respects industrial schools, a local education authority."
"In page 42, line 34, to leave out from the word 'authority 'to the word 'a' in line 38."
"In page 43, line 17, to leave out the word 'be,' and to insert the word 'continue.'"
"In page 43, lines 17 and 18, to leave out the words 'in the school in which he is for the time being detained,' and to insert the words' in the event of his transfer to another certified school.'"
"In page 45, line 18, after the word 'Act,' to insert as a new subsection: '(18) As respects the City of London the Common Council shall, notwithstanding anything in this section, be the local authority liable for providing for the reception and maintenance in a certified reformatory school of a youthful offender committed by a Petty Sessional Court acting in and for the City. Provided that nothing in this provision shall exempt the City of London from contributing towards the expenses incurred by the London County Council in respect of reformatory schools, but the London County Council shill in each year repay to the Common Council for each youthful offender maintained by that Council a sum equal to the average cost to the London County Council in that year of the maintenance of a youthful offender in a reformatory school for whose maintenance the London County Council are responsible, which cost shall be ascertained in accordance with the directions of the Secretary of State.'"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 45, line 19, to leave out the words 'for the time being.'"
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid this Amendment had been inserted at the request of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. It was fully explained on the Report stage, and it simply carried out an undertaking which was then given.
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendments—
"In page 46, line 26, after the word 'made,' to insert the words 'or any Court of like jurisdiction.'"
"In page 47, lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words 'for the time being.'"
'"In page 47, line 31, to leave out the word '3,' and to insert the words 'Provided that.'
"In page 50, line 2, to leave out from the word 'pay' to the end of the clause."
"In page 51, line 18, after the word 'summons,' to insert the word 'issued,' and after the word 'notice,' to insert the word 'given.'"
"In page 52, line 35, after the word 'officer,' to insert the words 'of the school.'"
"In page 52, line 36, to leave out the words 'of the school.'"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 53, line 10, to leave out from the word 'passed' to the end of the clause."
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid these words were inserted to give certain existing officers of the London County Council the security to which they were entitled. It had since been found that the words were superfluous because there were now no officers so entitled.
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendments—
"In page 53, line 21, to leave out the words 'Part of this.'"
"In page 53, line 22, after the word 'by,' to insert the words 'or liability imposed on.'"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 53, line 23, after the word 'child,' to insert the words 'or prevent any local authority from continuing to make any contribution which they were making before the commencement of this Act.'"
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid this Amendment was to give any local authority at present making a voluntary contribution power to continue making such contribution although the authorities dealing with the matter were not the same under this Bill. There was a slight transfer of authority — for instance a county council might now contribute to an industrial school, but a county council which was now contributing and wished to continue contributing in respect of some particular child would not under this Amendment be deprived of its power of doing so because the law had been altered by this Bill and education authorities were made the industrial school authorities.
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendments—
"In page 56, line 8, after the word 'revoked,' to insert the words 'by any Court of Summary Jurisdiction acting in or for the place in or for which the Court which made the order acted.'"
"In page 59, line 6, to leave out the words 'child or young.'"
"In page 59, line 7, after the word 'state,' to insert the words 'under the last two foregoing sections of this Act.'"
"In page 61, line 10, to leave out the words 'committed to,' and to insert the words 'detained in.'"
"In page 61, line 11, to leave out the words 'committed to,' and to insert the words 'detained in.'"
"In page 61, line 27, after the word 'bring,' to insert the words 'a person.'"
Agreed to.
Consequential Amendment made—
"In page 61, line 28, by inserting after the word 'coming,' the words 'or as being a person who if a child would come.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 61, line 33, after the word 'Court' to insert the words 'in like manner as if he had been apprehended.'"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 62, line 4, after the word 'country,' to insert the words '(12) The Local Government Board may by Order transfer from the Metropolitan Asylums Board to the London County Council any buildings provided by the Metropolitan Asylums Board for the purpose
1628
of remand homes under Section 4 of the Youthful Offenders Act, 1901, together with any liabilities incurred by the Metropolitan Asylums Board in connection with such buildings, and on such transfer the buildings shall become places of detention for the purposes of this Part of this Act, and the order may also provide for the transfer of any officers employed by the Metropolitan Asylums Board in connection with such remand homes, and for securing to such officers any rights as to pension or otherwise to which they may be entitled.'"
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid this Amendment provided for the proper transfer of existing buildings from the Metropolitan Asylums Board to the London County Council which in the future would be the authority for maintaining places of detention under this Bill.
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendments—
"In page 62, line 15, to leave out the words 'to,' and to insert the word 'in,' and to leave out the word 'committed,' and to insert the word 'detained.'"
"In page 62, line 20, to leave out the words 'committed to,' and to insert the words 'detained in.'"
"In page 63, line 3, after the word 'standing,' to insert the word 'joint.'"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 63, line 16, after the first word 'and,' to insert the words 'a Court of Summary Jurisdiction so sitting is in this Act referred to as a Juvenile Court. (2) Where in the course of any proceedings in a Juvenile Court it appears to the Court that the person charged or to whom the proceedings relate is of the age of sixteen years or upwards, or where in the course of any proceedings in any Court of Summary Jurisdiction other than a Juvenile Court, it appears that the person charged or to whom the proceedings relate is under the age of sixteen years, nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the Court, if it thinks it undesirable to adjourn the case, from proceeding with the hearing and determination of the case.'"
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid this sub-clause had been inserted to meet the case of a child who might be found to be a few months over sixteen or a little under the age of sixteen, in which case it was obviously undesirable to begin the proceedings all over again. This Amendment would enable the Court to proceed with or transfer the case as it thought fit.
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendments—
"In page 63, lines 16 and 17, to leave out the words 'children and young persons,' and to insert the words 'persons apparently under the age of sixteen years.'"
"In page 63 line 20, to leave out the words 'child or young persons,' and to insert the words 'person apparently under the age of sixteen years.'"
"In page 63, line 1, to leave out the words 'At any such hearing,' and to insert the words 'In a Juvenile Court.'"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 63, line 33, after the word 'order,' to insert the words 'and where such an order is made the London County Council shall, if so required by the Secretary of State, provide the necessary accommodation for the purpose at any place of detention provided by the Council upon such terms as to payment and otherwise as may be agreed between the Secretary of State and the Council, or, in default of agreement, as may be settled by the Treasury. (6) Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that arrangements cannot be made for the purpose of complying with this section in any place by the first day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, the Secretary of State may by order postpone the coming into operation of this section as respects that place until such date, not later than the first day of January, nineteen hundred and ten, as may be specified in the order.'"
Read a second time.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid it had been the intention that these Courts should be held in the places of detention, and it was thought that the remand homes would have afforded sufficient accommodation to enable the magistrates to sit there where the witnesses and officers could attend. At present the duty of providing Juvenile Courts rested with the Home Secretary, who had to provide Court Houses, but the duty of providing places of detention rested with the London Comity Council under this Bill. This subsection had been inserted so that there would be no friction between the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the London County Council, and the Treasury had agreed to this Amendment. The second subsection dealt with the case where a Juvenile Court could not be properly provided before 1st April. In such cases the Home Secretary would be given power to postpone the operation of this clause.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
SIR F. BANBURYasked whether it was absolutely necessary to bring in the London County Council in this particular. He did not think the County Council should be brought in in Courts of Law and places of that sort. If it was not absolutely necessary, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not insist upon this.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that that point did not arise on this particular Amendment. In another part of the Bill the London County Council was named as the authority in cases of detention.
MR. H. J. TENNANTasked with regard to the second part of the Amendment whether it applied to London. He did not think it did. He hoped it would not be applicable to London.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid it was very possible that the Courts proposed to be set up would not be sufficient, and therefore it was necessary that the Secretary of State should have power to postpone the coming into force of the section in order that the necessary arrangements might be made.
MR. STUART WORTLEYasked what provision, if any, was made for the admission of the public. If in these Courts young persons were to be deprived of their liberty the Press ought to have notice of the proceedings.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that question did not arise on this Amendment. It was provided for in Clause 111.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 64, line 14, to leave out the word 'January,' and to insert the word 'April.'"
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the machinery for bringing this Bill into operation was exceedingly elaborate. The Home Office would have to make a large number of regulations, and Orders in Council would have to be made, and it

1631
was to give the authorities time to make the arrangements required in regard to the various parts of the Bill that this alteration of the date was necessary. It was absolutely impossible to bring it into operation by 1st February next.
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendments—
"In page 64, line 21, after the word 'where,' to insert the words 'a person who, in the opinion of the Court is.',"
"In page 65, line 9, to leave out the words 'can prove,' and to insert the words 'proves.'"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 65, line 15, to leave out the words 'unfit to have care of,' and to insert the words 'not to be exercising proper guardianship over.'"
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid the clause would not read unless the words "to be" were also omitted.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that could be done as a matter of printing.
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid it was too serious a matter to be dealt with as a matter of printing.
Agreed to.
Consequential Amendment made—
"In page 65, line 15, by leaving out the words 'to be.'"—Sir Henry Craik.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 65, line 26, after the word 'Part,' to insert the words '(3) Without prejudice to the requirements of the Education Acts, 1870 to 1907, as to school attendance or to proceedings thereunder, this section shall not apply during the months of April to September, inclusive, to any child whose parent or guardian is engaged in a trade or business of such a nature as to require him to travel from place to place, and who has obtained a certificate of having made not less than two hundred attendances at a public elementary school during the months of October to March immediately preceding, and the power of the Board of Education to make regulations with respect to the issue of certificates of due attendance for the purposes of the Education Acts, 1870 to 1907, shall include a power to make regulations as to the issue of certificates of attendance for the purposes of this section.'"
Read a second time.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that this Amendment touched the part of the Bill dealing with vagrants. The clause provided that if a person was wandering about the country with his child and depriving the child of education, there would be a summary process by which the Education Act could be enforced. At present the Education Act was unenforceable in the case of those vagrants; they contemplated that a parent or guardian would reside in a district, and the child be known to the School Attendance Officer of the district; but if a man and his child went through the country, passing from the jurisdiction of one local authority to that of another, he was practically exempt from the whole of the provisions of the Elementary Education Acts. It had been felt, however, that the proposal in the Bill might be too severe on the class of respectable gipsies, of whom there were some. These people, as a matter of fact, took winter quarters, and they were willing to educate their children then. Their business required them to wander about the country in the summer months, and they thought they should not be separated from their children. It was with very much reluctance that he agreed to accept an Amendment of the clause. They did not, however, mitigate the existing law with regard to education so far as it was applicable. They mitigated the new powers supplementary to the Education Act in cases where it was shown that a child had attended school during the winter months.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
VISCOUNT MORPETHasked what was meant by the words "without prejudice to the requirements of the Education Acts, 1870 to 1907, as to school attendance or to proceedings thereunder, this Act shall not apply …" Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that if the officers of the education committees could catch those children they should apply the usual compulsory powers as to attendance? It seemed to him that it would be better to state quite frankly

1633
that this was to a certain extent an infraction of the ordinary rules, and that it should be put down as an exception with respect to a special class of children.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid there was no intention to diminish the powers of the Education Acts. The clause which had been drafted in consultation with the Education Department did not interfere with the existing law.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that in the months October to March there were twenty weeks, and he did not know how they were to get 200 attendances at school from a child in that time. It could be done by counting two attendances on one day, but he did not understand that, attendances were reckoned in that way.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 65, line 29, to leave out the words 'or nurse.'"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 65, line 32, after Clause 119, to insert new Clause (B): (b) (1) The holder of the licence of any licensed premises shall not allow a child to be at any time in the bar of the licensed premises, except during the hours of closing. (2) If the holder of a licence acts in contravention of this section, or if any person causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, any child to go to or to be in the bar of any licensed premises except during the hours of closing, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding, in respect of the first offence, forty shillings, and in respect of any subsequent offence, five pounds. (3) If a child is found in the bar of any licensed premises, except during the hours of closing, the holder of the licence shall be deemed to have committed an offence under this section unless he shows that he has used due diligence to prevent the child being admitted to the bar. (4) Nothing in this section shall apply in the case of a child who is resident but not employed in the licensed premises or in the case of premises constructed, fitted, and intended to be used in good faith for any purpose to which the holding of a licence is merely auxiliary. (5) In this section the bar of licensed premises means any open drinking bar or any part of the premises exclusively or mainly used for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor, and
1634
the expressions "licence" and "licensed premises" have the same meaning as in the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1906.'"
Read a second time.
MR. FELL MR. FELL (Great Yarmouth) moved to leave out subsection (1). He said the clause was a familiar one, having appeared in the Licensing Bill which was before the House for some months. It was mentioned when the Bill was originally introduced, but he found no mention of it after that. There were points in the clause which required careful consideration. He did not think that that should apply to railway station refreshment rooms, and if the Government were going to omit railway station bars from the clause, his objection to it would be minimised. There were many considerations which would arise out of the clause, and they must weigh the advantages and disadvantages. There might be strong reasons why children up to the age of fourteen years should not be allowed to enter the bar of licensed premises. Certainly they should not be allowed to enter a bar for the purpose of obtaining drink for themselves. But this clause was not directed against children being within bars of public-houses for that purpose. The question then arose, what damage was done by children being on licensed premises during the open hours. He did not think that the children of the upper classes would go into any bar of licensed premises except at railway stations, and even then on very rare occasions. He had known cases of a man with his boy under fourteen years of age who came from the country, and who wished to obtain refreshment for himself at a bar, and he hoped that such a case would be covered by the Amendment. Again, supposing a man went down to the country with his family for the day, and on his return to town he wanted to have some refreshment, why should he not be permitted to take his children with him into the licensed premises, when he only desired to have a glass of beer for himself? According to this clause, he would have to leave his children outside while he went into the licensed premises to obtain his refreshment. Again, supposing there were a number of trippers down at a seaside resort,

1635
that they were on the beach, that a sudden storm came on, that they rushed to the nearest shelter which was a public-house, asked for refreshment, and had their children with them under fourteen years of age. Would these trippers have to leave their children outside in the storm while the parents were having their refreshment? Again, supposing a working man and his family were travelling and wished to obtain some refreshment at some railway station or junction, but the man could not afford to go into the railway refreshment room and desired to go to some cheaper place near by. Were the children to be left outside in such an event while the parents were obtaining their refreshment? Yet again, if a girl just over fourteen was to be allowed to go into a bar there was a tendency for such an one to exercise the privilege, and that would increase the danger that indubitably arose from the admission of young people into public-house bars. He himself did not believe that children under fourteen years of age had the slightest liking to go into public-house bars. They did not like the smell of the public-house. But his objection to the clause took a much wider and broader ground, and that was whether they were not by this kind of legislation levelling down instead of levelling up the character of licensed premises by putting a stigma on anyone entering them. There had been a great deal of discussion of late as to raising the character and tone of public-houses. He maintained that the clause would tend to lower their character. Their object should be to encourage the improvement of public-houses; to induce the licensees to make them lighter, brighter, and more cleanly; to make the houses more like the refreshment houses in France and Germany, where children might enjoy a cup of coffee while their parents were having a glass of beer or a glass of wine. The sobriety of the working classes in France and Germany was largely owing to the fact that they could take their children with them into these cafes and restaurants. He questioned on all these grounds whether the clause was a judicious one,
1636
and he doubted whether it would have the effect intended by its promoters. Unless it was amended he would be compelled to vote against it; but, if amended, it might to a great deal of good.
MR. RENWICKseconded the Amendment. He said this important question ought, properly, to have been dealt with in the Licensing Bill, and it was extraordinary to see that the House which had rejected that measure should have inserted this very important part of it in this Bill. He opposed the whole clause, because he thought it would inflict very serious injustice upon the poorer classes. It should be remembered that in a very large number of public-houses the bar was unfortunately the only public part of the house. It ought not to be so. The bar, as a drinking bar, ought to be done away with altogether. But the fact remained that the bars were there, and it would be a very great injustice to the poorer classes who wished to enter one of these houses for purposes of refreshment to be compelled to leave their children outside. Children would suffer less inside the house than by being left outside. In houses where the bar was not the only room in the house two prices were charged. One was known as the bar price and the other as the parlour price. A poor person who could not afford the higher price entered the bar for the purpose of getting the lower priced drink, and there he possibly saw the person who could afford to pay the higher price passing through the bar with his family on the way to the other room. That was a decided injustice, and seemed to imply that there was one law for the poor and another for the rich, but so long as public-houses remained as at present with the bar in many cases as the only room, it would be inopportune to agree to the Lords' Amendment. They ought to endeavour to arrive at a higher ideal of public-house, first doing away with the bar altogether, and then providing accommodation as it was on the Continent, where a man thought it no shame to take his wife and family to get refreshment. He begged to second.
Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment—
"In line 1, to leave out subsection (1,)—(Mr. Fell.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'to,' in line 2, stand part of the Lords' Amendment."
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid this was a clause which he felt sure would command the very general sympathy of the House. In the other House it was passed without a word of opposition being raised against it, although full opportunity was given for discussion, and after the wanton destruction of so many good proposals in their Licensing Bill they were grateful that this measure, at least, had been saved. He thought that even the representatives of the liquor trade in the House would not object to the principle underlying the clause, which provided that the holder of the licence of any licensed premises should not allow a child to be at any time in the bar, except during the hours of closing. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of subsection (1) said that children did not frequent bars, but if he had read the Returns which were placed by the Home Office upon the Table of the House, giving the opinion of the chief constables of our great cities, he was sure he would not have made that statement. The chief constable of Birmingham said the practice of women taking infants and young children into public-houses was "general and very extensive." Ten public-houses were watched for eight hours per day for sixteen days with the result that 2,949 children were seen to be taken in by women; very many being babies in arms, and practically none over five were included in the figure. In Bristol, the chief constable said—
"My personal experience of the prevelance of the practice is backed up by the whole of my superintendents, and we are agreed that the practice of allowing children in public-houses is most disastrous."
A number of houses, 472, he said, were watched for nine hours a day, and in a fortnight 2,441 children under twelve were seen to be taken in, including 1,041 under two years old. But 15 of these 472 houses accounted for no less
1638
than 1,542 children. In London, twenty-three houses were watched for four days, and 10,746 children were taken in, 1,164 being in arms, the remainder under sixteen. The Commissioner of Police informed them that over 1,000 persons a year were arrested for being drunk while having the care of children under seven. In Manchester, twenty-four houses were watched for eight hours a day on twelve days, and 8,973 children were seen to be taken in, 6,471 being under five years of age, the remainder under fourteen. In Sheffield six houses were watched for about eight hours a day for a fortnight, and 1,181 children under six years of age were seen to be taken in. Yet the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth said it was not the practice of children to frequent the bars of public-houses. When the Licensing Bill was under discussion he went one night at about midnight to visit a large number of public-houses in the neighbourhood of Ratcliff Highway. The houses there were so thick that in the space of one hour, without hurrying, he was able to visit thirty houses, and to peep into over 100 separate bars. He found even so late as that, and it was not a Saturday night, some children there with their mothers, and in one he remembered seeing an unhappy, ragged little boy asleep on the dirty sawdust floor, while the mother was drinking with a baby asleep in her arms. Sights such as these ought not to be tolerated if it was possible to put an end to mischief of that character. Even if in some exceptional cases some inconvenience would be caused, nevertheless the good that they would do would outweigh the evil. If this clause was passed it might incidentally have a certain indirect effect in lessening the drinking of many women, for many of them were not so unnatural as to leave their children unattended. It they were not allowed to take the children into the public-houses, he felt sure that a considerable number of them would stop at home. He would point out that this clause did not prohibit the taking of children on to licensed premises. He hoped that hon. Members opposite who spoke on this clause would remember that fact. The clause did not say that the child was not to be taken on licensed premises; it said that the child

1639
was not to be taken into the bar of licensed premises as defined in the clause. The Bill forbade the taking of children to any open drinking bar or any part of the premises exclusively or mainly used for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquors. If the bar was not an open drinking bar which was being used for the consumption of liquors, if it was a bar for "off" sale, a child might be taken there. It was important to note one point in connection with the vexed and controversial question of child messengers. The Intoxicating Liquor (Sale to Children) Act of 1901 prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquor to children under fourteen years of age save in corked and sealed vessels in quantities of not less than a pint for consumption off the premises, and where there was a bona fide jug and bottle department, this clause would not prevent the children from going into it for the purpose of obtaining liquor as prescribed by the statute. Hon. Members might say that they did not go far enough, and they ought to prohibit all children being on the premises altogether, but at all events, that was not the object of this clause of their Licensing Bill which was now embodied in the Bill. They provided that the child should not be exposed to the contamination of being in a drinking bar which was used mainly for drinking purposes, but the child was allowed to be on licensed premises, and could still be in the dining-room attached to a public-house, or the parlour, or any other part of the premises which was not used solely or mainly for the sale of intoxicating liquor. He knew that the hon. Member for Newcastle thought that if possible they ought to raise the character of the public-house, and indirectly he thought this would effect that, because if any licensed person desired that parents should come to his house for tea picnics he would provide a part of his premises for that purpose which would not be used exclusively or mainly for the sale of intoxicating liquor. In that way they might do something to improve the public-house. The clause did not apply to any premises constructed, fitted, and intended to be used in good faith for any purpose to which the holding of a licence was merely auxiliary, the words being taken from the Licensing Act
1640
of 1904. They covered hotels, restaurants, and eating-houses, and he was advised that they clearly covered railway refreshment rooms, but lest there should be some doubt as to whether they did he thought it better to have it clearly stated that railway refreshment rooms were included in the exemption, and he had put down an Amendment. It had been pointed out that in Ireland the clause as it stood would cause extreme inconvenience because the majority of licensed premises in Ireland were at the same time shops for the sale of groceries, ironmongery, meat, or other articles. It would be inconvenient if children could not go into the shops for groceries, meat, or ironmongery, merely because a part of the premises was used for drinking. The Government, therefore, had put down an Amendment specially designed to meet the case of Ireland and limit the application of this clause so far as Ireland was concerned only to those licensed premises that were public-houses as we understood them in England. It had been represented to the Government very strongly by persons holding very different views as to the liquor trade in Ireland that it would be an extreme hardship if children were prevented from going into an ordinary grocers' or ironmongery or butchers' shop simply because in a portion of the premises liquor was supplied. The whole system was an evil one, but there it was, and they had to deal with it. He had another Amendment on the Paper which was little more than of a drafting character, but he could assure the House that the Government would not accept any Amendment to this clause which would in any degree run counter to the main purpose of it or which would lend itself to evasion. Parliament had frequently, on the question of liquor, drawn a clear line between the child and the adult. Under the law as it now stood, no child under the age of fourteen could be served with intoxicating liquor for his own consumption, no child under sixteen could be served with spirits for his own consumption, and no child under fourteen could be supplied with intoxicating liquor for the consumption of others unless it was in a sealed vessel. This clause carried the principle a step further. It was a most desirable clause, and he hoped the

1641
House would support its retention in the Bill.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSfound difficulty in understanding how the right hon. Gentleman could describe the effect of the clause as he had, having regard to the definition. The definition stated that a bar meant any open drinking bar or any part of the premises used mainly or exclusively for the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor. In the great majority of the public-houses in the country districts every room was a bar under that definition, except the bed-rooms. Therefore, no child must be found in a public-house at all. This was nothing more than class legislation, because it would only be the poorer and smaller public-houses that would be affected. It was aimed at the working and poorer classes by persons who did not understand their requirements—persons who had their clubs and every convenience, and lost sight altogether of the necessities of these classes. No doubt there were to be seen sights and scenes owing to women taking their children into public-houses, and they touched the hearts of all. Everybody would be glad to do away with them if the remedy was not worse than the evil itself. But that class, after all, was a small one as compared with the 18,000,000 adult people of this country. The number who so misused their powers were the smallest possible fraction of the whole whose liberties and comfort this Bill was to affect. Because there were a few people who were lunatics, that was no reason for treating the whole community as if they were lunatics. The clause was never discussed in Committee or in the House. It was suddenly put in in the House of Lords, and now they were to accept it at the will of the Government. It was only another instance of legislation by machinery. The effect would be to destroy the liberty of the working classes. Every Saturday, and often on Sunday, the working men with their wives and families went out in brakes and vans to the country side. They wanted refreshment, and were not content with lemonade—they wanted their glass of beer. No one should discourage
1642
any movement on the part of a working man who took his wife and family with him. But under this clause, if they happened to be in the country, and had children under fourteen with them, if they wanted a glass of beer what were they to do with their children? Were they to leave them outside? To say that if a man wanted some refreshment he was not to take his children with him was a piece of tyranny that was hardly conceivable. There were hundreds of thousands of working men who had their mid-day meal brought to them—he had seen working men in the public-house with the packet of food brought to them by their wives, who invariably brought a young child or two with them. It was the only time the working men saw their children during the week. They left home when the children were asleep, and returned after they were in bed. He had seen hundreds of such cases, and the picture made by the man with his child on his knee and his wife beside him was a perfect idyll of domestic felicity, which it did one good to remember. What now must the wife do under this clause? She must leave the child outside on the doorstep, because that was what the Bill, if it were passed in this form, would effect. He was not speaking of the gin palaces and bars of London, which were comparatively few in number. He was referring to country places where the children were sent for the beer. The mother could not go, for her hands were full with her household work and with the duty of preparing the meals; nor could the father go, for he had his daily work to attend to. He did not speak on this question as a Party man. Were he to do so, he should desire nothing better than to see this clause passed, because he was quite sure that when the poorer classes came to realise how it worked there would be another strong case added to the cases which made the legislation of this Government so unpopular. There was nothing which would tell against the Government so much as this interference with the common liberties and rights of the people, which the House of Commons ought never to touch. Were they losing their sense of liberty altogether? And there was the Labour Party. He was

1643
speaking of those who talked of democracy. It was not democracy; it was tyranny masquerading in the cap of liberty. He was taught a different democracy, and he thought he had retained it. This clause interfered with the daily life and common liberties of the poor, simply because they were poor. It was another case of making poverty a crime. He felt, however, that it was useless to protest. The machine was set, and it would pass the clause. But there was an opinion behind the clause, that of the people of the country, and not of faddists, extremists, and men who had formed societies with secretaries, and all the necessary organisation of societies which made noise entirely out of proportion to their voting power. On the first opportunity, the people would make it known that they resented this interference with their common rights and liberties. In this, as in other matters, the legislation of the Government was a mistake. Let him tell the Prime Minister that it was an arch mistake to treat the voice of small sections of the community, organised into societies with secretaries, and with a voting power not by any means equivalent to the clamour they made, as the voice of the people. That was the great mistake of the Government, and one which would bring them, if it had not already brought them, to ruin. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to deny that. The Government had taken fractions of the people, and because they were noisy and made great demands, backed up by sensational statements, they treated them as voicing the will of the great mass of the people. It was because of that mistake that they dared not go to the country, for they would find it difficult to explain or justify such a clause as this.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid the right hon. Gentleman had told them, quite unnecessarily, that working men were fond of their children. It was just because they were fond of their children that they were found supporting this clause, and he confidently challenged the right hon. Gentleman to say that the working men of the country were not in favour of this clause to keep their children out of public-house bars. The representatives
1644
of the working men in that House, one and all, supported the clause, and those of them who were in touch with the constituencies knew that letter after letter came welcoming the insertion of this clause. The reason that working men throughout the country supported this clause was that they preferred their homes to the public-house, which was so dear to the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Is that a joke?
MR. LEIF JONES: No, it was dead earnest. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman was always picturing the ideal public-house, existing apparently far away in the reminiscences of his boyhood—the public-house where the father took his meal while the mother was near, and the children were playing around.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Hear hear!
MR. LEIF JONES: But that was not a picture of the public-house in the present day, and therefore, it was that the men who knew what public-houses were, gave their support to the Government in their action on this clause. He had been in communication with the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman, with his own constituents, and with the constituents of oilier hon. Members. He had a telegram from the ex-Chairman of the right hon. Gentleman's own Liberal Unionist Association, who was Chairman of a meeting summoned under the auspices of the Birmingham Citizens' Committee, supporting the Licensing Bill, of which the Bishop of Birmingham was President, and which ranked among its members representatives of every denomination and every political Party, and that telegram expressed astonishment and regret at the action of the right hon. Gentleman in putting down an Amendment to reject this clause.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Let me correct my hon. friend. The telegram which I received yesterday had nothing to do with this clause. It referred to my action on the Licensing Bill.
MR. LEIF JONES: I have also a telegram.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I know nothing of your telegram.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid the right hon. Gentleman apparently receives very strange telegrams. Here was the telegram which he had received. [The hon. Member read the telegram.]
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I spoke of my own telegram; I only wanted to correct that.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid he failed to see why, when he was speaking of a telegram which he had himself received, the right hon. Gentleman should continue to correct him about a telegram which had been sent to him. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the legislative machine, and of how this clause was supported by faddists, fanatics, and foolish persons. He had also spoken of this legislation as unwise legislation. The right hon. Gentleman forgot where the clause came from. This was one of the Lords' Amendments. He was bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary had spoken a little more respectfully of legislation emanating from such a source than he was disposed to do. He himself was at liberty to criticise their action. He did not find himself able to use the language adopted by his right hon. friend when he said he was grateful to the House of Lords for this clause. He could not express any gratitude to the House of Lords in any action they might take on the temperance question. The Lords could never undo the mischief they had done in the past. They had deliberately, of their own action, prolonged what the Leader of the Opposition called "the never ending tragedy of this country."
MR. SPEAKER: This has nothing to do with the measure under discussion.
MR. LEIF JONESapologised for having been carried away by his strong feeling on this matter. He was endeavouring to explain the reason why he could not join in expressing gratitude to the House of Lords because out of a whole family they had spared this one child. Personally he was a little sorry
1646
that the right, hon. Gentleman had thought it necessary to put down some Amendments to the clause, because it might be said that they were less keen upon temperance reform than the Lords themselves.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: My Amendment is to delete the whole clause.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid he was referring to some other Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Yarmouth had said that the House of Lords had put in this clause without consideration. He did not think there was any justification for that statement. The Amendment had been on the Paper a good many days, and the Lords had passed it only after due consideration. He should like to meet the argument of the mover of the present Amendment, in which he said that he desired to elevate the public-houses of the country. He would ask him what was the matter with the public-houses. Why did they want elevating? Why did he wish them to raise the position of the public-house? Were they to take it from him that there was anything wrong with them? It was the first time he had heard the admission made from that quarter; but, taking it so, he thought the hon. Member probably shared the idyllic view of the public-house put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Nothing of the kind. I hope you will allow me to correct such a mis-statement as that. I never spoke about the idyllic public-house. What I said was that to see a family in the position I have described, the man and his wife and his child, was an idyllic domestic scene.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid he had no wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman and he did not profess to be quoting him, but he thought the word "idyllic" was a fair description of the picture the right hon. Gentleman had presented. But he took it that he too admitted there was need for elevating the public-house. If the children went in at present in great numbers, they had not succeeded in elevating them.

1647
Even if their going in were going to elevate the public-houses it caused degeneration and infinite mischief among the children, for he said confidently that the nation was not prepared to go on sacrificing children for the sake of the public-houses, and the country as a whole was grateful to the Government for this clause.
MR. BERTRAM, who was indistinctly heard, said that no discussion of any sort or description had taken place on this matter in another place, and he thought it ought to receive full discussion somewhere and in the House of Commons if possible. He had taken the trouble to refer to the Licensing Bill, and the clause relating to the admission of children into public-houses in the Bill as introduced was not this clause. The original clause was never discussed at all and, under the process of closure by compartments, Government Amendments completely recasting and altering the clause and enormously extending its scope were introduced. That was the clause which was now before them, and it was because of the great difference between these two forms of clause that he suggested that the matter was one which ought to be discussed, seeing that the Under-Secretary himself had held within the past few minutes two entirely different views regarding it. The hon. Member whose Amendment was before the House had said a great many things with which he was not prepared to agree, but he certainly felt, with a great amount of regret, that the popularity of this clause in the Blouse was due less to a feeling for the children than to a feeling against the publican. He said that in view of the actual state of the law as it at present was. In the first place there was upon the Statute-book the Sale of Intoxicating Liquor to Children Act of 1901. That introduced a very strong safeguard for the children. Hon. Members on that side of the House, though they were always ready to penalise the publican never appeared willing to take any steps to penalise the parent who took his child into this unhallowed atmosphere. There was no provision as there was in the original clause of the Government's Licensing Bill, to safeguard the publican. All
1648
these safeguards had been removed. The original clause was perfectly fair to the publican and carried out all the purposes and wishes of hon. Members on that side; but the amended clause which went through that House, whether after consultation with the hon. Member for Appleby and his friends he did not know, went through without a word of discussion. It was because the penalisation of the publican under this clause was so severe, and he thought so unreasonable, that, though he disagreed with a great deal of what had fallen from hon. Members opposite, he intended to support the Amendment.
MR. MACLEANsaid that if the clause had no discussion in another place it was not for want of opportunity at any rate. One could only assume that lack of discussion arose from general agreement among the Members of that Assembly as regarded the principles and details of the measure. He would like to draw the attention of the House to what his hon. friend had said as to the frequenting of public-houses by children. The hon. Member had given instances of what happened in London and great cities. He would like to give an instance of what happened in a much smaller area. In a town with which he was acquainted there were 20,000 inhabitants and fourteen public-houses, and in August, 1907, long before the Licensing Bill was introduced, some friends of his made a census of what took place between the hours of 8.30 and 11 on a Saturday night. He knew the circumstances under which the census was taken, and could vouch for the responsibility and the accuracy of those who took it. In these fourteen houses 5,775 persons entered, of whom 3,741 were men, 1,495 women, and 539—about 10 per cent.—children. In one house alone 278 persons entered, of whom twenty-seven only were men, 123 were women, and fifty-six were children. Children did frequent public-houses in very large numbers, and they were mostly just under the age of sixteen. Was that desirable or was it not? He thought there was a general agreement that it was undesirable. A great deal had been said about the penalisation of the publican. Through the length and the breadth of the country there was a very

1649
large measure of agreement amongst the publicans themselves that it was undesirable, and they would be very willing to see children kept out of the bars of their houses. He knew instances where resolutions to that effect had been passed, and there was a very large measure of support for this particular proposition of the Licensing Bill from the licensing trade itself. One heard much about the liberty of the subject. After all they had to consider two things. The adult could look after himself, but the liberty of the child was also a matter for their serious consideration. He thought the House of Commons when it agreed, as he had no doubt it would, with this Amendment of the Lords, would be taking a long and a proper step towards the protection of the children of this country.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid the hon. Member for Appleby had given a modified blessing to the action of another place in inserting this clause in the Bill. He agreed to a certain extent with the hon. Member for Hitchin, and he should agree with him still further if they had to treat this clause as if it stood alone. But they had to look at it as it would appear with the addition of the Government Amendments. As the clause stood he thought it undoubtedly would have created, in many instances, a great deal of hardship, and by the Amendments a large amount of that hardship would be mitigated. As to the necessity for recognising that a great deal of evil and suffering was entailed by the present system, which allowed the admission of children to public-houses, he really thought there could not be two opinons. The Under-Secretary had quoted from the Report of the Chief Constable. He knew few documents, which had ever been presented to the House, which were really more terrible indictments of a great deal of our modern civilisation. He appealed to the Government very sincerely and from the bottom of his heart to consider very carefully whether it was wise to rush in in too headlong a manner. He had listened to the Under-Secretary with great care and attention to see if he would supplement
1650
what appeared in the Report of the Chief Constable. No supplementary evidence was forthcoming at all. Manchester and Birmingham had been quoted but those were great urban centres, and he noticed that his hon. friend the Member for one of the divisions of Kent had an Amendment on the Paper suggesting that this principle should to first adopted. When that Amendment came on he hoped the Government would be able to give them some figures with regard to the alleged existence of this evil in the country districts, where it was obvious that this clause would undoubtedly work a considerable amount of inconvenience and hardship. It had always been with the greatest difficulty and feeling of regret that he ventured to differ from his right hon. friend the Member for Bordesley Division. He yielded to no one in his love for liberty. The right hon. Gentleman said it was only small minorities who were guilty of wrong-doing. As a matter of fact, all legislation was directed against small minorities.
SIR F. BANBURY: But majorities do wrong, sometimes.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he very much doubted whether, as the clause stood, it would have the effect anticipated. He was afraid it would be liable to evasion. The whole point of the clause lay in the definition of what a bar was. The right hon. Gentleman said the Bill provided the definition that a bar was to mean an open drinking bar, but he did not think that was a good definition. The definition given in the Child Messenger Act had been adopted, which defined bar as a place used only for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor. Therefore, a place used for sale alone would not be interfered with, and it would be equally true that a place used for consumption only would be in the same position. If they could divorce sale from sale and consumption it would not affect places in which consumption alone took place, and any publican who wanted to drive a coach and four through this clause only needed to let the sale take place in one room, and the consumption in another.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: But there cannot be consumption without a gale unless the publican gives his liquor away.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked how the Bill would apply to another department where consumption took place and not sale. He thought there was a real danger here, and he hoped when the subsequent Amendment came up for consideration the right hon. Gentleman would direct his attention to the points he had raised, namely, the question of country areas, and the definition clause.
MR. REESsaid that the Under-Secretary had made a very good case, as he invariably did, and he dwelt upon the additional weight this clause would gather on account of its place or origin. He had been followed by the hon. Member for Appleby, without whose blessing no Ministerial pronouncement on temperance was complete. But in spite of those speeches he submitted there was some cause for looking into the effect of this clause instead of swallowing it whole, which he was not prepared to do like the admirers of the Upper House who had previously addressed them. This was really a very stiff and strong clause in its drafting. For instance, it laid down that the holder of a licence should not allow a child to be at any time in the bar of his licensed premises. The term "bar" had been defined in the Bill. A bar was no small part of a public-house, and a great many public-houses were all bar with a little bit behind. Although the right hon. Gentleman had found much comfort in the definition of a bar he submitted that in the working of this section great difficulty would be found. Take the case of a crowd where there were many mothers assembled with children. It was very easy to criticise the women for taking their children with them on such occasions, but mothers had not always got anybody to leave the children with. Assume, for example, Lord Mayor's Day, when suddenly there might be a pressure in the crowd and perhaps a child for safety might be passed over the heads of the crowd into an adjacent public-house and placed in the bar. Supposing the
1652
proprietor of that public-house shut his door against that child. He would at once be stigmatised as a man unfit to conduct a public-house, and if he admitted the child he would be doing something; obnoxious to this section. It was all very well to say that that was not the intention, but what had intention to do with the matter? Judicial officers had to administer the law, and that was absolutely the interpretation of the statute. Surely difficulties in drafting likely to lead to doubt were the very things a legislative assembly ought to consider far more than eloquent perorations. Take another case. Take, for example, a country station, where a father was passing from one place to another and could only see his family on the station as he changed his train. That was an extremely common occurrence. The man's family was brought to the station, and he did not know of any place, particularly on country stations, where the family could be received except in the railway bar. [An HON. MEMBER: There is the waiting room.] That man would be liable under the words of this statute, and therefore this proviso would defeat its own object. The clause did not lay down that the offence must be intentional, but it said boldly and unconditionally that the holder of a licence should not allow the child to be in the bar of licensed premises. He was as anxious as the Members of the House of Lords that children should be protected, but he submitted that this was not the way to protect them. The greatest hardship might be done and it was impossible in this measure dealing with temperance to deal with every conceivable case. He appealed to the House to amend this section and make it such as magistrates could administer without causing hardship to innocent persons. In country places and rural districts it was often the case that with the exception of licensed premises there was hardly any other place where a man could take his family. The cases he had cited were of actual occurrence, and the House should remember in making laws they had to take into account hard cases and the actual meaning of the statute. They had not to consider intention: that was a matter of absolute indifference to the Judiciary who would administer the law.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid he understood that the effect of this Amendment would be to destroy the clause, and he was not prepared to give a vote to that effect. None of them disagreed with the doctrine that children ought to be kept out of the gin houses, but this clause went a good deal further than the gin house, and it left out many distinctions which ought to have been included and provided for. Those defects afforded ample indications that the subject had not been fully thought out by those who had asked the House to legislate on the subject. The hon. Member for Westmoreland and members of societies to promote temperance had long had their minds concentrated on this subject, and they imagined that everybody else was in the same position, and ready to carry out legislation containing the fullest possible details at the smallest possible notice. The small amount of discussion which this subject had received in the House of Lords, and the complete absence of discussion in the Commons, were evidence of the fact that the public did not understand well what this clause proposed to do. After all, they must remember the conditions of the agricultural labourer's life. It must be remembered that the village public-house was the only place where a man could find light, warmth, and company, and it ought not to be made a dismal place where he could do nothing but sit and drink until, being incapable, he could not be allowed to remain longer. Having enumerated all these imperfections in the clause he must say that he had to thank the right hon. Gentleman for some savings and exemptions. On behalf of the railway companies he thanked him for having delivered them from the duty and obligation which would have been absolutely intolerable, of asking their officials and police to interfere with the travelling public who sought to go into their refreshment rooms. Would not the Government even now conciliate some of the opposition to this clause by making some further distinctions? Could they not discriminate between the really flagrant case of the purely urban houses, which ministered to nothing except the mere desire for drink, and the case of rural houses which fulfilled many other
1654
functions? There was also the case of a wife who wished to go into the public-house to get her husband out of it. Supposing she could not go there unless she left her child at home, would not the effect be that she would not go there at all?
SIR J. JARDINEsaid he had listened with great interest to the debate, and he intervened to deal with some aspects of rural life in Scotland which had not been noticed. He expressed disagreement with the hon. Member for the Montgomery Boroughs in regard to the possibility, under the penal clause, of the conviction of a publican who in time of emergency helped a woman who had a crying baby, or who gave shelter to a neighbour whose house was being burned down. He thought the common law maxims would cover cases of that kind. No magistrate would ever convict if such a case were brought before him, nor would any policeman care to make a charge against a publican in the circumstances indicated. He thought the House need not be afraid of any harsh treatment of humane publicans who acted from necessity, which was the highest of all motives. In the county which he had the honour to represent there were parishes where a farm labourer had no opportunity of going to a bar to eat his dinner with the solace of drink. Like a decent man he went home to his wife and family, or his wife and family came to the field with his dinner. He was told that in England there were thousands of cases where public-houses were used for family reunions. That was a point which had been laboured by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He would ask whether that was really the custom in the rural districts of England. If they looked at the literature of the country for centuries, he thought he might say without fear of contradiction they would not find that any great poet or tragedian had regarded the tied-house as the scene of family reunions. In some book they might find a reference to the village public-house as a place where the writer laid stress on the fact that the beer was heavy and the society that of poachers, but it was not described as a place where people would meet their children. They

1655
all knew the touching line in Gray's "Elegy" of the children running to lisp their sire's return, but the poet did not lay the scene of that meeting in the public-house. Neither did Robert Burns in his great poem, "The Cottar's Saturday Night," describe the domestic joy of the family gathering as taking place in a public-house. If they looked into the Bacchanalian literature of the nation, they would find that the scenes depicted were such as would deter parents from wishing that their children should have any knowledge of what went on in drinking places. He thought, therefore, he was justified in saying that for generations it had not been the custom of the people to use public-houses for domestic reunions. He was pleased that certain alterations were being made in the clause which would commend themselves generally. Knowing the feeling of rural Scotland, he welcomed the clause. This Bill was part of a great scheme for improving the condition of the people, and for that reason he hoped the clause now before the House would be passed.
MR. HUNTsaid that the hon. Member who had just spoken did not seem to appreciate that a working man and his wife out for a walk with their family could not take their children into a public-house even to give them a cup of tea. There were a great many public-houses where there was no room except those "mainly used for serving drink." That was really a serious objection to the clause, which would take away a poor man's freedom altogether, even to give his child a cup of tea. He suggested the substitution of the words "entirely used" instead of "mainly used," which he thought would meet the objection of a considerable number of people. In his part of the world it would be very hard in the case of children under fourteen years of age. The hon. Member opposite rather twitted those on that side of the House that the country public-houses were not better than they were. If that were so, one of the chief reasons was because the rabid teetotalers had always done their best to make them bad. They would not allow any improvement to be made or to allow any amusement or games to be enjoyed in them. He
1656
hoped that the Home Secretary would consider the question of altering those words.
MR. HAMAR GREENWOODsaid he wished to protest against the unworthy suggestion of the hon. Member for Hitchin, that those who supported this clause were inspired with a desire to penalise the publican and had no consideration whatever for the tens of thousands of tender children under fourteen years of age, who would, unless this clause passed, be condemned to an environment from which it would be impossible for them to emerge physically and morally sound. He supported this clause because he had seen clauses far more drastic passed into law in the Dominion of Canada and in all the Northern States of the United States of America. In some of the self-governing Colonies of the Empire the age-limit had been raised to as high as twenty-one years. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh!"] He knew that that would not meet with the approval of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, but the fact remained that in no part of the English-speaking world in which a law had been passed fixing a prohibitory age for children entering bars had it ever been repealed. The whole tendency of legislation in the English-speaking world had been in fact to increase the age-limit; and in many cases the age had been fixed at twenty-one. He was amazed that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, who was lucky enough to have been born in New Zealand, the most temperate State in all His Majesty's dominions, should have dared to move the rejection of a clause in this Parliament which he would have been afraid to move in his own native Dominion. He would vote for the rejection of this Amendment because its acceptance would condemn those unfortunate youngsters of the slums in our great cities to influences and environments from which few of them could ever emerge clean-minded young men and young women. He would vote for the clause because it had been successful throughout the English-speaking world, where all classes were united in making the prohibitory age higher and higher, and in no part of which had

1657
it ever been seriously proposed to reduce the age-limit.
MR. CARLILEsaid that he was in a dilemma. He could not vote for the clause as it stood, and certainly he could not vote against it. One felt that this clause had been superficially thought out—that it had been insufficiently considered in another place. They knew that it had not been thoroughly debated in the House of Commons when it was included in the Licensing Bill. He would mention one point only which made him hesitate to vote either for or against the clause. Take the case of a working man with two daughters, one ten years of age and the other sixteen years of age. He asked himself which of these two girls was it best for a working man to send to a public-house to obtain the liquor which he wanted? Clearly, that working man dared not send his sixteen year old daughter. [Cries of "Why?"] He could not, if he held that the surroundings of the public-house were undesirable; and his wife would not permit it. But he might think that his child of ten years of age might be safely sent. That was one dilemma that had not been provided for in the clause; and that showed that the clause had been superficially drafted and discussed. He believed that a better definition could have been arrived at if more consideration had been given to the clause in both Houses.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he understood that his hon. friend was going to withrdaw his Amendment, but he objected to that, because, after the speech of the hon. Member for York, this was an attempt to bring in a clause by which afterwards the age-limit would be increased to twenty-one years.
MR. HAMAR GREENWOODsaid that that was a very serious accusation to make. What he had done in his speech was to quote examples of what had been done in other English-speaking States. He said that in some of these States the age-limit had been raised to twenty-one years; but he did not say that the Government intended to raise the age-limit to twenty-one
1658
years, or that the Government ought to be urged to raise the age-limit to twenty-one years.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that what he intended to say was that the hon. Member believed that the age-limit should be raised to twenty-one years. Unless the hon. Member did wish that, he did not see the use of his argument. He himself believed that England was as sober as any of the other English-speaking countries to which the hon. Member had referred, without all these legislative enactments to which the hon. Member attached so much importance. His belief was that the clause would not tend to increase but to discourage sobriety. There was a strong feeling in the country that all these attempts to dictate to the people in matters of purely domestic economy were resented, and would continue to be resented. He was sorry that his hon. friend was not going to divide, because he believed that the children were thoroughly protected by the Child Messenger Act, to which allusion had been made. He would point out that all hon. Members opposite who had made speeches in favour of this clause were entirely obsessed with the idea that a gin-palace was objectionable. But it must not be supposed that the ordinary public-house in a big town was the same as a country public-house. The hon. Member for Appleby thought that they ought not to oppose this clause because it had come from the House of Lords. He himself did not believe that any human institution was incapable of making an error. Misled as they were, by the hurry of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends during the last few days, the House of Lords had, in his opinion, been induced to pass this clause without due reflection, and he hoped that the Government would so amend it as to make it consonant with what was indicated by the Amendment.
MR. FELLasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment to the Lords' Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. FELL MR. FELL moved to insert words providing that the holder of the

1659
licence of any licensed premises should not allow a child "unless in the charge of a parent, or adult relative, or person acting in the place of a parent," to be at any time in the bar of the licensed premises except during the hours of closing. If the words which he proposed were inserted, he thought it would make the clause satisfactory. He did not wish to travel over the ground of discussion on the first subsection, but he might say that it was obvious that there was a great distinction between the case of children who went into a public-house with their parents for the purpose of obtaining refreshment and those who entered under other circumstances. The distinction was a very great one, and he hoped the suggestion he made would be agreed to. They had had a terrible picture drawn of children being taken into public-house bars by then parents or persons in whose charge they were, but these children were, in almost all cases, in arms or of very tender age, and were not the children at whom this clause pointed in any degree whatever. The terrible scenes caused by mothers taking their children to the public-house and giving them little drops of drink ought to be stopped, and were dealt with by another clause. This clause however, referred to the case of older children who were brought there by their father or mother without the slightest harm resulting. As to the other terrible evil, they must educate the parents to see the harm which was done by a mother taking her child into a public-house or leaving it in a miserable room where it might be burned alive. He did not say that there might not be cases where the mother might remain at home rather than go out to the public-house and leave the child at home, but until better conditions and a better education were obtained for them he was afraid that these evils would not be cured by any such legislation as now proposed. There was, moreover, the case of the mother going to the public-house to fetch the dinner beer. But there were respectable people who took their children into public-houses and refreshment-rooms perfectly honestly and rightly for the purpose of obtaining refreshment, and he thought it would be a great hardship if they were not allowed to do so. He had taken his
1660
own boy of ten or twelve, when out cycling, into bars frequently, and they had had their refreshment. Now apparently, however, that was to be stopped. The other point, as to the difficulty about the age of the children, he considered almost insuperable. There was laughter when his hon. friend behind him suggested that it was rather more dangerous to send a girl over fourteen into a public-house than a girl under fourteen, but he entirely agreed with him, end he considered that to tell girls of fourteen that at that age they could go into public houses would be an invitation to do so. It opened up an immense danger, as they might go there out of bravado or in order to have the laugh of their friends who were under the age. There must be a certain line drawn, of course, but he could not help thinking that the age selected was most unfortunate.
MR. SPEAKERcalled the hon. Member to order for irrelevancy and repetition
MR. FELLwas sorry he was repeating himself. What he meant to suggest by this Amendment, was that a parent might take children under fourteen into public-houses, without doing anything in contravention of the law. He considered that there would be great hardship created if fathers and mothers were not allowed to take their children into a public-house under the circumstances he mentioned, and the pictures which had been drawn of the evils resulting did not apply to this class of case. He begged to move.
SIR F. BANBURY, in seconding the Amendment, said that unless some provision of this sort were inserted in the clause great hardship would result to a large class of deserving people who were taking a holiday or going upon an excursion. They all knew perfectly well that in the vicinity of railway-stations—he was aware that railway bars were to be excepted from the clause—there were inns and hotels where people went and obtained the necessary refreshments if they went for a day at the seaside or in the country, especially in those places to which the railways ran

1661
cheap excursions. It would be impossible for all the people to obtain the refreshments they needed at the railway refreshment rooms. These were not large enough to admit a great number of people, and sometimes an excursion train took as many as 500 or 600 people. Unless the Amendment were accepted, children under fourteen would not be able to obtain the necessary refreshments. Of course, people could go to a teetotal A.B.C. shop, or something of hat description, and no doubt that would meet the views of the hon. Member for Appleby or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley, because they wanted to make it impossible for a man to enter a public-house. A man would not be able, to do so unless he left his child outside. If this Amendment were carried there was no reason to suppose that any great harm; would result to the children, whereas if it were not carried considerable inconvenience would be felt by many people who were enjoying the short leisure they sometimes had at their disposal. They had heard a good deal recently about the necessity of limiting the hours of labour in order to increase the leisure of the working classes, to whom this clause particularly applied, but if those classes when they had leisure were prevented from spending a few days at the seaside or in the country with their children it would be very undesirable. If a man took a packet of sandwiches with him, he could not, under this clause, go into an inn and eat them with his child and have a pint of beer. These were the days of bicycling, and many people went on excursions with their children. It was a healthy recreation, but it was difficult to carry things on a bicycle. If a father,
having his child with him, stopped at a wayside public-house, the child would have to wait outside while the grown-up person went inside. A more ridiculous piece of legislation could not be imagined, and, therefore, he had great pleasure in supporting the Amendment of his hon. friend, who would, he hoped, divide if the Government did not accept it.
Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment—
"In line 2, after the word 'child,' to insert th words 'unless in the charge of a parent, or adult relative, or person acting in the place of a parent.'"—(Mr. Fell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the Government, of course, could not accept the Amendment, which would undo the whole purpose of the clause. The object of the Amendment was to allow children to be taken to any part of a public-house so long as they were accompanied by their parents, but the very mischief they wanted to aim at was that the children should not be taken into the public-house by their parents, and if this Amendment were adopted they might as well have no clause at all. The number of children who went into a public-house unaccompanied by parents was very small. They had had a long discussion on the subsection, and this was practically the same subject, and the Government could not accept the Amendment.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 17; Noes, 192. (Division List No. 456.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Valentia, Viscount

Bertram, Julius

Gretton, John

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Lupton, Arnold

Cave, George

Nield, Herbert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Fell and Sir Frederick Banbury.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Barker, Sir John

Beale, W. P.

Armitage, R.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Beck, A. Cecil

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Barnes, G. N.

Bell, Richard

Bellairs, Carlyon

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc's.)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Hart-Davies, T.

O'Kelly, James (Rocsommon, N.

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

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Boland, John

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Bowerman, C. W.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Pollard, Dr.

Brace, William

Hedges, A. Paget

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Bright, J. A.

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

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Brodie, H. C.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Higham, John Sharp

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Bryce, J. Annan

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Rees, J. D.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hooper, A. G.

Rendall, Athelstan

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Horniman, Emslie John

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

Byles, William Pollard

Houston, Robert Paterson

Ridsdale, E. A.

Cameron, Robert

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hudson, Walter

Roberston, J. M. (Tyneside)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Robinson, S.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Cleland, J. W.

Jardine, Sir J.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Clough, William

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rowlands, J.

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

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jowett, F. W.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Cowan, W. H.

Joyce, Michael

Seddon, J.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Seely, Colonel

Curran, Peter Francis

Kekewich, Sir George

Shackleton, David James

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Laidlaw, Robert

Snowden, P.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Stanger, H. Y.

Duckworth, Sir James

Lehmann, R. C.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lewis, John Herbert

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Erskine, David C.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Summerbell, T.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

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

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Maclean, Donald

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Fenwick, Charles

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Ferens, T. R.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Vivian, Henry

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Walsh, Stehpen

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Crae, Sir George

Ward, John (Stoke, upon-Trent)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

M'Killop, W.

Wardle, George J.

Gill, H. A.

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

Waterlow, D. S.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

M'Micking, Major G.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Glendinning, R. G.

Mallet, Charles E.

Whitbread, Howard

Glover, Thomas

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Whitehead, Rowland

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Marnham, F. J.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Grant, Corrie

Massie, J.

Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Middlebrook, William

Wiles, Thomas

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Wilkie, Alexander

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Morse, L. L.

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

Gulland, John W.

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.

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

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Myer, Horatio

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Hall, Frederick

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Winfrey, R.

Halpin, J.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Nuttall, Harry

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

MR. WHITBREAD*MR. WHITBREAD (Huntingdonshire, Huntingdon) moved at end of subsection (1) to add "or, for the purpose of fetching intoxicating liquor for consumption off the premises subject to the provisions of the Intoxicating Liquor (Sale to Children) Act, 1901." He said this small Amendment merely preserved
1664
the provisions of the existing law. It did not run counter to the main intention of the clause, nor to the intention of the Government. Therefore there was no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not accept it. The Act of 1901, the Child Messenger Act, prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquor to children

1665
on any part of licensed premises. This clause went a little further, and prohibited the presence of children on licensed premises. In the Act of 1901 it was found necessary to introduce a qualification which was felt necessary in order to meet the legitimate demands of a large section of the population. That qualification allowed liquor, to be consumed off the premises, to be served to children in corked and sealed vessels. The provision in the present clause was that a child was not to be allowed in the bar of the premises. If all public-houses were like those in London and other large towns, where there was a separate department for the supply of liquor to be consumed off the premises, the difficulty which he desired to meet would not arise. But the definition of "bar" would cover the whole ground floor premises of the majority of the houses in the country. In the village inn there was no such provision as was found in a London public-house. There might be a small bar, but in a great majority of such premises it would be difficult to say of any part of the ground floor that it was not used for the sale or consumption of drink. In the case of those houses the Child Messenger Act would be over-ridden, and rendered inoperative. That was the case he endeavoured to meet. He did not think it was the intention of the Government to abrogate the Child Messenger Act. He did not say anything about the merits of that Act, but so long as it remained the law, it ought not to be over-ridden in this way. If it had been intended to repeal it, some opportunity for so doing would have been found in a clause of the Licensing Bill, or in the Children Bill, but no such opportunity was taken. Unless some qualification was introduced in this clause, certainly in a large number of houses, such as he had described, the Child Messenger Bill would be practically repealed. He was entirely in favour of keeping children out of the public-house, but he thought at the same time that in providing for that the House ought to be very careful not to abrogate, either by implication or incidentally, privileges which had been specifically enacted in response to a demand. He moved.
MR. MOONEY, in seconding the Amendment, said he was one of those who objected to legislation by reference, but he thought that one thing worse than that was a system of legislation by a clause like this. Although this clause did not specifically repeal the Child Messenger Act, it undoubtedly would do so unless some limitations were put in to prevent that result. The Child Messenger Act was passed in the year 1901, and it was one of those measures which, without the closure, was fully discussed, and strict safeguards were passed so that the child might not get at the liquor for which it was sent. The clause as it now stood, without putting in words such as those proposed, would undoubtedly repeal the whole of that Act. If it was the intention of the Government to repeal that Act, he did not think that this was the proper way to do it. If they left the clause in its present ambiguous form they would find the justices in one part of the country saying that it was the intention of the clause to repeal the Child Messenger Act, while the justices in another part of the country would say that was not the intention because it was not specifically stated. He did not believe that the Government intended to repeal the Child Messenger Act, but if they did not put in the words contained in the Amendment they might have these varying decisions by the justices.
Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—
"In line 3, at the end, to insert the words 'or, for the purpose of fetching intoxicating liquor for consumption off the premises subject to the provisions of the Intoxicating Liquor (Sale to Children) Act, 1901.'"—(Mr. Whitbread.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he did not understand what the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment meant when he referred to the Child Messenger Act as being in effect repealed by this clause. That Act was a restrictive measure which limited provisions which previously existed, and imposed penalties on the holders of on-licences who supplied children with liquor except in sealed or corked

1667
vessels. If this clause were to repeal the Child Messenger Act, the result would simply be that a child could go into a public-house and get the liquor whether or not it was in a corked or sealed vessel. So far from this clause repealing the Act, however, it carried it further, and there could not be for a moment any question of putting it into the repeal schedule of the Bill, a course which would have precisely the opposite effect to that contemplated by the hon. Members themselves. The hon. Member he presumed meant that the clause ran counter to the intention of the Child Messenger Act, which was that liquor might be supplied to children so long as it was carried in corked and sealed vessels. It had been suggested in some important quarters that the Child Messenger Act ought, not to be repealed, but to be carried much, further, and that children should be prevented altogether from going to public-houses as messengers, whether the liquor was carried away in corked and sealed vessels or not. He confessed that there was much to be said for that proposal. But in this case they did not go so far as that. They said that wherever there was an off-sale department, or where there was a jug and bottle department, or whenever there was no consumption of liquor in the house, a child messenger might still be supplied. There was no possibility of a misunderstanding. The only prohibition was that a child might not go into a bar which was used for open drinking, or to any part of the premises which was exclusively or mainly used for the sale and consumption of liquor. There must be both a sale and consumption in that part of the licensed premises for the prohibition to operate.
MR. MOONEYasked the right hon. Gentleman to take the case of licensed premises which simply consisted of one long bar used for the sale of liquor across the counter for consumption on the premises. There was no definition given in the clause that such premises would be regarded as a place to which a child messenger could not go at any time.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that was his point. Where there was the sale
1668
and consumption of liquor in any part of the house, then a child messenger could not go there, for liquor, whether it was in a corked and sealed vessel or not. But there was a very large number of places all over the country to which the child messenger might go. Further, when this Bill passed, he believed that publicans who desired to have places on their premises where a child messenger could be served would have jug and bottle departments where they had not got them already, and they would provide places for the purpose of serving children who might be sent to their premises. That might not be in itself a desirable thing, but certainly it would be much more desirable than that children should be served, as now, in some part of the premises where there was a sale and consumption of liquor. They certainly could not accept this Amendment, because they were anxious to keep the child from what they regarded as the contaminating surroundings of drinking places. There was a further reason against the Amendment, namely, that if they were to insert words of this kind they would be making a large loophole for evasion. Of course it would not apply to an infant in arms, but take the case of a child of larger growth. If a policeman found a child in the bar nothing would be easier than to say that it had come there as a messenger. Or if the mother was in the bar she might say that she had taken her child in there because she was going to send him home with a bottle of beer. So long as they had simple prohibition of the presence of the child, then they had an easily enforceable provision. Once they made an exemption of the messenger, then they would have evasion. Further, he believed that when once this law was passed it would become very well understood amongst the people, and they would not see children being sent to the drinking bars in future, so that in time people would forget that there was any statutory prohibition at all. But if they put in words of the character proposed, they would introduce a certain element of confusion, and they would spoil the simplicity of the law. As there was no great necessity for any charge, he hoped that the House would not accept the Amendment.
MR. CAVEsaid he would be sorry to support any Amendment which would minimise the protection properly given to children. But he thought that they ought to have regard to the general convenience, and give that protection with a certain amount of common sense. It seemed to him that in refusing this Amendment the Government were going rather beyond that rule. It was true that they were not in terms proposing to repeal the Child Messenger Act, but they were repealing a considerable exception in that Act which was inserted by Parliament when that measure was passed, so far as regarded bars and other places coming within the denomination of bars. They all knew that there were places in the country where there was but one room in the public-house. It was a room with a bar at one end and with seats perhaps in the rest of the space. It was a room where the whole of the business of the house was done, whether is was an on or off sale, and the effect of this clause without the Amendment would be that no child under fourteen could be sent there for the liquor which his father consumed. He thought that was an unnecessary rule and that this exception ought to be allowed. The right hon. Gentleman said that the clause with this Amendment would be liable to evasion. He did not think that there was any real risk of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if the child were seen in the bar it might be replied that it was there as a messenger, but it would be quite easy to test whether that statement was true or not. In order to make a defence the parent must himself go and say that he had sent the child for the purpose of obtaining liquor for his own consumption. He would have to prove his case up to the hilt, and if there was the least suspicion of evasion he was quite sure that the evidence would be very carefully tested and the person would not escape unless he had a real and genuine defence. What evidence was there of any harm which would be caused by this Amendment? What evidence was there that the children who would be sent as messengers to bars within the meaning of this clause had been found to consume drink upon the premises or to abuse the privileges of the Act?
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is not suggested.
MR. CAVEasked why, if no evil was suggested, this Amendment was not accepted? Children who went to these places to obtain liquor in corked and sealed vessels did, in fact, bring the liquor away, and no harm was done to them. Why should not the liberty given by Parliament in 1901 be continued in the present day? He did not think that a clause which admittedly affected the convenience of a large number of people ought to be insisted upon unless some evil existed which would otherwise be continued. He hoped that the matter would be reconsidered, and that the Amendment would be ultimately accepted. They ought to compare this clause with the clause in the original Bill. In the original Bill the clause was not of universal application. At certain times the justices thought it necessary to apply it, but it was extremely likely that in country places the justices, where there was only one room in the house, would feel that it was inconvenient to apply the clause, and also unnecessary unless a real evil existed. In that respect this Bill was different. This Bill was universal—there was no exception even in the case of a public-house such as he had suggested. In resisting this Amendment the Government were going beyond what were the real needs of the case. He certainly felt bound to vote for the hon. Member's Amendment.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS,)said the principle underlying the clause was that a bar was not a desirable place for a child under fourteen. If he was right in saying that that was the foundation of the clause, then this Amendment would run counter to that principle. The clause did not prevent the child messenger from going to the public-house if such a child was not brought under the contaminating influences of the bar. If a child should not be in the bar whilst its parent was drinking there, because of its contaminating influence, then surely it was an equally bad place to which to send a child messenger for liquor. Hon. Members knew probably

1671
that the provision of the Child Messenger Act had been considerably weakened by the decision of the Courts, that all the publican had to do was to prove that he was either manager or licensee, and that he had given orders to his servants and to everybody in the house that they were not to supply children. If the publican proved that, and that was most easy of proof, for his servant would probably corroborate his employer's statement, then the Courts had decided that the servants in that house could supply beer or liquor in bottles which were not corked and sealed at all within the meaning of the Act of Parliament. In that way the provision of the Child Messenger Act had been weakened very much, and if they accepted this Amendment he thought that it would lead to possible evasion of the Act. It was true, no doubt, that some inconvenience might be caused to parents if they were prevented from sending their children to the public-house to obtain dinner or supper beer, but as against that they must put the undoubted evil arising to the child from being in a place which was used mainly as a drinking place. It was not too much in the interests of the children to ask that those who kept public-houses, if they desired to supply child messengers in accordance with the Act of 1901, should so arrange their house that a place in or about the premises should be arranged so that the child need not go into the bar at all. On those grounds the Government found it impossible to assent to the Amendment, and must support the clause as it came down from another place.
MR. GRETTONdid not think the case was quite as simple as the hon. and learned Gentleman represented it to be. He had not taken account of the fact that to make any alteration in his premises he had to obtain the consent of the local justices.
SIR S. EVANS: I assume the local justices would not dream of refusing permission to alter the premises so as to prevent the necessity of the children going to the bar.
MR. GRETTONsaid the presumption of the hon. and learned Gentleman was
1672
going a very long way, and, putting it at the very lowest, had not been justified by experience of the administration of local justices. They all knew the composition of some benches, and how usual it was in some districts that they represented the extreme opinions of such as desired to degrade public houses to the lowest possible level, and to prevent any kind of facility, however desirable, for the distribution of alcoholic drink.
MR. LEIF JONES: Can the hon. Member name any bench to which that description applies?
MR. GRETTONsaid he did not want to enter into a long controversy on the matter, but he was quite sure the hon. Member for Westmoreland could name as many benches as he could, and perhaps more, who took those views.
MR. LEIF JONES: I think I could, but I cannot name one. I hear the charge freely made, but I have never heard an instance given of a bench to which a description of that kind properly applies.
MR. GRETTONsaid he was not prepared to give the hon. Member a list now, but if he wished for a list of benches of that kind he was quite prepared to give it to him privately, and to satisfy him of some flagrant cases where action of this kind had been taken.
MR. LEIF JONES: I shall be very glad to receive it.
MR. GRETTONsaid the Solicitor-General seemed to think that under no circumstances should any child under the age of fourteen be admitted, even for the purpose of fetching alcoholic liquor in a sealed vessel, into an open drinking bar.
SIR S. EVANS: I said that no Member of this House, whatever Party he belonged to, would like to send a child under fourteen to such a place.
MR. GRETTONthought the hon. and learned Gentleman was making a very

1673
large assumption. In the first place, they came to the great difficulty as to what was an open drinking bar, and what took place in an open drinking bar which made that place, under all circumstances, on all occasions, and in every instance, a case for the prohibition of any child under the age of fourteen. That had not been explained, and he thought, at any rate, the main argument upon which this clause was based should be put absolutely clearly and distinctly before the House. It should be remembered that these drinking bars were very much what local justices had made them. The powers of the local justices had been very great in the past, and had been exercised very freely and in many different directions according to the ideas of policy prevailing on the local benches. In many cases the local justices had insisted that every possible partition or division in licensed premises should be done away with, and that the whole premises should be one open drinking bar. On what ground had they insisted on that, if the open drinking bar was the one case which those who advocated temperance reform fixed upon as that most desirable to do away with—that one form of licensed premises from which it was most desirable
to keep the child? That question, he thought, should be answered, and he was afraid it was a difficult one to answer for those who were supporting the clause. He was not opposing the clause, not because he agreed with it, but because he believed both Houses desired to make some restrictions in this direction. The only object he had was that those restrictions should be of the least possible inconvenience to the public who desired legitimately and reasonably to use licensed premises, and the penalties to be inflicted should be applied with justice and equity to the person who held the licence. He thought, at any rate, unless some provision was made in connection with the Amendment to enable the child messenger to be sent to fetch beer or spirits for the parents' dinner or supper under reasonable conditions, those facilities should be afforded, and though he did not think the Amendment was in many respects an ideal Amendment, in the absence of anything better he should certainly vote for it.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 19; Noes, 173. (Division List No. 457.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.Sir Alex. F.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Baldwin, Stanley

Forster, Henry William

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kint, Mid)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gretton, John

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whitbread and Mr. Cave.

Bertram, Julius

Helmsley, Viscount

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm)

Mooney, J. J.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Bowerman, C. W.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Brace, William

Cowan, W. H.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Crooks, William

Armitage, R.

Bright, J. A.

Crosfield, A. H.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Curran, Peter Francis

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Barker, Sir John

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Barnes, G. N.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Dobson, Thomas W.

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

Byles, William Pollard

Duckworth, Sir James

Beale, W. P.

Cameron, Robert

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Beck, A. Cecil

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Bell, Richard

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Erskine, David C.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Esslemont, George Birnie

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

Cleland, J. W.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Bennett, E. N.

Clough, William

Everett, R. Lacey

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Fenwick, Charles

Boland, John

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

Ferens, T. R.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lehmann, R. C.

Robinson, S.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Gill, A. H.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Glendinning, R. G.

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

Rowlands, J.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Maclean, Donald

Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland)

Grant, Corrie

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas T.

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

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Seddon, J.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

M'Crae, Sir George

Shackleton, David James

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Griffith, Ellis J.

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

Snowden, P.

Gulland, John W.

M'Micking, Major G.

Stanger, H. Y.

Hall, Frederick

Mallet, Charles E.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Halpin, J.

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Marnham, F. J.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Massie, J.

Summerbell, T.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Middlebrook, William

Taylor,, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Hart-Davies, T.

Montgomery, H. G.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Morse, L. L.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.

Vivian, Henry

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Myer, Horatio

Walsh, Stephen

Haworth, Arthur A.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Nuttall, Harry

Wardle, George J.

Hedges, A. Paget

O'Brien, Kendall (Tipperary Mid

Waterlow, D. S.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

Parker, James (Halifax)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Whitehead, Rowland

Higham, John Sharp

Pirie, Duncan V.

Whitley, John Henry (Halefax)

Hooper, A. G.

Pollard, Dr.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Horniman, Emslie John

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wiles, Thomas

Hudson, Walter

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wilkie, Alexander

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

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

Jardine, Sir J.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rea, Walter Russell (Searboro')

Winfrey, R.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rees, J. D.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Rendall, Athelstan

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Master of Elibank and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

Kekewich, Sir George

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

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Laidlaw, Robert

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradfrd)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

MR. CAVEsaid his Amendment provided to confine the penalty for allowing a child to be in the bar to a publican who knowingly committed that offence. There was a consequential Amendment to leave out the subsection which provided that if a child was found in a bar, the publican was to be presumed to be guilty unless he proved himself innocent. The point he desired to make was quite apart from the matter they had been discussing, and he regretted to see the principle introduced and extended in our laws. The effect was to cast an unfair burden on those carrying out this particular trade. If a publican made a mistake in the age of the child he was to be fined and have his licence endangered, or, again, an offence might be committed while the publican was away from the premises, and although he had given strict instructions, and was absolutely free from any
1676
blame, he was to be criminally punished. That was the kind of thing he wanted to prevent. It was perfectly true that a publican was liable for permitting drunkenness unless he proved that he took all proper precautions, but he had known more than one hard case under that provision. There was a well-known case where the publican was actually asleep when the drunken person came into the bar, and he was fined and his licence was endangered; and there was another where the publican's instructions to his manager were disobeyed, and the publican was fined and lost his licence. The Solicitor-General had referred to the fact that under the Intoxicating Liquor Act of 1901 where the word "knowingly" was inserted a case had been decided in which a publican got off on proving that he had given strict orders to his servants to obey the Act, and they had disobeyed them. He did not think that was a very

1677
serious consequence of inserting the word. If he gave proper orders he ought not to be personally liable if they were disobeyed, but the servant ought to be liable.
MR. GRETTONsaid he did not go so far as to say the clause was intended more for the punishment of the licensee than for the protection of children, but unless amended, it laid the Government open to the accusation that they were more interested in penalising the licensee. It required very strong argument to set on one side the principle that a man should be deemed innocent until he was proved guilty. If he had taken every reasonable precaution that the law should be obeyed it would be an enormous hardship if he was penalised for some accidental infringement of the clause by the endorsement of his licence, which was a long step towards losing it, and with it his livelihood. He did not think the fact that the law was not enforced in one case owing to some misunderstanding of the word "knowingly" would convince the House that there should be a general upheaval of the legal principle that an accused man should be held to be innocent until he was proved to be guilty.
Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment—
"In line 4, after the word 'licence,' to insert the word 'knowingly.'"—(Mr. Cave.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'knowingly' be there inserted."
SIR S. EVANSsaid the principle that had been alluded to as a general principle of law relating to criminal matters was a very good one, that a man should be presumed to be innocent until he was proved to be guilty. But it was generally understood that that principle had been a good deal encroached upon in recent Acts of Parliament, and in a case of this kind the principle was invoked without sufficient foundation. Of course, he was not, as a lawyer, going to argue that an offence under the Licensing Act of 1872, or a contravention of this particular section, was not in some sense a criminal offence involving a criminal charge, but it was only a criminal
1678
charge in the sense that it was not upon the line of matters relating to civil law. Ordinarily speaking, when they talked about criminal law they meant the commission of a crime. This no doubt was a contravention of an Act of Parliament, and upon a prosecution for an offence under it there could be a conviction. Was it right, or was it not, to say that a man could not be convicted in a case of this kind, unless he knowingly committed that offence? They started here from this principle. Prima facie the presence of a child under fourteen in a public-house showed an offence. He ought not to be there said Parliament. Was it too much to say, therefore, that where that did occur the person who was responsible for the conduct of the business of the house, and to whom had been entrusted the position of being responsible for the conduct of the licensed premises, unless he proved that he used due diligence to prevent contravention of the Act, must he held to be guilty? The Amendment must be taken in conjunction with a consequential Amendment to leave out subsection (3). If the provision was considered with the provision in subsection (3), he did not think the House would say they were doing anything unreasonable in making this proposal, because what happened was that, where a child was found on licensed premises the holder of the licence could show, if he could, that he had used due diligence to prevent the child being admitted to the bar. That was to say, that as the person responsible for the conduct of the business of the house, he had taken such precautions as in the ordinary course of things would prevent this contravention of the Act. They thought that was a perfectly reasonable enactment to make, and they said also, first of all, that there was ample precedent for it, and if they put in the word "knowingly" it would open the door to a great deal of possible evasion. The Act of 1901 was an infraction of the 1872 Act, and did not provide precedent for them to follow. The precedent for them to follow was that of the 1872 Act, which made the licensed victualler himself liable whether he committed the offence by himself or through another for whom he was

1679
responsible. There were similar precedents in other statutes. In the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1887 they had the same kind of legislation, the manager, agent or owner who was the person responsible for the mine prima facie being made liable. He thought the use of the word "knowingly" could easily be shown to be productive of a good deal of confusion. A magistrate had recently said that when the comic history of English legislation came to be written they would discover that the word "knowingly" was inserted in an Act of Parliament in order to make the Act a dead letter. Dealing with a similar matter of legislation in 1898 there was a proposal made in the House of Keys to insert the word "knowingly" and that assembly decided against the insertion. He thought that the Act had worked very well without it in the Isle of Man, and he hoped that in this matter the House of Commons would not tall below the standard of the House of Keys.
MR. BERTRAMdiffered from the Solicitor-General when he said that they should follow the 1872 Act rather than the Act of 1901. The use of the word "knowingly" was due to the fact that there was cast upon the licensee in the 1901 Act an obligation not to serve persons below a certain age. By using the word "knowingly" it was intended that the licence-holder should take reasonable precautions as to the age of the person he served with liquor. That Act had not been a dead letter. On the contrary, it had been productive of excellent results since it was passed. There had been isolated cases where it had failed, but that had not been due to the use of the word "knowingly." If the word "knowingly" was not included in this subsection, he thought a licensee would find himself in a tight place if, after proceedings were taken, the licensing justices decided under Section 122 that the age of a child was thirteen and it might subsequently turn out that the child was fourteen and a half. He thought it was very unfair not to insert the word.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid there was some substance in the contention of
1680
his hon. friend. In a case where a licence-holder had been dealing with a person who looked sixteen but might subsequently be proved to be under fourteen, a possible injustice might occur. He thought the burden of disproof, however, should rest upon the licence-holder. He thought the case could be met by adding at the end of subsection (3) the words "or that the child is a person apparently over the age of fourteen."
Amendment to the Lords' Amendment negatived.
Lords' Amendment amended by inserting—
"In line 15, at the end, the words 'or that the child was apparently a person over the age of fourteen.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL MR. HERBERT SAMUEL moved to insert in line 1 of subsection (4) words to prevent the application of the subsection "in the case of any child of the licence-holder." He said it had been pointed out that there were cases, and especially in Scotland, where the publican did not reside upon the licensed premises. His child might bring his meals to him, and that was a case which Government thought should be met by this Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment—
"In line 16, after the word 'apply,' to insert the words 'in the case of any child of the licence-holder or.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid he did not see the force of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, because there was nothing in the clause to prevent a child going into licensed premises. The right hon. Gentleman had said there was nothing to prevent a child going to other parts of the premises so long as it was not to a bar.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: There are many public-houses which are all bar.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid the definition of "bar" given by the right hon. Gentleman was rather wider than he cared for, but it emphasised the point which he wished to bring under notice.
Amendment to Lords' Amendment, agreed to.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL moved to insert words to make the clause inapplicable to a child who was in the bar of licensed premises solely for the purpose of passing through in order to obtain access to some other part of the premises, not being a bar, where there was no other convenient means of access to that part of the premises. He said there were a certain number of public houses where the bar was a passage, so to speak, and it was only possible to get to the publican's private apartments or other parts of the premises by passing straight through the bar. Technically, a child so passing through might he held to be in the bar, and consequently there would be an offence committed by the licence-holder. He did not suppose any conviction would be obtained, but in order to make it clear that there was no offence in such a case he moved the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment—
"In line 17, after the word 'premises,' to insert the words 'or who is in the bar of licensed premises solely for the purpose of passing through in order to obtain access to some other part of the premises, not being a bar, where there is no other convenient means of access to that part of the premises.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. CHARLES ROBERTSsaid he could not help deprecating the words of the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to insert. It was said that the child would only be passing through the bar in order to get to the private premises of the publican. He quite admitted that a child's passing through a bar was a minor point; but, at the same time, he felt quite convinced that whenever there was an offence of this sort the defence invariably would be that the child was there to pay a visit to a playmate,
1682
and they could always get a number of people to take an oath that that was the case. He did not see why the House of Commons should be below the temperance opinion which obtained in the House of Lords, and he wished to make his protest against the Amendment.
MR. GULLANDsaid he would like to associate himself with what had been said by the hon. Member for Lincoln. He was sure that if the Amendment were accepted, the ingenuity of the trade would get round the first subsection of the clause. He wished the Under-Secretary would state what he meant by the words in his Amendment—"some other part of the premises." The right hon. Gentleman mentioned in the discussion of a previous Amendment the case of Scotland. He knew of very few cases where a licence-holder had his entrance to his house through a bar; and if there was an eating place in the establishment, in his opinion, the access to it should not be through the bar. The access to the living part of the house should by a separate door, and not through the bar. He was extremely sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should have proposed this Amendment.
MR. GRETTONsaid that the speeches of the two hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken were the strongest comment possible on the administration of the licensing laws. He did not quarrel with these hon. Gentlemen. He recognised that they held extreme views. All he wanted to point out was that there was a structural difficulty in many licensed premises in the way of having a door by which a child might go in to the living part of the house without going through the bar. He did not suppose that the two hon. Gentleman opposite were prepared to go the length of saying seriously that in all cases and in all circumstances and on all occasions, the children of a licence-holder should be prohibited from going into licensed premises or entering the bar even for the purpose of taking their meals with their parents in a room set apart for that purpose.
SIR FRANCIS CHANNINGsaid h would like to associate himself with what had been said by the hon. Member for

1683
Lincoln and the hon. Member for Dumfries Burghs, because it was perfectly obvious from the unanswerable arguments of his right hon. friend in reply to the Member for Huntingdonshire, that the words proposed to be now inserted in this clause would render evasion even more easy under that Amendment. It seemed to him that it would be most unfortunate if they accepted this Amendment, which would re-open the door which had been closed by the non-acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire.
MR. REEShoped the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary would stick to his guns. He objected to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Lincoln that the standard of temperance in the House of Lords was higher than in the House of Commons. He wondered whether the hon. Members who objected to this Amendment had ever visited an ordinary public-house. Since the Licensing Bill was introduced, he himself had taken the trouble to inspect a great number of public-houses, and he could say that unless some such Amendment as was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman were accepted there could be no access whatever to the non-bar parts of the licensed premises. The hon. Member for Lincoln had suggested that there was always a back entrance to a public-house; but his experience in visiting a great number of public-houses was that in the majority of them there was absolutely no access to the living premises except from the front part of the house. It really seemed to him that an objection to so moderate an Amendment as that proposed by the Under-Secretary was the high-water mark of intolerance.
MR. CHERRYdid not think there was any Member in the House who was more anxious than himself to keep children out of public-house bars; but he thought it would be unreasonable not to allow children to pass through a bar for the purpose of getting tea with their parents when that was the only means of access. The hon. Member for Dumfries Burghs said that another access should be made. That reminded him of the story of a distinguished Fellow
1684
of Trinity College who made a large hole in the door of his coach-house for the admission of the dog, and another smaller one for the admission of the cat. The hon. Member seemed to wish that there should be one door for the licence-holder and another smaller one for the children. He thought the Amendment was a reasonable one and ought to be accepted.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid that the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that it would be unreasonable not to accept the Amendment. He himself thought that the clause, amended or unamended, was unreasonable and unworkable, because in the majority of country inns and small public-houses on the roadside every room on the ground floor was a bar, and a child could not go to the living room where she might have tea with her parents without going through a bar. That constituted the hardship and the injustice of the clause.
Amendment to the Lords' Amendment, agreed to.
Amendment made to the Lords Amendment—
"By inserting in line 3 of subsection (4), after the word 'of,' the words 'railway refreshment rooms, or other.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
SIR D. GODDARDin moving to omit the words "or any part of the premises" from the definition of the word "bar," said he yielded to no one in his desire to save children from any contamination which might arise from their going into public-houses. He supported this clause as it came down from another place, and he believed the great majority of licence-holders would agree in the desire to keep children out of the drinking bar of their places, but the question arose as to whether the clause did not go further than was really intended. The matter had been raised several times that evening, and he would not go into it at length, but he would take the case of "trippers" at the sea-side. They very often took their provisions for the day, and they went to eat or were driven by a storm for shelter into a

1685
room attached to licensed premises for that purpose. He supposed it was mainly provided by the publican for the purpose of dispensing drink, but that was the only place to which these people could go, and it seemed to him that there was a great deal of difference between keeping children out of bars and keeping them out of that perfectly innocent place. Or take again the case of people who went into a country town for the market. They put up their horse and cart at a public-house. The man went to the market and the family went into the town to do their shopping. The public-house was their place of meeting, and there was a room where they met. No doubt that room at some time in the day, certainly in the evening, would be correctly described as being mainly used for the supply of intoxicating liquor, though, perhaps, during the day it was not used for that purpose, but was used by people who went there to take their snack of food, although, doubtless, they might have drink. It seemed to him to be going too far in such a case as that to put it under a clause like this. He had put down an Amendment to leave out the words "or any part of the premises," but he was quite willing to admit that that might not be the best way of effecting the object he had at heart, and he would be most willing to accept any words which would meet his case in a better way. At present he did not see how they could meet this very legitimate use of licensed premises by children, who were always accompanied by their parents, except by omitting these words. The right hon. Gentleman would probably tell him that the case was covered by the words "mainly used," and if it was a place which was "mainly used" for the purpose of taking food as well as liquor that it would not come under this clause. If he could give him a positive assurance of that kind he was perfectly willing to accept it, but he would be most interested in hearing what he had to say in regard to the matter. In order that he might do so he begged to move the Amendment.
MR. WHITBREADseconded, and said the Amendment was entirely in accord with one he moved previously.
1686
The object of the clause, he took it, was to prevent the child from being taken into what was usually known as a bar, and he repeated what had often been shown in the course of this debate, that if they adopted the definition clause as it stood on the Paper in respect of a large number of country Tillage inns there was no part of the ground floor which would not properly come under the provisions of this clause, and as the discussion had gone on it had become more and more obvious that in various parts of the House there was growing up a feeling that if this definition was to be adhered to in its entirety it would go far beyond the intentions of this new clause, and very far beyond its intentions as it originally appeared in the Licensing Bill on the Second Reading. It would also inflict a certain amount of hardship, which he thought they should always avoid if they could. He hoped they should not hear about this Amendment the argument which had been frequently used, that it would lead to evasions of the law. That was the answer to the Amendment which he moved himself, but the right hon. Gentleman accepted an Amendment which certainly admitted of far more risk of evasion of the law than his, he meant the proposal which allowed a child to be in a bar on the pretext that it was passing through to another part of the premises. He could not imagine a proposal which would give rise to more attempts at evasion than that, and he could not help feeling some sympathy with his hon. friend behind him when that argument was used against him. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment was thoroughly in accord with the spirit of this clause, and was, he knew, deeply impressed with the desirability of excluding children from what was called the contaminating influence of a bar. When they talked about that they had in their minds the brightly lit, large, attractive bar of a large urban gin palace, and they had not in their minds, and he did not think this clause was ever intended to cover the case of the small country village inn, which had been so aptly described by the hon. Member for Bordesley. That was a case in which, if this definition was adhered to, there would be a certain amount of unmerited and unintended

1687
inconvenience, and if they could have words which would get rid of that he hoped the Government would adopt them. He begged to second.
Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment—
"In line 22, to leave out the words 'or any part of the premises.'"—(Sir D. Goddard.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords' Amendment."
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the hon. Gentleman had warned him about accepting Amendments which would lead to evasion, and he should certainly bear his warning in mind in asking the House not to accept this Amendment. The intention of the proposal was to limit the prohibition of this clause only to the case of open drinking bars, whatever they might be, but he did not think it should be limited to that. From his point of view the mischief which the clause aimed at was just the same whether the facilities were actually in the form of a bar, or a room furnished with small tables and used mainly for purposes of drinking. It was just as desirable to exclude children from that particular room as from the open bar. In almost all better class inns there were rooms mainly used for meals or for commodities non-alcoholic. So far as these rooms existed children would be admitted. If they did not exist the children ought not to be admitted. To accept the Amendment would be to defeat the purpose of the clause.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid the speech which the right hon. Gentleman had just delivered showed a change of front from that which he adopted earlier in the afternoon, because he then gave as his description of a bar the commonly applied form which did not refer to rooms which were used for other purposes as well as for the sale of drink. His own attitude on this clause depended very largely upon the definition of the word "bar," and it seemed to him the crux of the whole position. He should like to see children prevented from going into a bar strictly so-called, and from being taken into those attached
1688
to the gin-palaces which were described just before by the hon. Gentleman opposite; but he agreed with the right hon. Member for Bordesley that they would create great hardship in rural districts it they prevented children being on licensed premises at all, because, unless this Amendment were accepted that was what it meant, and no matter at what inconvenience to the parent the child would not be allowed to come within the door. That was a very far-reaching provision, and went beyond what was proposed when the original Licensing Bill came before the House, and if the clause remained in that position he would not be prepared to support it, although he thought there was a considerable amount of good in it, inasmuch as it prevented a child from going into what was understood by an ordinary bar. It had been said by hon. Members that this House ought not to adopt a lower standard of temperance than that which had been attained even in the House of Lords. That was not an argument to which too much attention should be paid, although it was a new thing for hon. Members opposite to hold up the House of Lords as being so immaculate that their decisions should not be altered. The House of Lords made no secret of the fact that this was not a clause put in on their own initiative. It was salvage from the Bill which they had rejected. They said, although the Bill was bad still there were some good things in it, and they took this out of it. It was a clause that had never been discussed in this House, and, therefore, it was legitimate to discuss it now, in order that it might be made workable, and the great injustice that it entailed removed. He, personally, would prefer the words of his hon. friend which defined the position more closely, and said—
"Does not mean any bar in a room usually used for the supply of meals."
That was a better form of words and conveyed more accurately what they would like to see carried in the Bill. He had no objection to children being prevented from going into the actual bar of a public-house, but they wished to preserve to them the rooms not mainly or exclusively used for the consumption and sale of liquor. As a rule, the only

1689
room which would be used for this purpose in a country public-house would be the parlour, and that would be the only room which would not be open to the children.
MR. REESsaid that his right hon. friend spoke, as if quoting from the Lords' Amendment, of a room used mainly or exclusively for the sale of intoxicating liquor. If those had been the words of the Amendment he would have entirely agreed with his right hon. friend, but the words were, "any part of the premises" which introduced an important distinction. Without going to the rural public-house, which certainly was far more deserving of considerate treatment than the gin-palace, he might point out that there were many houses in the
suburbs of London where there was beside the bar a sort of annex, furnished with tables and chairs, where many people partook of perfectly innocent refreshments. Under the terms of this subsection "any part of the premises" would apply to such an annex. Did the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary really mean to contend that such a place was on the same footing as a room mainly or exclusively used for the consumption or sale of liquor? If not, would he consider the Amendment which had been moved by his hon. friend, and which had been seconded and supported in such extremely moderate terms.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 166 Noes, 34. (Division List No. 458.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Jowett, F. W.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Duckworth, Sir James

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Armitage, R.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Kekewich, Sir George

Armstrong, W. G. Heaton

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Laidlaw, Robert

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Erskine, David C.

Lehmann, R. C.

Barnes, G. N.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Beale, W. P.

Everett, R. Lacey

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Bell, Richard

Fenwick, Charles

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

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

Ferens, T. R.

Maclean, Donald

Bennett, E. N.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Forster, Henry William

M'Crae, Sir George

Bowerman, C. W.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Brace, William

Gill, A. H.

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

Bramsdon, T. A.

Glendinning, R. G.

M'Micking, Major G.

Bright, J. A.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Mallet, Charles E.

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Bryce, J. Annan

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gulland, John W.

Marnham, F. J.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton

Massie, J.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Hall, Frederick

Middlebrook, William

Byles, William Pollard

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Cameron, Robert

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Morse, L. L.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Murray, Capt Hn A. C. (Kincard.)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hart-Davies, T.

Myer, Horatio

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cleland, J. W.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Nuttall, Harry

Clough, William

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Parker, James (Halifax)

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

Haworth, Arthur A.

Partington, Oswald

Cooper, G. J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Higham, John Sharp

Pirie, Duncan V.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Cowan, W. H.

Hooper, A. G.

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Crooks, William

Horniman, John Emslie

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Crosfield, A. H.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Curran, Peter Francis

Hudson, Walter

Rendall, Athelstan

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

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

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Jardine, Sir J.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Robinson, S.

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

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Roch, Walter P. (Pembroke)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Wiles, Thomas

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

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Wilkie, Alexander

Seddon, J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Shackleton, David James

Verney, F. W.

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

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

Vivian, Henry

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Walsh, Stephen

Winfrey, R.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Treat)

Snowden, P.

Wardle, George J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Waterlow, D. S.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Summerbell, T.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn Sir Alex. F.

Craik, Sir Henry

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Nield, Herbert

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fletcher, J. S.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Forster, Henry William

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Beck, A. Cecil

Gretton, John

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Halpin, J.

Valentia, Viscount

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Cave, George

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Helmsley, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Daniel Goddard and Mr. Whitbread.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Callings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

Hunt, Rowland

MR. HUNT MR. HUNT moved to leave out the words "exclusively or mainly," and to insert the words "not entirely." He thought all the difference centred round the words "used mainly." It was very difficult to say how lawyers might interpret them. He knew of a public-house where there was one room which was not a bar, but in which people were served when the actual bar was full. Probably it would be held that that room was part of licensed premises where children could not be taken. It would be the same in a good many other cases. A man would not be able to take his wife and children into a public-house after they had been out for a walk or a drive, to get a cup of coffee, tea, or whatever they might want. The acceptance of the words "not entirely" instead of "used mainly" would certainly get rid of considerable difficulty. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that in his part of the world the people were not at all pleased about the clause. They said it would prevent them getting any refreshment for their children when they went out for a walk on a Saturday or a Sunday. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept the words he proposed.
SIR F. BANBURYseconded.
Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment—
"In line 22 to leave out the words 'exclusively or mainly,' in order to insert the words 'not entirely.'"—(Mr. Hunt.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords' Amendment."
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid this was the most extraordinary Amendment moved in the history of this or any other Bill.
SIR F. BANBURY: My hon. friend, of course, meant to move to insert the word "entirely" and not the words "not entirely."
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Then the hon. Baronet who seconds presumes the Amendment proposes precisely the opposite to what it does. If the clause were amended as proposed, it would read: "In this section the bar of licensed premises means any open drinking bar or any part of the premises not entirely used for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor." A publican's bedroom was not entirely used for the consumption of liquor; but that would

1693
come under the hon. Gentleman's proposed definition of a bar. Presuming that the hon. Gentleman meant the opposite to what he said, and that he really wanted to insert the word "entirely" and not the words "not entirely," what would be the consequence? The clause would then read: "In this section the bar of licensed premises means any open drinking bar or any part of the premises entirely used for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor." Whisky was usually accompanied by the innocuous soda-water, and every part of a public-house where alcohol was sold was also used for the sale of other commodities, cigars, cigarettes, lemonade, biscuits, etc. Consequently, the Amendment would not only carry them no further than the drinking bar, but indeed not so far, and it was, therefore, obvious the Government could not accept it.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSthought this line of banter was not becoming on the part of the Under-Secretary. He knew, whatever the words were, that the intention of the hon. Member was to lessen in some way the onerous and unfair conditions which the clause, as it stood, would impose upon people. The Under-Secretary might think it a laughing matter, but it would not be treated as a laughing matter elsewhere, when the effect of the clause with the definition unaltered had been felt.
Amendment to the Lords' Amendment negatived.
MR. RAWLINSON MR. RAWLINSON moved to insert the words "but does not mean any bar in a room usually used for the supply of meals." He said his Amendment was mainly intended to exempt from the clause railway refreshment rooms. The Government had accepted an Amendment dealing with railway refreshment rooms, but he asked them to extend their concession to other rooms, of which there were a large number in different parts of the country, in which a genuine refreshment business was carried on, but in which there happened to be a bar at one end. They did not come within the usual description of a bar. He trusted the Government would
1694
accept the Amendment, having regard to the great inconvenience which might be occasioned to people who travelled with children and went into a town for a day and who must necessarily take them somewhere for refreshment.
MR. GRETTONseconded. He could not say that he preferred the Amendment to that standing in his own name and which he put down having in mind places of holiday resort where the owners of licensed premises just outside railway stations were endeavouring to do genuine refreshment business. He knew a licence-holder outside one of the largest railway stations in London who had a refreshment bar and who offered every morning as a contract to give breakfast to upwards of thirty children who went by an early train to one of the noted colleges on the South side of London. In the evening also he offered to give them by contract teas before they separated and went by 'bus and other means their various ways home. Unless some exception was made such as was proposed by the Amendment it would be impossible for him to continue these contracts. It was the custom of many people to go into the towns on market days to do their shopping. In the case of small market towns they put up at the inn and in the case of the larger towns they put up at some inn just outside. He did not think any serious question of the interest of the trade was raised, but he thought some effort should be made to meet these cases. He seconded the Amendment in the interests of the public convenience, and on that ground alone.
Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment—
"In line 23, after the word 'liquor,' to insert the words 'but does not mean any bar in a room usually used for the supply of meals.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed be there inserted."
MR. HERBERT SAMUELthought the Amendment had substantially been considered by the House not on the question of railway refreshment bars, but on the question of the omission of the words "any part of the premises mainly or exclusively used for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor." If

1695
a room was mainly used for the purpose of supplying meals, it was clearly not mainly used for the purpose of intoxicating liquor.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid the bar of licensed premises meant any open drinking bar or any part of the premises exclusively or mainly used for the consumption of liquor. The kind of rooms he meant were those which had open drinking bars in them, and, therefore, would be hit by the fact that a child was in the same room in which there was an open bar, but was not using the drinking bar.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid a place of that kind which had an open drinking bar was a place aimed at by the clause, and the concession the hon. Gentleman asked for was clearly opposed to the underlying principle of the clause. If it was not an open drinking bar, if the ordinary consumption of liquor was not going on in the place, it would be exempt. If the ordinary consumption of liquor by casual persons coming in was going on, it ought not to be exempt. If it was analogous to a railway refreshment-room there was an exemption already provided in subsection (4) which was not limited to refreshment-rooms, but extended to all cases to which the holding of a licence was mainly auxiliary, and these cases were indicated in a Schedule to the Act of 1904, covering hotels, restaurants and eating-houses. On the other hand, if the Amendment were accepted the effect would be that any bar in a room in which meals were accustomed to be served would be exempt, even though the serving of meals was comparatively incidental. If the main purpose of the room was to enable customers to be served at the bar but incidentally, or even usually, other parts of the room were used for two or three people having meals, they would exempt the room altogether from, the operation of the clause. That, of course, was much too wide an extension, and would give rise to very great evasion. The places which the hon. Member really wanted to exempt were now exempted. Those which he did not want to bring in would be brought into the exemption if the Amendment were exempted.
MR. HUGH LAWdid not think it was quite the case that all the places which they desired to omit by the Amendment were really covered by the exemption. They were all at one in their object, he took it. Probably no one desired that children should be brought in and kept at the bar where people were drinking, but while it was true in the case of Ireland generally, that the houses were mainly houses in which other trades besides the sale of alcoholic liquor were carried on, and consequently would be exempted under the Amendment which the Attorney-General for Ireland was to move later, there were in certain districts houses of another kind in which there was a perfectly genuine refreshment business done. In Cork it was common for country people coming in to bring their families with them on market days to breakfast in public-houses. It might be very deplorable that there should be no other place for children to be brought, but that was unfortunately the case. It was all very well to say they could go to a tea-house, but supposing there were no tea-houses what was to be done? Was it or was it not the case that if a child was brought into a room in which there was a bar, for the purpose of being given breakfast, that child was in a bar under the terms of the section? He apprehended it would be. If there was any doubt about it, it ought to be made perfectly clear, but he was quite sure it was not the desire of the House nor of the Under-Secretary to create such difficulties as that. What the right hon. Gentleman was aiming at was the bringing in of children to places where drinking and drinking only was going on, and he was sure he did not want to exclude them from licensed premises because incidentally and at another time of the day there happened to be drinking going on in the same room.
MR. VERNEYdoubted whether the Amendment was properly drafted to carry out what the hon. and learned Gentleman meant. He did not think he meant exclusion from the bar, but exclusion from the room in which the bar was.
MR. RAWLINSONthought it expressed what he meant. It meant that the section was not to apply to a bar which was merely part of a refreshment room, and that had been accepted as far as railway rooms were concerned. He proposed to extend that to any hotel or
public-house which had a bar in one room in the same way.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 31; Noes, 182. (Division List No. 459.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm)

Nield, Herbert

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

Courthope, G. Loyd

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craik, Sir Henry

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fletcher, J. S.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Forster, Henry William

Valentia, Viscount

Bowles, G. Stewart

Halpin, J.

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Rawlinson and Mr. Gretton.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Mooney, J. J.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Jardine, Sir J.

Armitage, R.

Duckworth, Sir James

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Jowett, F. W.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Erskine, David C.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Barnes, G. N.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Kekewich, Sir George

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

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Laidlaw, Robert

Beale, W. P.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lambert, George

Beck, A. Cecil

Fenwick, Charles

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Bell, Richard

Ferens, T. R.

Lehmann, R. C.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

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

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lewis, John Herbert

Bennett, E. N.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Gill, A. H.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Bowerman, C. W.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Brace, William

Glendinning, R. G.

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

Bramsdon, T. A.

Glover, Thomas

Maclean, Donald

Bright, J. A.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Bryce, J. Annan

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

M'Crae, Sir George

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gulland, John W.

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

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

M'Micking, Major G.

Byles, William Pollard

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Mallet, Charles E.

Cameron, Robert

Hall, Frederick

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose

Marnham, F. J.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Massie, J.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Middlebrook, William

Cleland, J. W.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Clough, William

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Morrell, Philip

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morse, L. L.

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

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Cooper, G. J.

Hedges, A. Paget

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.

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

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Myer, Horatio

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Henry, Charles S.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Nuttall, Harry

Cowan, W. H.

Higham, John Sharp

O'Brien, Kendal Tipperary Mid

Crosfield, A. H.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Horniman, Emslie John

Partington, Oswald

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Hudson, Walter

Pirie, Duncan V.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Waterlow, D. S.

Rendall, Athelstan

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Summerbell, T.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Robinson, S.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

Wiles, Thomas

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Wilkie, Alexander

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Williamson, A.

Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland

Tomkinson, James

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Seddon, J.

Verney, F. W.

Winfrey, R.

Seely, Colonel

Vivian, Henry

Shackelton, David James

Walsh, Stephen

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

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

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wardle, George J.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Waring, Walter

Snowden, P.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Question put, and agreed to.

COLONEL WARDE COLONEL WARDE (Kent, Medway) moved to add the following subsection, "(6) These provisions shall not apply to the holder of a licence of any licensed premises otherwise than in any urban area." He hoped, after what the right hon. Gentleman had already admitted as to the difference between rural and town public-houses, he might be inclined to accept the Amendment. He quite agreed that the surroundings in some of our large towns must be demoralising to children, but the case of innocent roadside rural public-houses was on a different footing. He could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman could not be as familiar with the inside of country public-houses as he claimed to be, or he would at once see the distinction be wished to draw.
MR. FLETCHERseconded.
Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—
"At the end to add the words '(6) These provisions shall not apply to the holder of a licence of any licensed premises otherwise than in any urban area.'"—(Colonel Warde.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the Government could not accept the Amendment. The village child needed protection just as the town child did, and there was no need for drawing this distinction. Besides, it should be remembered that among what were technically rural districts there were many cases of mining villages and small industrial towns where
1700
the circumstances were very similar to those prevailing in large towns. If the publican desired to give facilities for child messengers he could have a separate jug and bottle department for the purpose. If he desired to cater for persons having meals he ought to separate the rooms designed for that purpose from the ordinary bar.
Amendment negatived.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he had put down an Amendment in order to draw the attention of the House to the different state of affairs existing in Ireland and Scotland from that in England. These clauses which had been added by the House of Lords were taken practically straight from the Licensing Bill, which did not apply to Ireland or Scotland, but he fancied those who put the new clauses into the Bill did not realise at the time they did it that they would apply to Ireland and Scotland as well. The state of affairs in Ireland was very different from that in England. In Ireland there was a very large number of shops where ordinary commodities were sold, and where there was a bar in which drink could be obtained. He was told the state of affairs in Scotland was different from that in England as well. He had put the Amendment on the Paper in order to draw the attention of Irish Members to it, but he did not propose to press it.
Lords' Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 68, lines 1 and 2, to leave out the words 'Before making any order under this

1701
Act with respect to,' and to insert the words 'Where a person is brought before any Court, whether charged with an offence or not, and it appears to the Court that he is,'"—read a second time, and amended, by inserting, after the word "person," the words "whether charged with an offence or not," and by leaving out the words "whether charged with an offence or not," and inserting the words "otherwise than for the purpose of giving evidence."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Lords' Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Lords' Amendments—
"In page 68, line 3, to leave out the words 'the person alleged to be a child or young,' and to insert the word 'that.'"
"In page 68, line 5, to leave out the words 'the order when made,' and to insert the words 'an order or judgment of the Court.'"
"In page 68, line 9, to leave out the words 'alleged to be a child or young person,' and to insert the words 'so brought before it.'"
"In page 68, line 10, after the word 'person,' to insert the words 'and when it appears to the Court that the person so brought before it is of the age of sixteen years or upwards, that person shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed not to be a child or young person.'"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 68, line 25, to leave out the words 'by or.'"
Read a second time.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid this was only a drafting Amendment, but he took the opportunity of moving to agree to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in all the provisions of this Bill there was now no new offence created committed by any child.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
MR. GRETTONsaid he understood the general age of the children throughout the Bill was fourteen years. In the Amendment just carried it was stated it was sixteen years. The Government had not explained why they wanted the age in this particular clause to vary from the age in the general provisions of the Bill.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The two ages run all through the Bill. The age of a child is fourteen, and the age of a young person is sixteen.
Lords' Amendment agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 68, line 31, to leave out the words 'by or.'"
"In page 70, line 12, to leave out the words 'Petty Sessional Court or.'"
"In page 70, line 13, after the word 'jurisdiction,' to insert the words 'whether a Petty Sessional Court or not.'"
"In page 70, line 18, to leave out the words 'Petty Sessional Courts and.'"
"In page 71, line 4, after the word 'person,' to insert the words 'The expression "common council" means the mayor, aldermen, and commons of the City of London in common council assembled.'"
"In page 71, line 8, after the word 'fund,' to insert the words 'as respects the City of London, mean the common council and the fund out of which the expenses of the city police are defrayed, and elsewhere.'"
"In page 71, line 40, after the word 'Scotland,' to insert the words 'shall be substituted for the Local Government Board and.'"
"In page 71, lines 40 and 41, to leave out the words 'be substituted for the Local Government Board,' and to insert the words 'for the purposes of Part I. of this Act, have the same powers of making inquiries, calling for returns, and applying to the Court of Session as they have for the purposes of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845.'"
"In page 73, line 9, after the word 'sat,' to insert the words 'and any similar expression.'"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 73, line 34, after the word '1890,' to insert the words 'Provided that, in the case of a royal parliamentary or police burgh, the expression 'police authority," where occurring in Section 58 and in Section 120 of this Act, means the town council; [and provided further, that where in any such burgh expenses chargeable to the police fund or as part of the current expenses of a police authority would, under the existing law, be payable out of the burgh general assessment, expenses so chargeable under the provisions of this Act shall be defrayed as expenses incurred by a town council under Section 74 of this Act.]'"
Read a second time.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,)said the Amendment appeared on the Paper in italics [the portion within brackets] to indicate that it related to finances; but it was quite in order, and he moved that the House do agree with it.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
LORD R. CECILasked the Government if they were willing to make themselves a party to this gross infringement of their privileges. He understood it was a mere dodge resorted to to insert by a side wind an Amendment which would be a breach of their privileges, and he was indeed surprised that a democratic House of Commons, led by a democratic Government, should lend themselves to what they had described as a trick. This was the very plan which was held in 1902 by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to be a method of getting round the privileges of the House. He wished to know whether this was being sanctioned by a democratic Government.
Lords' Amendment agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 73, line 41, after the word '1907,' to insert the words 'and to any section thereof.'"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 74, line 5, after the word '1864,' to insert the words 'and the reference to the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1906, as a reference to the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1906, as a reference to the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, provided that the expression "holder of a licence" means holder of a certificate under the last-mentioned Act.'"
MR. THOMAS SHAW MR. THOMAS SHAW moved to disagree with the Lords' Amendment, and in lieu thereof to insert the following words: "and references in section one hundred and nineteen and section one hundred and twenty to a licence, to licensed premises, and to intoxicating liquor, respectively, as references to a certificate, to certificated premises, and to exciseable liquor, with the meaning of The Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903." He explained that this Amendment was necessary in order to make the terminology of the Bill square with that contained in the Act of 1903.
Lords' Amendment disagreed to.
Amendment made to the Bill—
"Instead of the words so disagreed to, by inserting in page 74, line 5, after "1864," the words "and references in section one hundred and nineteen and section one hundred and twenty to a licence, to licensed premises, and to intoxicating liquor, respectively, as references to a certificate, to certificated premises, and to exciseable liquor, with the meaning of The Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903."—(The Lord Advocate.)
Subsequent Lords Amendments to the Amendment in page 77, line 8, agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 77, line 8, after the word 'Scotland' to insert as a new subsection—'(24) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, nothing in this Act shall be construed to repeal, alter, prejudice, or affect any, of the provisions of the Glasgow Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Repression Acts, 1878 and 1896 (hereinafter referred to as the Glasgow Acts, and the Commissioners and the directors acting under the Glasgow Acts shall continue to have the full rights, privileges, and powers at present competent to them. Provided, nevertheless, that the Secretary for Scotland may, by order under his hand, provide for altering, amending, or adapting the Glasgow Acts so as to provide: (a) For the retiral of the existing directors, for the re-constitution of the board of directors, for the election of new directors, for subsequent elections of directors, for the annual retiral of one-third or other proportion of the directors, and for supplying vacancies arising from time to time; [(b) for the assessments authorised to be levied under the Glasgow Acts being levied in the same manner as assessments for the expenses of a town council for the purposes of Section 74, of this Act instead of as in the Glasgow Acts provided, and for the reduction of the maximum amount thereof, if thought proper, and for the application of the said assessments]; (c) for authorising the said directors to grant securities over all lands and heritages vested in them, including school houses; (d) for raising the age tip to which, under the Glasgow Acts, a child may, upon the request of the school board, if the Court think it expedient, be sent to a certified day industrial school from thirteen years to fourteen years, and for providing that any order for payment of contributions by a parent under the Glasgow Acts shall be enforceable as a decree for aliment; and (e) for otherwise altering, amending, or adapting the provisions of the Glasgow Acts, as may seem to him necessary to make those provisions conform with the provisions of this Act, or to enable the powers under the Glasgow Acts to be exercised as if they were powers under this Act. Any such order may be revoked and varied by a subsequent order. (25) The immediately preceding subsection shall apply to the Aberdeen Reformatories and Industrial Schools Act, 1885, as if it were herein re-enacted with the omission of the portions thereof under the headings (b)

1705
(c), and (d), and with the substitution of the last-mentioned Act for the Glasgow Acts."
Read a second time.
Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment—
"In line 14, to insert at the end thereof, the words '(b) for the assessments authorised to be levied under the Glasgow Acts being levied in the same manner as assessments for the expenses of a town council for the purposes of Section seventy-four of this Act instead of as in the Glasgow Acts provided, and for the reduction of the maximum amount thereof, if thought proper, and for the application of the said assessments.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. GULLANDstated that when the Bill was in Committee upstairs it came out that the authorities in Glasgow had been sending Catholic children to an industrial school in Aberdeen, and that they refused to contribute for their maintenance on the ground that their special Acts forbade them from contributing to industrial schools outside their own boundary. In the Committee they were assured that the law would be changed in that matter, and that Glasgow would have power to contribute towards the maintenance of children sent to industrial schools outside. It was a little difficult for a layman to follow the meaning of the new clause, and, therefore, he wished to have an assurance from the Lord Advocate that the Glasgow authorities would be able to contribute towards the maintenance of Catholic or other children sent outside their boundary.
MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid there was what he might call an extra-urban provision in respect of these children. It would meet the point which had very properly been raised by the hon. Member.
Lords' Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 78, line 31, to leave out the word 'thirteen,' and to insert the word 'fourteen.'"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 79, line 8, after the word 'apply,' to insert the following new subsection: '(17) The exemptions from Part I. of this Act contained in Section eleven thereof shall extend to any person who undertakes for reward the nursing and maintenance of such infants only as are boarded-out with him by some religious or charitable society or institution approved by the Local Government Board for Ireland—'"
Read a second time.
MR. POWER MR. POWER (Waterford, E.) moved to amend the subsection by leaving out the word "infants" in line 3, and inserting the words "or infant." He said Ireland had not been treated in the fairest possible manner in this matter. The Irish representatives had been taken by surprise. The Amendments made in another place were not brought forward on the Second Reading or the Report stage, but at the last moment on the Third Reading. A clause was inserted which changed the whole nature of the Bill so far as Ireland was concerned. Certain exemptions which Ireland never asked for were made, and that country had been placed in an inferior position. Earlier in the session he was one of a Select Committee appointed to inquire into the condition of boarded-out children. The witnesses were agreed that a certain amount of supervision was absolutely necessary, but they were not all agreed as to what the style of inspection should be. There was no doubt that there was a great deal of cruelty and indifference on the part of people with whom children were boarded-out, and there ought to be some supervision. He would not labour the point, but anyone who took the trouble to read the evidence and the Report of the Committee would find that there was a condition of things which called for remedy. He moved this Amendment in order that the subsection might apply to a house where one child was boarded as well as to places where a number were boarded.
MR. HUGH LAWseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment—
"In line 3, after the word 'infants,' to insert the words 'or infant.'"—(Mr. Power.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. CHEERYassured his hon. friend that the words were entirely unnecessary. The Interpretation Act of 1889 provided that words in statutes in the singular might be read as importing the plural, and that words in the plural might have been read in the singular, unless otherwise expressly stated in the statute. Here the word "infants" would include a case where there was only one infant.
SIR HENRY CRAIKasked why these people were to be exempted from the inspection which was deemed necessary in other cases.
MR. BOLANDsaid that this Amendment had something to do with the Amendment which he had on the Paper, and the result of it would be to exclude from the provisions of the Bill those children who were boarded-out by religious or charitable societies or institutions approved of by the Local Government Board for Ireland. Why should such a clause be put in with regard to Ireland and not with regard to England, Scotland, or Wales? He was sure that every hon. Member wanted all children who were boarded-out to be subject to inspection; and no explanation had been given why this particular subsection should have been inserted by the House of Lords. The effect of this Amendment by the House of Lords would be that in Ireland there would be some children who would not be subject to inspection, and the object of that portion of the Bill would be defeated.
MR. BARRIEsaid he would regard it as a misfortune if this class of children were left out of all inspection, and he hoped that the Minister in charge of the Bill would not accept the Lords' Amendment.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that it was on the proposal of an hon. Member opposite that he had agreed to the exemption of the children boarded-out
1708
by religious or charitable institutions approved of by the Local Government Board of Ireland. The Government thought that that was a sufficient safeguard. On the merits of the question the Government did not attach much importance to this Amendment, and they would not insist upon accepting it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lords' Amendment disagreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 82, line 20, after the word 'evidence,' to insert as a new subsection the words '(30) The Licensing (Ireland) Acts, 1853 to 1905, shall be substituted for the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1906.'"
Read a second time.
MR. CHERRY, in moving to substitute another subsection, said that this was an agreed Amendment. Over the greater part of Ireland it was a rare thing to have a public-house exclusively for the sale of liquor. Almost all the houses also sold groceries, drapery, hardware, etc.; and it would be great hardship to prevent children going into these shops who only wished to buy groceries or drapery. He thought the representatives of Ireland, whether they had strong temperance views or otherwise were agreed that this clause should be inserted. He begged to move.
Lords' Amendment disagreed to.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"Instead of the words so disagreed to in page 82, line 29, at the end, to insert the words—'(30) The provisions of Section one hundred and twenty of this Act (relative to the exclusion of children from bars of licensed premises) shall not apply in the case of any child going to or being upon licensed premises if a substantial part of the business carried on upon the premises is a drapery, grocery, hardware, or other business wholly unconnected with the sale of intoxicating liquor, and the child, or the person (if any) in whose custody the child is, goes to or is upon the premises for the purpose of purchasing goods other than intoxicating liquor; and the reference in the said section to the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1906, shall be construed as a reference to the Licensing (Ireland) Acts, 1833 to 1905.'"—(Mr. Cherry.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he had listened to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and he could not say that it was at all satisfactory. As to his statement that it was an agreed clause he was told it was not by an hon. Member from Ireland. His second objection was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman in reply to an interruption by him as to why this clause should apply to Ireland only and not to England, told him that in Ireland it was the custom to attach to a public-house certain other businesses, but he remembered a proposal of his hon. and learned friend behind him who was now asleep to the effect that refreshment rooms in which there was a bar, which was only part of the business carried on, should not be included in a clause, being received with derision by the Treasury bench.
MR. CHERRY: Not by me.
SIR F. BANBURY: The right hon. and learned Member voted against my hon. and learned friend.
MR. CHERRY: I did not receive it with derision.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid at all events he voted against his hon. and learned friend, and this was a precisely similar Amendment in regard to Ireland. Much as he desired to see extended to Ireland privileges which were given to England, he did not think this privilege which was not given to England should be conferred. Although he was accustomed to contradictory utterances on the bench opposite he could not see how they could reconcile it with their consciences to bring forward this clause when they rejected the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend. Hon. Members below the gangway also voted against that Amendment, and he was, therefore, justified in opposing this one.
MR. MOONEYsaid he had listened with great interest to the illuminating speech of the hon. Baronet because it showed absolute ignorance of the conditions
1710
which prevailed in Ireland, The hon. Baronet seemed to think that because a clause was good for one country it was good for another, but he thought that was the weakest argument that he had ever heard him deliver. They had a particular claim to consideration in Ireland, because outside of Belfast and Dublin they would not find a single case of licensed premises which were not affected by this clause. When the Bill was discussed in Committee upstairs Irish Members did not interfere with the portions of the Bill which dealt with England but confined themselves to the case of Ireland. He was surprised that the hon. Baronet, as representing the Corporation of the City of London, which was one of the largest landowners in Ireland should try to upset a clause which would favourably affect licensed premises on his own property.
LORD BALCARREScould not understand why if it was no damage to a child in Ireland to go into licensed premises where boots and drapery, etc., were also sold it should injure a child in this country. There were other businesses conducted in public-houses here as well as the sale of liquor. [Cries of "What."] Well, there was the business of jobmaster which was very naturally associated with that of a public-house. He knew public-houses at tourist centres where stationery, and so forth, was sold, and everybody knew that the tobacconists; trade was carried on by publicans. He should like to know why this exemption should be made for Ireland and not for England. He thought the question deserved some answer from the English point of view.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he should be very glad to answer the hon. Member's question, although they had reached a stage in the Bill at which it would be impossible to apply this provision to England. The reason it was applied to Ireland was that the Irish conditions were totally different, and the circumstances were not the same in the two countries. They were reluctantly compelled to make these exceptions. The great majority of licensed premises in Ireland were not public-houses as they were known in

1711
this country, but village shops which had a licence to sell liquor. To say no child was to go into a village shop because it sold liquor was to take a wrong attitude. It could not be justified. The conditions were not the same.
MR. BOWLESsaid the House should observe how this might affect the operation of the Bill in Ireland. Any publican in town or country had but to hang up a few boots or stockings or something else and he would come within this provision. ["No, no."] Who would decide whether it was a substantial part of the business?
MR. CHERRY: The magistrates.
MR. BOWLESthought it opened up a wide field for dispute. For his part, he agreed with his noble friend. If it was wrong for a child in England to enter a drinking bar, it was also wrong in Ireland. In the interests of equality and fair treatment he saw no special reason why this exemption should be made in this case.
MR. C. B. HARMSWORTHsaid his right hon. friend had accepted this Amendment, though from the speeches neither his right hon. friend nor the Attorney-General for Ireland regarded this Amendment with any particular favour. He himself regarded it as a great blot on a splendid Bill. He would never forget his astonishment the first time he went to Ireland to find that in grocers' and drapers' shops an open drinking bar was part and parcel of the premises. He thought it would be most desirable, at all events in urban areas, to keep children out of such places. He had no hesitation in saying that a village inn in England was a paradise compared with the ordinary public-house in Ireland.
MR. BARRIEadmitted that the conditions of Ireland differed greatly from those of this country, but reminded the House that in many parts of rural Scotland the public-houses were on all fours with those of Ireland. If this clause, therefore, was to be accepted for Ireland it should also be applied to the rural districts of Scotland. He,
1712
however, recognised the differences of Ireland, though he regarded this Amendment as a capitulation by the Government to hon. Members below the gangway, and recognised that it was hopeless for him to oppose it.
MR. HUGH LAWwas glad the right hon. Gentleman had put down this Amendment. He thought no one would accuse him of not being a temperance reformer in his own country, but he quite recognised that here there was a case to be met. The real case was not as the noble Lord had stated it, "beer with boots," but "boots with beer." It would really be preposterous, if a child of twelve, thirteen, or perhaps fourteen, passing a shop on the way home from school, was to be precluded from going in and buying a quarter of a pound of tea or sugar, merely because in the same room—unfortunately these places were not palatial—where drapery and other goods were sold there happened to be a bar. That was the case which the Amendment was mainly designed to meet. He did not think it went far enough, and he hoped the Government would see their way to accept one small Amendment. If a child went into the shop with its parents, surely it would be absurd to turn it out because, after purchasing, their goods, its parents bought a half-dozen porter. They were all at one in desiring that children should not stay in public-houses in the ordinary sense of the word while their parents were drinking. Nobody wanted that, and they were not asking that Ireland should be exempted. It was more or less discreditable, an he believed the trade itself did not want it. On the other hand, it was no use irritating people unnecessarily, and he thought it would be well if the Government were to accept the insertion of the words "for consumption on the premises." That would make it perfectly clear that the parent must not keep his child with him whilst he was drinking. On the other hand, it was not necessary to turn children out if, along with other goods, parents desired to purchase half-a-dozen porter.
MR. J. MACVEAGHseconded. He was a strong supporter of all temperance legislation; he had

1713
never cast a vote against it, and he would not support this Amendment if he was not convinced it was reasonable. His hon. friend had suggested an Amendment which adhered to that of which he himself had given notice, and which he did not move because the Attorney-General had given notice of an Amendment which practically covered the two. The words "for consumption on the premises" were part of his Amendment which was not incorporated in that of the Government, and if the Government would accept them it would meet the entire case and put the matter beyond any possibility of misunderstanding.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"In line 8, after the word 'liquor,' to insert the words 'for consumption on the premises.'"—(Mr. Hugh Law.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. CHERRYsaid the fact that the two hon. Members were such well-known advocates of temperance, one of them being a temperance worker, indicated there was no desire to injure children on their part; and he thought it was very unreasonable, if, when a man was in a shop with a boy buying drapery, hardware, or anything else, he could not buy a bottle of wine without turning the boy out. The Government would therefore accept the Amendment. It would only allow wine or beer to be bought for consumption off the premises. Under the Act of 1901 they could send a child for the purpose of buying liquor for consumption off the premises.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid his hon. friend had moved that the Child Messenger Bill should be excluded from the object of the clause. The Government voted against that, but when a similar Amendment was moved by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, the Attorney-General for Ireland got up and said it was reasonable, and the Government would accept it. Really, this was going too far. An Amendment applying to England was rejected because it would encourage intemperance; but an Amendment applying to Ireland, moved by an hon.
1714
Member below the gangway, was immediately accepted. This proved the ludicrousness of the Bill and of the attitude of the Government. They really did not care twopence what was going into the Bill; all they wanted was to please both their temperance supporters on their own side of the House, and their supporters on the Nationalist benches. They did not care what inconsistencies there were.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLcongratulated the hon. Baronet on having become an advocate of temperance at middle age, and said it was all the more delightful, because of his benevolent desire to see that no temptation was thrown in the way of Irishmen's children. He could assure the hon. Baronet from some knowledge on the subject, that more wine was consumed there in a single night than in the whole of Ireland in a week. He would give the argument of his hon. friend above the gangway the credit it deserved. He would give it the appreciation that Henry Grattan bestowed on a similar argument. His hon. friend's argument was that unheard of things would happen if this very innocuous Amendment was allowed to pass. Grattan said—
"You cannot argue with a prophet. You can only disbelieve him."
And he most profoundly disbelieved the hon. Member. He passed with some fear and deference to the elaborate argument of the noble Lord on the front Opposition bnch. He could only say that when he attained to the House of Peers, there would be a chance for that House yet with his illuminating wisdom. The noble Lord thought it was a wrong thing that there should be a public-house in Ireland to which children should resort, though not for the sake of intoxicating liquor. He knew how vitally this matter affected the prosperity of Irish small traders. His hon. friend opposite knew Ireland extremely well. He had cycled and motored through the greater part of it, and he well knew that in the small villages, as a rule, there was only one shop, the general traders' shop, which was a kind of market and commercial house for the whole countryside, and in it wines were sold, and there was a

1715
bar, too. But the difference between the ordinary village shop, generally celled the shop, where everything was sold, and the beer shop or wine shop of this country in which liquor was exclusively sold, should be apparent even to understandings less intelligent than those of some Gentlemen who were benefactors of Ireland, having done their best to prevent temperance legislation for England. He had received telegrams and letters, some of a pathetic character, in reference to this or some similar clause, as proposed by the Irish Attorney-General, being passed. He had received letters and telegrams from small traders saying that if the provisions contemplated by hon. Gentlemen opposite were allowed, their trade was at an end—not merely the trade in liquors, but their whole trade and means of livelihood. If such a thing as that should be done, there ought to be at least a time-limit. The whole thing was extremely wrong. It was wrong to the customer and to the shopowner. The opinion of Ireland was unanimous on the point, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman who, although he represented an Irish constituency, by accident was a Scotsman. He did not propose similar legislation for Scotland. It was only when the trade of the country was at stake, when inconvenience would be promoted under the specious garb of protecting children, who were admirably protected by the Bill, that this scheme of the Government was brought forward, and he hoped very sincerely that the House would accept the clause by a large majority.
SIR HENRY CRAIKcalled the attention of the House to the very extraordinary constitutional matter which was involved, and one which would be serious if it were not so absolutely ludicrous. They were considering the Amendments of the House of Lords, and they were at liberty to reject or in some small way to modify them. On the flimsy basis of the Amendment they were now considering, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to introduce an entirely new clause into the Bill.
MR. CHERRY: This Amendment is really consequential on the admission
1716
into the Bill of the other clauses which were disposed of previously.
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid the Attorney-General moved to disagree with, the Lords' Amendment, and to insert a new subsection. The Amendment recited certain Acts which were to be read with this Bill, and the Attorney-General moved to disagree with what was a purely drafting clause, and in place of it, he moved a section which was to introduce an entirely new principle into the Bill. The hon. Member for Donegal said he had received many letters. He should like to know when he received them. Had they been quite recent? Had they reached the ears of hon. Members below the gangway, and through them the Treasury bench since the Bill left the House, and had they taken the excuse that the procedure and the Amendments in the House of Lords had afforded them to recast in a very important point their Bill and to make a distinction between different parts of the kingdom? Now they found there was some use for a House of Lords, and that it might be a convenient accommodation whereby a simple verbal Amendment of the House of Lords might be made an excuse and a foundation for introducing a vital change, forgotten or not sufficiently pressed when the Bill was before the House, and now impressed upon the House by Members below the gangway by letters and telegrams, the date of which the hon. Member for Donegal would not tell them. They had no means of altering it if the House of Lords had not touched the Bill. After such conduct on the part of the Treasury bench they might hear less, perhaps, of the absolute uselessness of the House of Lords. They now knew it might be made an engine of extreme convenience and utility when it suited party exigencies.
MR. KETTLEsaid the hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten that this was a clause from the Licensing Bill originally introduced for England alone and not intended to apply to Ireland. He was greatly interested in the point of constitutional law raised by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He did not know there was

1717
any constitutional law in this country. He thought it was a series of divinely inspired blunders. He entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman, and that was the chief reason it gave him pleasure in voting for the Amendment. It amounted to a substantial repeal of the Act of Union. It showed the entire responsibility of legislating on the same lines on any given subject in England and in Ireland. The noble Lord said he did not understand the Irish question. He now understood why the noble Lord was a Unionist. When Irish questions were under discussion the speeches of the Irish party necessarily resolved themselves into classes of elementary instruction with regard to those questions in Ireland. His hon. friends had proved that this Amendment was not directed against temperance but to the special conditions prevailing in Ireland, and the House ought to have no difficulty in voting in favour of it.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he had already expressed himself very strongly in favour of the principle of the clause, and he thought the doubts he had expressed as to the wisdom of applying it straight off to rural areas were more than justified by the discussions they had heard. The hon. Member for Donegal was frankly protectionist. He told the House he was out in the interests of the Irish trader, and if he understood his case rightly it was that the Irish trader could not continue to exist unless children came to the premises where liquor was sold. If that was so, so much the worse for the Irish trader. He was sorry the Vice-President of the Board
of Agriculture was not there, because he should like to have heard what he had to say. Browsing in past debates was an idle pastime, but he recalled the right hon. Gentleman's speech on a temperance measure much more extreme than this, not a Bill for excluding children from premises where liquor was sold, but a Bill to prevent liquor from being sold at all. Speaking in 1895 on the Local Veto Bill, he said—
"Why should Ireland be excluded? Was it because Ireland did not require it?"
The hon. Member for Donegal said Ireland was temperate. He answered him by the Vice-President—
"Anyone going to the South and West of Ireland would find every town, village, and hamlet literally stuffed with public-houses and steeped in drink. In the town of Castle-island, with a population of 1,200, there were forty-seven liquor shops. If the Bill ought to be applied to any part of the kingdom it ought to be applied to Ireland. The exclusion of Ireland, he said deliberately, was part of a bargain. What was the compact? Leave Ireland out and all the difficulties vanished. Hon. Members for Ireland had no objection if Ireland was left out to force this principle upon Englishmen who did not want it."
He wished the right hon. Gentleman were there to make his comment on the procedure the Government had chosen to adopt.
Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
Question put, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."
The House divided:—Ayes, 143; Noes, 26. (Division List No. 460.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Byles, William Pollard

Duckworth, Sir James

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Armitage, R.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Everett, R. Lacey

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Clough, William

Fenwick, Charles

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

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Ferens, T. R.

Bennett, E. N.

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

Fuller, John Michael F.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cooper, G. J.

Gill, A. H.

Boland, John

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

Glendinning, R. G.

Bowerman, C. W.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Glover, Thomas

Brace, William

Cowan, W. H.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Bramsdon, T. A.

Crosfield, A. H.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Bright, J. A.

Cullinan, J.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Gulland, John W.

Bryce, J. Annan

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Dobson, Thomas W.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Halpin, J.

Massie, J.

Shackleton, David James

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Middlebrook, William

Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Mooney, J. J.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morrell, Philip

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Henry, Charles S.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Summerbell, T.

Higham, John Sharp

Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Horniman, Emslie John

Newnes, E. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hudson, Walter

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Idris, T. H. W.

Nolan, Joseph

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Nuttall, Harry

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Jowett, F. W.

O'Brien, Partick (Kilkenny)

Tomkinson, James

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Trevelvan, Charles Philips

Kettle, Thomas Michael

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Verney, F. W.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Parker, James (Halifax)

Walsh, Stephen

Laidlaw, Robert

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Waring, Walter

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Watt, Henry A.

Lehmann, R. C.

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Radford, G. H.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wiles, Thomas

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Robinson, S.

Wilkie, Alexander

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Williamson, A.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

M'Crae, Sir George

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Winfrey, R.

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

Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Seddon, J.

Marnham, F. J.

Seely, Colonel

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Rendall, Athelstan

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Renwick, George

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Beck, A. Cecil

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hedges, A. Paget

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

Cave, George

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Joynson-Hicks, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir Henry Craik and Sir Frederick Banbury.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Charming, Sir Francis Allston

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow.

Lords' Amendment—
"In page 82, line 24, to leave out the word 'January,' and to insert the word 'April.'"
Agreed to.
Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill.
Committee nominated of: The Lord-Advocate, Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Hugh Law, Mr. Herbert Samuel, and Lord Edmund Talbot.
Three to be the quorum.
To withdraw immediately.—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (PUBLIC TRUSTEE) (No. 2) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
MR. BOWLESsaid the clause enabled the Public Trustee to open accounts in the name and in the interest of persons for whom he was appointed to act as trustee, but he was not to be subject to the regulations which governed the ordinary depositor in this bank. It was really important that the Committee should understand what they

1721
were doing in authorising the Public Trustee to make investments without being subject to the ordinary regulations. It appeared to him that a special exemption of this sort could hardly properly be made. He found that at 31st December, 1907, taking the securities of the Post Office Savings Bank at that date, and making no allowance for depreciation, there was an absolute deficiency of no less than £15,000,000. It was proposed to empower the Public Trustee to invest the moneys committed to his charge in a bank which, judged by any ordinary bank standard, was utterly insolvent. The only effect would be that the national indebtedness would be increased. Why on earth should it be considered necessary by the Government to put a special inducement in the way of the Public Trustee to invest cash in this particular savings bank, unless it was that the enormous deposits of the people all over the country might be used by successive Governments of the day? That would have the effect of increasing the national indebtedness at the rate of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 a year. That was a very doubtful thing to do in the interest of the general taxpayers, or in the interest of the mainly misguided people who had been led by the House, and might be further led, to put their affairs in the hands of the Public Trustee. He thought the Committee should have some explanation of the clause.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets,): I think the hon. Gentleman is unduly alarmed on this subject, because the proceedings under this Bill will have behind them the whole credit of the nation. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the depositor to whom he has alluded is perfectly secure. As regards the estates, I do not think the comparatively small amounts that will come under the cognisance or control of the Public Trustee in connection with the provisions of this Bill will add appreciably to the responsibilities of the State. The Public Trustee will only be able to deal under this Bill with quite small estates. It was clearly understood when the original Act was passed creating this Public Trustee that he should not
1722
remove estates from the banks which were the ordinary banks of the estates, but should treat the banks in accordance with the ordinary customs of the banking system of this country as private trustees would do. One of the classes of estate dealt with under the Bill is the very small estate which has no banking account and in regard to which, therefore, there is no reason why the deposit should not be made in the Post Office Savings Bank. The Public Trustee, I may point out, is absolutely limited in regard to all these transactions, because, while he is able to open a series of separate accounts for the estates that come under his control, in the case of no estate can he go beyond £200 as a whole—which is the limit for other depositors—nor can he deposit more than £50 in one year, which again is the present limit for ordinary deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank. Therefore, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his fears are without a scrap of foundation.
Clause agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; and read the third time, and passed.

POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL. [LORDS.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. HENNIKER HEATON MR. HENNIKER HEATON moved "That the Bill be read a second time upon this day three months." He did not wish at that late period of the session to oppose legislation which the House of Commons really desired to pass, but he would remind the House that this Bill had been before Parliament for no fewer than eleven years. Mr. Thomas Gibson Bowles said when it was originally brought forward that it was a very badly-drawn Bill and one that was very difficult to understand. The same objection applied to some previous Post Office Acts. It was said with regard to a clause in one of the Acts that only two gentlemen in the Post Office understood it, and these two gentlemen disagreed as to its contents. There was one

1723
other reason why he wished to oppose this Bill. Their able Postmaster-General, who wished to do so much to improve the postal laws of this country, had written a number of letters to him in whish, among other things, he expressed regret that the Post Office Consolidation Bill now before the House prevented him carrying out reforms which were of great moment. He had pressed those reforms on the right hon. Gentleman, and it was because various grievances were not redressed that he moved the rejection of the Bill.
MR. BOWLESthought the House would feel that it would be a great misfortune if the Motion of the hon. Member, who was, at any rate, admitted in all parts of the House to be an authority on postal matters, were allowed to fall to the ground for want of a seconder. Although, for his own part, he did not profess to have any detailed knowledge of the Bill, he was glad to be able to second the Motion, and on two grounds. In the first place this was a consolidation Bill, and his belief was that all Bills of that kind were innately mischievous. They were always represented to the House as Bills which ought not to be opposed, because their only effect was to consolidate the whole of the existing enactments, and he should not be in the least surprised if the Postmaster-General got up in the course of a few minutes to explain that this Bill ought not to be opposed for precisely that reason. He made bold to say that this Bill, like all Consolidation Bills, was not by any means merely a Bill to consolidate the existing laws, but it did effect in important particulars radical alterations in the law as it stood. Those alterations were to be found, as hon. Members would admit, if they looked at the complicated nature of the Bill, under circumstances which made it almost impossible for any body save great experts to detect them. It had never been denied, however, during the years for which the Bill had been before the House, that the alterations which were made in the law were of a radical character, and the House ought not to pass the measure simply because it was a Consolidation Bill. His second objection was this: As was frankly said in
1724
the Memorandum on the face of the Bill, this was a Bill which had been before the House for many years. It was first introduced in the House of Lords in the session of 1896, and therefore it was twelve years ago since the proposals to which they were now asked to assent were drafted. He understood that year after year, in almost unbroken succession, the Bill had been brought before the House, and every year the House in its wisdom had seen fit, if not to reject it, to refuse to proceed with it unless more time was devoted to its discussion than the Government of the day could afford to spare. He should be very much astonished if the right hon. Gentleman would assert that the business of his great Department carried on as it was under the existing Statutes had in any way suffered, or could in any way suffer, through the failure of this ancient and moss-grown measure to become law. For his part, he disliked all Consolidation Bills, but he particularly disliked this one, and under those circumstances he had the greatest pleasure in supporting the Motion of his hon. friend the Member for Canterbury, in order that the Postmaster-General might inform them what was the real object of the Bill, what were the changes it would effect, and whether it was essential that it should be passed into law.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Henniker Heaton.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The hon: Member for Norwood was quite right in his supposition as to the line I should take on this Motion. The argument which I shall venture to use is the argument which he anticipated, namely, that this is a Consolidation Bill, and that it makes no changes in the law. I can refer him to the Report of the powerful Committee, which contained not only representatives from the Opposition side of this House, but also noble Lords sitting on the Opposition side in another Place, which went very carefully into the whole question of consolidating the laws relating to the Post Office.

1725
That Committee came to the conclusion that the Post Office Consolidation Bill should be allowed to proceed, and they amended it in accordance with the views they formed during the inquiry. The hon. Member for Norwood has asked me what is the object of this Consolidation Bill, but I must point out to him that the time is too late to go into the subject at length. I will simply answer that it is a very great public convenience to anyone who has to deal with Acts of Parliament of this description to have all those Acts brought together in one comprehensive short Act, instead of having to go and look up a whole number of what are termed musty Acts. With regard to my hon. friend the Member for Canterbury, who has, I freely admit, taken a very active interest in postal affairs, though, perhaps, occasionally with a little exaggeration of activity, I understand his objection to be that this Consolidation Bill does not include other Amendments in the postal law which he would desire, and some of which I also desire. That, however, is not a point which should affect the progress of this Bill. The matters which he desires to see dealt with are matters for consideration on their merits. From time to time I have passed Acts of Parliament dealing with questions in which my hon. friend has expressed great interest, and I hope to have the opportunity of passing others. But I submit that this is not the moment at which those questions can be raised, and, therefore, I hope my hon. friend will not insist on this Motion, because I can assure him that from the administrative point of view, great advantages will accrue if this Bill is passed.
Amendment negatived.

COMPANIES CONSOLIDATION BILL [LORDS.]
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1:
MR. JOYNSON-HICKS MR. JOYNSON-HICKS moved the omission of Clause 1, as a protest against taking a Bill of this complexity at the fag-end of a long session. He had no wish to inconvenience the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who was in charge of the Bill, but he submitted that after the length of time they had been kept in that House during the autumn session, and the time which had been wasted in discussing Bills acceptable to nobody, they ought not to be asked to deal with a matter of this importance in so hurried a manner. Most of this Bill was entirely admirable, but in it there were certain points which undoubtedly required careful discussion. To put the Bill down at 12.30 at night at the end of a long session was not treating the House fairly. There had been ample opportunity in the course of the session of putting the Bill before them; at any rate there might have been those opportunities if the Government had not wasted their time, if they had not brought in compromises which were not compromises. He did not want to obstruct the Bill. He did I not want to move the omission of 296 clauses one after the other as he would be perfectly entitled to do, but he did suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that as there was not very much before the House on Wednesday he should take it during the evening sitting of that day, so that they might discuss it not at any great length perhaps, but at any rate, in a manner which would ensure that the important provisions of the measure would not escape the attention of Members of the House.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The hon. Member who has just spoken is not unconcerned with the great and stately fabric of the law, and I should have thought he would have desired to interpose no unnecessary opposition to a measure which, I venture to say, is entirely uncontroversial in the most extended interpretation of the term, and which can only have this result: the simplification, co-ordination, and consolidation of a very complicated branch of our jurisprudence. The hon.

1727
Gentleman knows that the Committee which has been engaged most laboriously for many days in consolidating the various Acts dealing with Company Law have had only one object before them, namely, to reproduce the existing law in a compendious and convenient form. No other object whatever has been pursued by that Committee during their investigations. It is not possible to imagine a Committee which would command more weight and more authority in all quarters of the House. The Lord Chancellor, the ex-Lord Chancellor, the hon. and learned Member for the Kingston division, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, Lord James of Hereford—all men most eminent in that sphere of the law—and members of every party have laboured together simply to reproduce the existing law in a compendious Act. It is quite true that it is an enormous Bill when printed, but in effect it is nothing but a convenient reproduction of existing statutes, and that being so, I am quite sure the hon. Gentleman will not wish at this hour of the night to make party points against the Government upon what is uncontroversial business, but will assist us in crowning our labours with as great a fruition of success as is possible under the circumstances.
MR. CAVEsaid he sympathised with his hon. friend, but at the same time he hoped his hon. friend would not persist in his Amendment. He (Mr. Cave) was a member of the Joint Committee to which this Bill and also the Post Office Consolidation Bill were referred, and he could assure hon. Members that they took scrupulous care simply to reproduce the Acts as they now existed and to make the Bill not in any sense an amending Bill but purely a Consolidation Bill. Whether they had succeeded or not it was not for him to say, but he knew they tried and were assisted by very able representatives from the Departments. He did not think his hon. friend would find in the Bill any real change in the law, and it would be of great assistance to everyone to get all the statutes in one Act. The only Amendments proposed in the Bill were in respect of former alterations made
1728
in the wording of earlier Acts for the purpose of making this Bill one consistent whole. He was not concerned with the Amendments which were put on the Paper since the Committee sat, but he had read them very carefully in conjunction with the Bill, and they seemed to be entirely necessitated by the fact that six months had elapsed since the Committee sat. He hoped therefore the Amendment would not be persisted in.
MR. BOWLESsaid he did not want to delay the Committee, but he really felt that the House was put in a difficulty in regard to this measure of consolidation. There could be no doubt as to the abilities and impartiality of the Committee who laboured long to consolidate in one whole the great mass of law which affected companies. Although the Committee had done its best, and no one could doubt for a moment it was a good Bill, still it was impossible to say whether or not there were any changes in the law of a vital character, and the position in which they found themselves by the procedure on all Consolidation Bills was that, although a mistake or a slip in it might be of the greatest consequence, the Bill was in effect withdrawn from the consideration of the House of Commons and was handed over lock, stock, and barrel to a Committee upstairs. This was a matter for the House, and for his part he could not really regard as satisfactory procedure of this kind. He believed that with the greatest ability in the world they could not consolidate great masses of intricate statutes on a subject of this nature without in effect altering the law in one or more particulars. If that be so, it followed quite clearly that this was a procedure which really did inflict a serious injury upon the control of the House of Commons over legislation, and for his part, although he did not know whether his hon. friend would persist in his Motion, and he did not know that he (Mr. Bowles) desired it, he nevertheless felt bound to protest against the assumption that all Consolidation Bills, because they were called Consolidation Bills, were to be removed automatically from the real consideration of the House of Commons. It was because that was

1729
the course which had been followed to-night he should feel bound to support his hon. friend if he went to a division.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid the hon. Member for North-West Manchester no doubt was regarded on the Treasury Bench as an awful example of Parliamentary perversity, but they knew that although Ministers came down and pretended to know all about a Bill of this kind, all the work had been done by distinguished Peers and Members of this House. The Government had not sacrificed any trouble or even put at risk any of its own time, and had brought forward the Bill at a time when a mere handful of Members could destroy it. Yet they knew that this piece of legislation would be trumpeted forth on platforms in the country as due entirely to the labours, profound knowledge, and technical skill of the denizens of the Treasury Bench.
MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid that they did not trumpet forth this kind of thing, and if they tried to do so the country would not give them credit for a great Consolidation Bill. It did not count for anything. It was simply a good piece of right down solid work which he wanted to thank the Committee for producing.
MR. JOYNSON-HICKSsaid he had not the slightest hostility to the Bill. This was a part of the law in which he personally took great interest, and had done so for years past. He was quite convinced that the passing of the Bill would be exceedingly advantageous to lawyers and the public generally. He made his protest against the mode in which this legislation was conducted. Having made that protest he was perfectly prepared to withdraw the Amendment, only he ventured to suggest to the Treasury Bench that they should not take any more Bills after this one tonight.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. J. A. PEASE,)said he generally endeavoured to meet the views of the Opposition as far as possible in connection with the work to be got through at this period
1730
of the session. The Government had a large number of Orders on the Paper, and they had only a few days to get through the work. They had endeavoured not to take many of these Bills before owing to the representations of the Opposition that they did not wish the eleven o'clock rule suspended. Now that the eleven o'clock rule had been suspended, really with a view of passing these Bills in the remaining nights of the session, he approached the Opposition each day, and arranged with them so far as possible the Orders which they thought might reasonably be got through. The Orders they had arranged to-night were the Companies Bill, the Criminal Appeal Bill, and the Second Reading of the Irish Constabulary Bill, and perhaps the House would like to take the Lords' Amendments to the Local Authorities (Admission of the Press) Bill, a private Member's Bill, in which case the Government certainly would not interfere. But he asked that the arrangement which had been entered into to proceed with the three Government Bills he had named would be adhered to.
MR. FORSTERsaid he was sure the Opposition desired to meet the hon. Gentleman so far as it was possible to do so. The hon. Gentleman always approached them in a spirit of perfectly good temper, and always adhered to any arrangement made in perfectly good faith. But he thought the hon. Gentleman in the observations he had just addressed to the Committee made one little slip, which he was sure he need only point out for it to be acknowledged. The Opposition had never suggested that arrangements might be made to suit their convenience in order that the eleven o'clock rule might not be suspended. They were not very great admirers of a rule under which the proceedings were adjourned at eleven o'clock. He did not think they had, so far as he knew, put it forward that they would meet the requirements of the Government in order to go to bed at the early hour of eleven o'clock; but he was bound to say that his right hon. friend the Member for West Somersetshire told him that he had agreed with the Government that he, at any rate, would offer

1731
no opposition to the taking of the Orders which the hon. Gentleman had just mentioned, and he (Mr. Forster) was quite sure his hon. friends would adhere to the arrangement.
Clauses 1 to 93 agreed to.
Clause 94:
MR. CHURCHILL: I move the omission of this clause. The reason is quite simple. When the Bill was drawn it was hoped that it would come into operation on 1st July, 1908, and this clause declares that certain statements should be sent to the Registrar of joint stock companies within three months of the passing of the Act. The omission of the clause will enable the legislation to be brought entirely up-to-date.
MR. BOWLESsaid this seemed exactly to be a point which bore out his contention that mistakes would be certain to occur in a Bill of this kind. Here was a clause which set out what was the ordinary law at this moment, making it the duty of a company within three months after a certain date to send a statement to a registrar. That date was passed, and, therefore, it clearly ought to be amended. But suppose the clause was cut clean out as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, would that make no alteration in the law?
MR. CHURCHILL: None whatever.
MR. BOWLESasked in that case whether they were to understand that the law as it stood when this Bill was drafted, did not include the provisions of this clause.
MR. CHERRY: This clause was in the Act of 1907. The Act of 1907 provided that certain things should be done before 1st July, 1908. The Act of 1907 is now spent, but at the time this Bill was introduced the Act of 1907 was not spent, and it was anticipated that this Bill would be passed before it was spent. The time within which these things had to be done has now passed, and, therefore, the clause has become superfluous, and this condition is no longer required. It makes no difference in the Bill.
Question, "That Clause 94 be added to the Bill," put, and negatived.
Clause 95:
Amendment proposed—
"In page 57, line 13, to leave out subsection (2)."—(Mr. Churchill.)
Clauses 96 to 101 agreed to.
Clause 102.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 59, line 17, after the word 'and,' to insert the words 'the register of mortgages shall also be open to the inspection.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 103 to 203 agreed to.
Clause 204:
Amendments proposed—
"In page 105, line 20, after the word 'sections,' to insert the words 'one hundred and forty-seven.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
"In page 105, lines 30 and 31, to leave out the words 'one hundred and fifty.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
"In page 105, line 31, after the word '(10),' to insert the words 'one hundred and fifty-two."—(Mr. Churchill.)
"In page 105, line 35, to leave out from the word 'sixty-two,' to the word 'but,' in line 37, and to insert the words 'one hundred and seventy-three, and one hundred and seventy-five.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
MR. BOWLESasked what was the meaning of these Amendments.
MR. CHURCHILL: Some alteration has taken place in the number of the clauses, and this is merely to ensure numerical accuracy.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 205 to 274 agreed to.
Clause 275:
Amendment proposed—
"In page 144, line 4, to leave out from the word 'which,' to the word 'establishes,' in line 6."—(Mr. Churchill.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
Mr. CAVEsaid he would like an explanation of this Amendment.
MR. CHERRY: This clause requires certain things to be done by foreign companies within three months of 1st July, 1908, and the Amendment is necessary because that period has expired.
MR. CAVEsaid the clause required that every foreign company which had a place of business in Great Britain should do certain things, but as amended, it would only apply to companies established after the passing of that Act. The effect of the Amendment was to exempt firms setting up in this country, before 1st April, 1909.
MR. CHERRY: If my hon. and learned friend refers to the clause he will see that it makes no alteration in the law, except to eliminate the period which has been spent. If he considers the three Amendments he will see that every company incorporated outside the United Kingdom must do certain things within one month of setting up a place of business in this country. The words which it is proposed to omit, deal only with special legislation.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid there would be a period of nine months, from 1st July to 1st April, when the Act came into force. Surely that required explanation. This clause would be inoperative if businesses were established during those nine months.
MR. CHERRY: Whatever had to be done under the old Act has been
1734
done in three months from 1st July, and that period has now expired.
MR. BOWLESsaid he was not a lawyer, but he felt that the Amendment made a difference. The clause said before it was amended that companies incorporated outside the United Kingdom, which on a certain date had a place of business in the United Kingdom must do certain things. By the Amendment they would be confining the clause to companies incorporated in the United Kingdom, whether or not on the 1st July they had a place of business in the United Kingdom. There might be no alteration in fact, but there was an alteration in the category of the companies to which the particular provision referred. As the clause stood unamended the category consisted of companies outside the United Kingdom which had a place of business in the United Kingdom. But as the clause stood it would apply to companies whether they had a place of business in the United Kingdom or not.
MR. CHERRY: The hon. Member says that the clause unamended affects companies which do not appear in the clause amended. That is correct in one respect, the clause as unamended imposes certain things which have to be performed in a certain time. All these obligations have been performed, and therefore legislation is no longer necessary. It was necessary for these companies to deposit a copy of their charter, but the time for that has now gone. If they have not done so they can now be proceeded against. The repeal of the statute does not affect the validity of anything in it with regard to the part to which it applies.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid the point which required clearing up was whether if in the next week a company was established it would be absolutely free from the provisions of that Bill which could not come into force for six or seven months. Would not that company also be free from the provisions of any Bill?
MR. CHERRY: That is another point. This clause as it stands imposes an obligation on companies which are established after it comes into force. A company established next week would come under

1735
the Act immediately the Act came into force. Before this Act comes into operation companies are under the existing Act, there is no interregnum.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 144, line 7, to leave out from the second word 'within,' to the word 'one,' in line 8."—(Mr. Churchill.)
"In page 144, line 9, to leave out the words as the case may be.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 276 to 295 agreed to.
Clause 296:
Amendment proposed—
"In page 153, line 13, to leave out the word 'January,' and to insert the word 'April.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
MR. CHURCHILL MR. CHURCHILL moved to insert, after Clause 275, an additional clause to provide that a company incorporated in a British Possession, which had filed with the registrar of companies the documents and particulars specified in the foregoing section of the Bill, should have the same power to hold lands in the United Kingdom as if it were a company incorporated under the present Act. The right hon. Gentleman explained that there was an Act already on the Statute-book giving a company incorporated in a British Possession the same power to own land in the United Kingdom as if it were a company incorporated in the United Kingdom. This was a Bill to facilitate colonial companies holding lands in this country, and it was desirable to incorporate this statute in this consolidation Bill, and thus make the consolidation as complete as possible.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 144, after Clause 275, to insert the following clause: 'A company incorporated in a British Possession which has filed with the registrar of companies the documents and
1736
particulars specified in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of subsection (1) of the last foregoing section shall have the same power to hold lands in the United Kingdom as if it were a company incorporated under this Act.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Agreed to.
Schedule 1:
Amendments proposed—
"In page 169, line 24, after the word 'sections,' to insert the words 'one hundred and twelve and.'"
"In page 169, lines 24 and 25, to leave out the words 'and one hundred and fourteen.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3:
Amendments proposed—
"In page 179, line 23, after the word 'Companies,' to insert the word '(Consolidation).'"
"In page 180, line 3, after the word 'sections,' to insert the words 'one hundred and twelve and.'"
"In page 180, line 3, to leave out the words 'and one hundred and fourteen.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5:
Amendment proposed—
"In page 187, to leave out line 15."—(Mr. Churchill.)
Agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6:
Amendment proposed—
"In page 189, line 15, at end, to insert the words '8 Edw. VII., c. 12—The Companies Act, 1908—The whole Act.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

CRIMINAL APPEAL (AMENDMENT) BILL. [LORDS.]
Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 12, at end, to add the words (2) The power to provide additional staff for the Registrar of the Court of Criminal Appeal includes a power to appoint an assistant registrar, but any assistant registrar so appointed shall be either a Master of the Supreme Court acting in the King's Bench Division, or a practising barrister of not less than seven years standing, and shall be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of England.'"—(The Attorney General.)
Agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
MR. RAWLINSON, in supporting the third reading, said he did that all the more heartily because the Amendment agreed with an Amendment of his own to the Bill of last year. He hoped to take an opportunity on a future occasion strongly to press the needs of further judicial help in the King's Bench Division. That this step was becoming more and more necessary was seen in the facts that already they had to have the very wise Amendment just agreed to and that the Judges of the King's Bench Division were now available for the Court of Criminal Appeal. He proposed to press on a future occasion for further help in the King's Bench Division; at all events for an extra Judge.

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,), moving the Second Reading said: This is a short Bill but it is one which is long overdue and which I feel it an obligation to press upon the
1738
favourable consideration of the House. It relates to the pay and the pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The present rate of pay of the body are those which are to be found in an Act of 1883, but in the year 1901 a Commission was appointed by the Irish Government, presided over by a former hon. Member of this House—much respected by all who knew him—the late Sir Howard Vincent. That Commission reported that the emoluments of the men were in some respects insufficient and they made certain recommendations, some of which related to rates of pay and allowances and others to other matters. The Report received the most careful consideration of the Irish Government and was carried into effect in the year 1903 so far as effect could be given to it without Parliamentary assistance. That part of the Commission's recommendations were given effect to, but I am sorry to say that from the year 1903 to the present owing to pressure of business in the House of Commons, both Governments concerned have found no favourable opportunity of introducing a Bill before Parliament giving effect to the remainder of the recommendations of Sir Howard Vincent's Commission. This Bill, with the Schedule, gives effect to Sir Howard Vincent's recommendations in most particulars. In some respects it is a little more favourable to the police than were those proposals. For example, we propose to give a shilling a week more for the eighth and ninth year's service; a shilling a week more for the twenty-fifth year's service; a shilling a week more for acting sergeants as compared with the Vincent recommendations. In other respects the Vincent recommendations are practically carried out, and will be found embodied in the schedule of the Bill. It is also proposed by this Bill to make what is an important change, and that is to raise the pnsionable age of future entrants in the force to fifty years. At present the men are entitled to pension after twenty-five years service, and entering the force as they do young men, some of them retire somewhat too early, and whilst they have still many years of active service within them, so to speak. It is now proposed by this Bill to offer inducements to present members of the force to remain in active

1739
service after they have served their full period of twenty-five years, and this will make the superannuation period more in common with that of Great Britain, and will ultimately result in a substantial decrease in the charges of the Royal Irish Constabulary as a whole, by reductions of course, in the non-effective force. The cost upon the Imperial Exchequer of these proposals is about £15,000 a year, calculating the strength of the force as it existed early in the year 1908. Of course the additional cost will fluctuate with the increase or decrease in the strength of the Royal Irish Constabulary. But I think the Treasury may hope that these proposals to increase the length of time which the men may serve in this important body will have the effect in time of decreasing the cost of the service. There are other provisions in the Bill which I think the House will not find of a controversial character at all. Clause 3 proposes to make an increase of widows' pensions, and Clause 4 to make an alteration in the law with regard to the payment of pensions which at present are only payable to constables when the Inspector-General is satisfied that the constable has served with diligence and fidelity. If he expresses his full satisfaction the constable gets his full pension, but if not so satisfied he gets nothing. There are many cases where a constable ought not to receive the full pension, but where it would be a hardship to deprive him of all pension rights. Clause 4 is intended to allow a middle course to be taken, and empowers the inspector-general to grant a reduced pension in cases of minor misconduct and neglect of duty. Then there is a clause referring particularly to the rate of pensions payable to assistant-inspectors-general. That is a very small matter indeed, but I think on explanation it will be found to be a matter of justice. Clause 6 deals with the mode of calculating pensions, and Clause 7 gives a definition. I think, therefore, that the House may safely give this measure, which, of course, has received full Treasury sanction and has been preceded by a financial Resolution, full support. The services rendered by the police need not now be taken into consideration. All will agree that they are entitled to proper treatment and to proper pensions. They have been kept waiting a long series of
1740
years since the Vincent Commission reported in their favour. This Bill gives them what the Vincent Commission recommended with small additions. Perhaps some of the force may consider them to be insufficient additions, but at all events they are better than nothing, and they do add a burden which the Treasury will be willing to sustain of some £15,000 a year. I think, in these circumstances, that all will be agreed, almost irrespective of party, that this body of men deserves the consideration which this Bill, after only too long a lapse of years, purports to afford them. I move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. MOONEYvery much regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had found it necessary to bring forward a Bill of this kind at this period of the session. The right hon. Gentleman was well aware, from information given publicly in the House, that this Bill was not one which the Irish Party as a party could allow, in any shape or form, to go through as a non-controversial measure. He did not think he had ever heard a Bill galloped through in the manner in which the Chief Secretary had galloped through his explanation of this Bill. He wanted to explain that the opposition to the Bill was not based on the tact that pensions were to be provided for certain classes of the community or that pensions were going to be given to certain men. They took the stand upon the point that at the present day the Royal Irish Constabulary was costing something like £1,375,000 a year, and that if the sum was properly spent there would be absolutely no necessity for a Bill of this kind. He and his friends contended that if the Irish Government were to reduce the ornamental part of the Royal Irish Constabulary they could get not £15,000, but nearer £50,000, seeing that the ornamental parts of the force at present cost over £100,000 a year. Let them take the case of County Tipperary, which had a force of 450 men. To administer those 450 men they had three county inspectors, who divided

1741
between them salaries equalling £1,200, they had inspectors in the first class who took £2,100, and they had eight district inspectors in the second class who cost £2,500. Including the head constable, who would take £3,000, the cost of commanding 450 men amounted, roughly speaking, to £8,000, or about £20 per man. He had made inquiries as to the cost of commanding the police in London and Birmingham, who, he thought, the Chief Secretary would admit were as ornamental as the Royal Irish Constabulary, while they were probably more efficient. The cost of the ornamental part of the force in London worked out at only £6 per man, and the House would agree that this was a very striking difference from the figures of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The whole system was so grotesque and absurd that if the right hon. Gentleman would only go to the trouble of looking into it himself he would see that he could save money right and left. In the county of Clare, to take another instance, there were 367 men, and to command that number they had to employ a chief inspector at £630 a year. In the county of Carlow exactly the same amount was required to control 83 men as was necessary in the county of Clare for 367 men. Instead of dividing the country up into suitable areas and allowing officers pro rata to the number of men, they adopted absurd geographical limitations, with the result that the expenditure was enormously magnified. No matter how many police were required for a county, to preserve the dignity of the force it was thought necessary to appoint a chief inspector and pay him £600 a year. That was not all. He was allowed all kinds of "extras," with the result that he was paid far better than a good many colonels in the Army, while he was always a far more important person than a colonel. He started by way of being a district inspector. He was given very definite instructions as to how he was to stand at the Castle levee, and to conduct himself at the Castle ball, but he was not given the slightest instruction as to how he was to perform his ordinary police duties. He had strict injunctions to go to tennis parties and to cultivate the gentlemen of the neighbourhood. But if he happened to come to a place in
1742
his own district and saw disorder occurring in regard to which one would expect him to interfere, he took no steps save to write a report to the inspector above him, complaining that the sergeant in charge of the district was not doing his duty. Although the disorder might have occurred under his very nose he was much too high and mighty a person to interfere, but would not hesitate to accuse a subordinate of neglect for the self-same matter. They had to pay each one of these officers £50 a year for a horse and £45 a year as allowance for a groom. When the officer retired the funny part of it was the groom got nothing at all, but the officer was compensated on the £45. Further than that, if this officer went six miles beyond his station he was entitled to a riding allowance of 9d. a mile, though one would think that he would be able to use the same horse for which he received the allowance of £50 a year. The result was that when a new county station was going to be established, instead of placing it in the middle of the county so as to make access to it easy, it was put at the extreme end of the county, so that this officer was bound to go more than six miles beyond his station in order to get to it. The result was that these men were always keenly anxious to get into a bigger county, knowing that with all the allowances made to them they would be able almost to double their regular salaries. When the right hon. Gentleman said he had founded the Bill on the Report of the Committee presided over by the late Sir Howard Vincent, he (Mr. Mooney) was surprised. Let the House look at the clause which dealt with the question of the pension to the widow of a constable. If the Committee reported definitely on any subject it was this, and they said emphatically that the pension should not be increased.
MR. BIRRELL: I said the payments in the Schedule were based for the most part on the Howard Vincent Committee's Report.
MR. MOONEYcontinuing said he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman was so anxious to bring forward the Bill, which he must have seen would be opposed by the Irish Nationalist Party.

1743
He understood that certain Irish Members above the gangway were also opposed to the Bill, though not for the same reason; but the fact remained that they had two bodies of opinion in Ireland opposing the measure. The constables themselves were opposing the Bill. The men had an official organ, and he read in it a passage referring to blocking Motions being put down in connection with the Bill, in regard to which the following comment was made—
"We regard this as an official, organised opposition and not the individual action of a Member of Parliament. If Members acted otherwise they would be failing in their duty to their constituents and their country."
The paper went on to discuss the financial benefits that would accrue to the men, and having done so, they said—
"If this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament his (that was, the constable's) doom was sealed for a generation. No amount of agitation, inside or outside, will prevail on an overworked Parliament to reconsider his claim."
That did not look as if there was a very strong desire on the part of the Royal Irish Constabulary for this Bill. He wanted to put before the House one other point. The constable, after the passing of the Act, was to be benefited in a certain way. Then he was to be benefited again in regard to pension—always after the passing of the Act. He came across a clause which the right hon. Gentleman said was very immaterial, dealing with one individual in the force, and that clause struck him as very typical of those sometimes introduced in Bills dealing with Irish Government Departments. The clause was to apply not to anyone retiring after the passing of the Act, but was to come into operation in connection with any official described in it who might have retired since January, 1908, or who retired at any time after the passing of the Act. It struck him at once that this clause was put in the Bill for the protection of some gentlemen who wanted to do a job. He proceeded to make a search, but he could not find any trace of an official who had rendered great service to the country. But he found that in last year's Estimates there was one inspector-general, three assistant-inspector-generals and three deputies, whereas in this year's Estimates one of the assistant-inspector-generals appeared to have dropped out. This was not the case of a man who had
1744
a salary of about 24s. a week, but a gentleman with a very large salary, and the Government went out of their way to give him a retrospective clause all to himself in a Parliamentary Bill. The other point he wanted to make to the right hon. Gentleman was one which he put at the beginning of his speech, and which he wished to refer to again for a specific purpose. He could well understand the necessity for what might be called the ornamental branch of the Royal Irish Constabulary if it ever did any work. He could understand the necessity of paying these officers high wages if they had to turn out late at night with large bodies of men and perform work which was done in England by superintendents or assistant-superintendents. But what did the Chief Secretary want this ornamental staff for? He would take one case only. It happened in Ireland a very short time ago, and was a very regrettable case, in which a young man lost his life. The facts were not in dispute. The police having got notice that there was to be a cattle-drive at a certain place on a certain night, a force of twelve police turned up with rifles, and they found a body of more than a hundred men endeavouring to drive cattle. As he understood, the policeman in a case of that sort had two courses open to him. Either he could overpower the people who were about to break the law, or he could retire to a position where he could observe who was about to break the law and then take necessary steps to bring the people to justice. In this case one would have thought that, having information of an intended breach of the law of such a serious nature, at least a person of some position in the force would have been sent to have control of the police. But what happened? This body of twelve police, armed with rifles, was put in charge of a man who went by the glorified name of a head constable, and was paid £2 a week—wages which, in England might very well be earned by a clerk. While the highly-paid officers were in bed, this man earning only £2 a week was put in charge of twelve constables armed with rifles and with power over the lives of people who were engaged in breaking the law. It was simply a

1745
scandal and a disgrace, and would not be tolerated in England for a moment. Would it be said that in England a sergeant of police, which was practically the rank of this head constable in Ireland, would be allowed to take charge of twelve men armed with rifles and with power at his own discretion to fire on people who were committing a breach of the law which, in ordinary circumstances could only be punished by imprisonment for one month or two months? No authority in England could hold up its head if it defended such conduct as that, and he wanted to know why, if they were to pay a large sum of money for the ornamental staff of the Royal Irish Constabulary, that staff should not be used. He must say there was no justification whatever for the Government's treatment of these overpaid officials. This House had recently been discussing an eight hours Bill. If the men he was speaking of did a day's work in eight weeks it was about as much as they ever did. Their sole occupation was to get the work done by men under them, and they drew the pay. If they were to enter into a discussion of the Constabulary in Ireland as at present managed, and as to how the money was misspent, he should detain the House a good deal longer than he otherwise would, but he had no intention of going fully into the question at that hour. When the Bill reached the Committee stage they would probably have a good deal more to say to the right hon. Gentleman. In conclusion, he would say that this Bill was not wanted in its present shape, and that if the right hon. Gentleman really wanted to benefit the Royal Irish Constabulary—and by that he meant the men—and desired to have an efficient force he could do it, and at the same time cut down the enormous expenditure. More was spent in Ireland on police than on education, although Ireland had less crime than either England or Scotland. He was sorry to say that day after day attempts were made by hon. Members representing Irish constituencies to make this House, and through the House, the country, believe that Ireland was in a state of great disorder, where crime was of daily occurrence, and where the police took their lives in their hands. He would
1746
like to contradict that statement by calling attention to a passage on page 24 of the Report of the Committee presided over by the late Sir Howard Vincent. In the passage referred to it was stated that some of the witnesses asserted that the duties of the Irish Constabulary were more dangerous than those of the police in England, but although the Committee were not in possession of statistics showing the number of retirements of policemen in England through injury in the execution of their duty, it would appear that the proportion in England was much higher than in Ireland. Instead of increasing the enormous cost of the police force in Ireland—and it was all very well to talk about it coming out of the Imperial Exchequer, when Ireland had to pay to that Exchequer a great deal more than they ever got out of it—he would say to the right hon. Gentleman that his proper course to pursue was not to bring in a Bill like this, but to have a full and searching inquiry into the way the money voted by this House was spent by the Royal Irish Constabulary. The right hon. Gentleman would then find that instead of having to come to Parliament for more money he would be able to work the Force more successfully with much less money. If the right hon. Gentleman promised such an inquiry he hoped the Committee would be appointed to meet within a reasonable time, and that it would not be a repetition of the Committee which he promised in connection with the cost and control of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, but which had never been appointed. If the right hon. Gentleman would appoint a Committee to inquire into this question he would probably get far more thanks from the men, and certainly from the taxpayer, because he would be able to cut down the Estimates, and he might be able to do away with that very costly and very inefficient body which was now known as the ornamental branch of the Royal Irish Constabulary. He moved.
MR. KETTLEsaid he did not desire to keep any Member of that House, and least of all himself, up any longer at that ungodly hour, but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary must be perfectly well aware that in approaching this question of the policing of Ireland

1747
they were approaching a question which concerned a serious defect in the administration of Ireland. His hon. friend, he thought, had made out a convincing case, and if the majority of hon. Members in the House had been awake to hear the convincing arguments, their support might, perhaps, have been counted upon. His hon. friend's first point was that, by the admission of everyone, the cost of police in Ireland at present was too great. The Government were going to add a certain amount to that cost. The Chief Secretary said £15,000, but there was absolutely no guarantee that that sum would not be exceeded. It was true the Chief Secretary told them that this Bill had the sanction of the Treasury. Well, if the right hon. Gentleman thought that was a recommendation of any sort to Nationalist Members, surely he could not have been following the debates in any detail. The other point his hon. friend made, and one which was perhaps of more importance, was that if they were going to increase the wages of the rank and file of the Royal Irish Constabulary, they ought as a set-off to economise with regard to what he very properly called the ornamental branch of the Royal Irish Constabulary—the county inspectors, the district inspectors, the sub-district inspectors, and all the others of the various higher ranks. His hon. friend pointed out that even the rank and file of the police were dissatisfied with this Bill. Their official paper had declared against it. He himself had received letters, marked "Private and confidential," from sergeants and head constables, who said that, of course, they knew Nationalist Members of Parliament could not be very friendly towards them, but at any rate they ought to be more friendly to members of the rank and file than to district inspectors, and that consequently they hoped Nationalist Members would oppose the Bill. The situation was very serious. His hon. friend quoted a great many facts with regard to the organisation of the police force. He confessed that he himself had not an expert knowledge of the police. He tried to keep as far away from them as possible, and to admire them, as he would some of the highest peaks of the Alps, from a distance. The publication of the Chief Secretary
1748
seemed to consist of extracts from the Howard Vincent Report, and it seemed to him to make out a conclusive case against the higher ranks of the service and for economy in that direction. They were speaking that night from two points of view. They were speaking first for the Irish taxpayer as against the police force in Ireland, and they were speaking for the rank and file as against the more ornamental ranks. A striking and perhaps excellent phrase had been used in the pamphlet that had been put forward on behalf of the rank and file. It was said that the Royal Irish Constabulary was divided into two classes—the ornamental and the useful. The county and district inspectors had no direct responsibility for the maintenance of odrer. Their business was to delegate their responsibility to the sergeants or head constables or to the constable in charge. He thought his hon. friend had been quite right to call them ornamental. He had just come back from a district assize where the Court was crowded with these men in braided Hussar jackets, which though extremely ornamental really cost too much. They could pay too much for the artistic. First of all they paid these men their salary, then they paid them £50 per annum for their horses. He had never seen one of these horses. He did not know whether they ever had them or not. There were sundry regulations which provided that a man should not get this allowance unless he put in six turns per year on horseback service. He had never seen the term "turn" used except in regard to music halls, and did not know what these turns were unless they had something to do with music halls. At any rate they were paying the district inspectors £50 a year for a horse and £45 for a groom to look after a horse which in the majority of cases did not exist. The total cost of that particular minor allowance was more than £23,000 a year. If the Chief Secretary had devoted himself to reorganising the police in Ireland and bringing its expenditure into something like proportion with the crime of the country, he would have been glad to help him. Why did he not economise on the officer class of the force? It was because he had not done that that they had to raise their voices against that Bill. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman take

1749
away this entirely unnecessary cost for horses which did not exist and for grooms who did not groom them because they did not exist.? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman go a step further? The Report of the Public Accounts Committee would be discussed on the following day. As a member of that Committee he had been able to get at facts about the expenditure on the Royal Irish Constabulary, and he had been able to gather that a considerable sum was spent per annum on keeping their rifles up-to-date and supplying them with ball cartridges. Anybody who had ever been in the Royal Irish Constabulary barracks in Ireland had seen that the place was simply crammed with rifles in racks. No hon. Member who would do his duty by his constituents in Ireland could help opposing that Bill and calling for reform in regard to this expensive and artistic branch of the Service.
AN HON. MEMBER: I move that the Question be now put.
MR. KETTLEsaid the interruption of the hon. Member admirably illustrated the manner in which that House discussed Irish matters. It was no pleasure to them to have to sit until a quarter to two, but it was still less of a pleasure to them to pay the £15,000 a year for the maintenance of that force. If the hon. Gentleman would get his Party to bring in a Home Rule Bill they would be delighted to discuss that matter in Dublin. In the meantime, it would be better manners for the hon. Member to confine his Motion to some subsequent occasion. There were four grievances of the rank and file of the Royal Irish Constabulary which were not touched by the Bill. He owed the police nothing, not even, like some of his colleagues, a broken head. The police complained of defective barrack accommodation, and of the management of internal affairs of the force which would be in no way remedied by that Bill. They complained that the management of the canteen in their barracks was in the hands of officers who did not use it. It was said that a cricket pavilion had been built by the officers for the officers out of the profits made on the men's canteen. Surely, in view of this fact,
1750
his hon. friend had been entirely in the interest of common sense and good administration in opposing that Bill. It was surely a sound ground for objecting to it, and it was one which demanded an exhausting and complete inquiry into the needs of the force, with a view to effecting some reforms in that force. There was another point which he ought to mention before he sat down. That was that a large proportion of the ornamental staff consisted of men imported from England, men who had not even got the small saving merit of having been born in Ireland? They were extremely serious in their opposition to the Bill. They believed that the Chief Secretary ought not to have brought it forward at this period of the session. If it had waited for five or six years, could it not have waited for three months more? What was the need for a Bill of that importance, touching the most irritating subject in the whole administration of Ireland. So long as affairs such as the Riverstown affair or like the Belfast not were possible, where citizens were shot down without any proof of necessity whatever, when telegrams were despatched by the inspector-general before he had had an inquiry into the facts, approving of the hotheaded action of the police, so long would any Bill of this character, which purported and intended to increase the police expenditure in Ireland, be bitterly opposed. He hoped that however indisposed the House might be to listen to facts of that kind it would understand that they were animated by no feeling of obstruction or of animus against the policemen. The right hon. Gentleman had done something to remove the landlord of the old type, but this Bill was going to perpetuate the policeman of the old type. For that reason they felt it their duty to oppose the Bill, and for that reason they would feel it their duty to resist it clause by clause in Committee.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' in order to insert the words 'this day three months.'"—(Mr. Mooney.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. BARRIEsaid he wished to bring the House back to the matter immediately before it. He had listened to both the speeches which had been presented to the House, and he wished to direct the House's attention to them briefly. They had both of those speeches presented to them on a previous occasion, when the House spent two and three-quarter hours discussing all the shortcomings of the Royal Irish Constabulary. Since that debate took place some rather interesting evidence had been given them from Ireland. He found comparatively little fault with the speech of the hon. Member for Newry, but there was a great want of graciousness in his seconder, who made an attack on the Royal Irish Constabulary, when he owed his safety, if not his life, to that force.
MR. KETTLEsaid that the statement of the hon. Member was wrong. He was happy to say that on the occasion in question he was not received with hostility and never got any nearer than 15 yards of any member of the Royal Irish Constabulary. He would like to add that when he went through the Orange parts of his constituency, the parts attached to the party of the hon. Member, he had to have a police escort with him to protect him from the hon. Member's friends.
MR. BARRIEsaid that on the occasion referred to the public Press reported with thankfulness the narrow escape of the hon. Member.
MR. KETTLE: On a point of order' is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to repeat a statement which I have just contradicted in regard to myself.
MR. GWYNNsaid the hon. Member had made a statement respecting the personal experiences of his hon. friend and himself. They challenged his statement, and he repeated it on the evidence of certain newspaper reports. Was that proper courtesy to the House?
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is nothing out of order in the hon. Member's
1752
making certain statements. It is not a question of order at all.
MR. BARRIEsaid he recollected, in connection with the case to which he was referring, that a member of the Irish Nationalist Party, for whom he had the greatest respect, the hon. Member for Limerick, did sustain very serious injuries, and they were glad recently to welcome him back to the House, fully restored to health. The hon. Member for Galway would remember an occasion on which he telegraphed to the Chief Secretary complaining that he was not receiving sufficient protection from the Royal Irish Constabulary during the contest in which he took part at a bye-election.
MR. GWYNN: I never sent any such telegram.
MR. BIRRELL: I have no recollection of receiving it.
MR. BARRIEsaid they had had a very long tirade on the grotesque extravagance of the Royal Irish Constabulary. He ventured to suggest that the Chief Secretary must have listened to these speeches with mixed feelings. He could not congratulate hon. Members below the gangway on the occasion which they had chosen for an attack on the Royal Irish Constabulary. He held no brief for the Royal Irish Constabulary, and he considered they required no defence. But he did remember that since this Government came into power they had had to add no less than 750 members to that important force. He thought that was the best test as to the alleged peaceful-ness of Ireland at the present moment, and if that were not sufficient he would remind the House of the figures given by the Chief Secretary himself the previous day with reference to agrarian outrages. The Chief Secretary replied to a question that the number of agrarian outrages reported to the Inspector-General in the year 1906 was 234—
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is not really an occasion for a general debate

1753
about the conduct of the police in Ireland. We are dealing with a question of finance, and the hon. Member must make his arguments relative to the Bill. He has gone very much wide of it.
MR. BARRIEsaid he could only regret that he was not permitted to give the figures, as he thought they would conclusively prove the argument he was using. Dealing with the Bill he reminded the House that they had had suggestions made by hon. Members below the gangway that there was a general desire among the rank and file of the constabulary that this Bill should not pass into law. He could only say that he had had no representations from the members of the Constabulary in his constituency to that effect. He had not been in particular touch with them, but he did know that for years they had been looking forward to some increase in salary, and he had heard, and he had no reason to doubt it, that they were disappointed with the increase which it was proposed to give them in this Bill. The amount of increase which it was proposed to give the rank and file was so small, and was spread over such a large number of men, that he confessed his surprise that hon. Members had thought it wise to try to prevent them being given. As to the officers, there was no proposal generally affecting their position except with one instance, and it was hardly necessary even in that House to point out the efficiency of the officers as a class generally of this important body in Ireland. He hoped that when they came to the Committee stage it would be possible to improve the additions proposed under this Bill. He would fail in his duty if he did not remind the House that so high was the standard of officers generally in Ireland, that it was a matter of common knowledge that Glasgow, Liverpool, and London had looked to the officer class of that important body to fill the highest offices which they desired to be fifed, and he had heard no suggestion that the choices made by those important municipalities had not been amply justified. Indeed, in all parts of the world the Royal Irish Constabulary, both as regarded officers and men, stood as an example of the highest perfection of a police force. He could only regret that under the
1754
Chief Secretary's jurisdiction in Ireland their duties had become so much more dangerous and difficult and the right hon. Gentleman was only doing his duty in pressing through the Bill, even imperfect and short of the real needs of the force. He was thankful that the right hon. Gentleman had at last taken his courage in his hands and resolved to put this Bill on the Statute-book.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid that, carrying his mind back some twenty-three or twenty-four years to when he first had the honour of joining that House, he recalled that it was usual about the present time of the night, or rather morning, for things to begin to get a little lively. They never reached Irish business in the past until between two and three o'clock, and they generally retired about five o'clock. Another thing he recalled was that when an hon. Member made a statement in that House which was contradicted by another Member as to a matter of fact that came within his own cognisance, his contradiction was usually accepted according to the recognised courtesies of the House. Hon. Members above the gangway seemed never to have learned what the courtesies of the House were, or if they did they had departed from them, and knew them no more. Another thing he remembered was that when he first joined that House the Estimates year by year for the constabulary in Ireland amounted only to £700,000 per annum. They were now, according to a statement made by the Chief Secretary last year, £1,500,000 per annum. This was an imperial question, and that was the principal reason why he made no apology to the House for making a few observations upon it. There was a time when the contribution from Ireland to the imperial taxation was very much less than it was now. Some decades of years ago, when that contribution stood at a figure many millons less than it was now, the Imperial Exchequer reaped a very large profit from the administration of Ireland. Some years ago the Imperial Exchequer had a net amount of some £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 per annum out of the contribution of Ireland. Even so late as 1895 this country reaped a net profit out of Ireland of over £1,000,000. At the present time, owing to the larger

1755
expenditure on administration in Ireland, especially in this matter of police, there was absolutely no profit made. There was another fact which it was well worth the time of the House to consider. What was the difference between the cost of police per head in Ireland, in England, and in Scotland? In reply to the hon. Member for West Down the Home Secretary for England stated that last year the cost of police per head in England was 3s. 4½d. The answer to a similar question to the Secretary of Scotland was 2s. 5½d., and to a question to the Chief Secretary for Ireland the reply was 6s. 8d. per head. This was an imperial question of the very first magnitude. It was the reason why the Government were now reaping no profit whatever out of the administration of Ireland. It had been said by a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury in answer to questions by himself across the floor of the House that if things went on as they were going the government of Ireland would be administered at a loss. Yet they were met that night by a Bill that sought to add to the cost, that sought to increase the enormous disproportion between the cost of policing Ireland and the cost of policing England and Scotland. Was not that a monstrous proposition? They all knew well the principle of police administration. It was that the more scattered the population the cheaper was the cost of police work. In England and Scotland, where the population was largely gathered together in great cities, the cost of the police was, according to an established principle, greater than in a country where the population was distributed over a larger area. Yet the cost of the police per head was very much less than in Ireland, where the population was agricultural, where it was distributed over a wide area, and where the cost ought in the natural course of things to be very much lower. Was it not a very sad thing for those who sat on the Nationalist benches to see this money wasted and at the same time the country crying out for attention in other respects? If the cost of the police in Ireland were reduced to what it was in England and Scotland, see what money would be saved. A large portion of that money the Chief Secretary would be able to devote at
1756
once to the arterial drainage which was urgently required in many parts of Ireland, and particularly in his own constituency, where there was a river which overflowed its banks three or four times a year. He was quite sure that if the proposition of his hon. friend were carried, and economy were brought into the administration of the country, the House would not grudge devoting the amount that was saved to the useful purpose which he had mentioned. He thought he had said enough to show that this was an imperial question. He and his friends were not going, at that late hour of the night, to put the House to the trouble of dividing on the subject, or to discuss the matter any further. They felt that the arguments which had been put before the House would dwell with hon. Members and that those who had given the speakers on the Nationalist benches the courtesy of their attention would not forget the facts. They hoped that those facts would weigh with the House, and that when they brought before the House a substantial Motion that would cover not only this, but other subjects, they would know that they had not spent the time devoted to that night's discussion in vain.
MR. DONELANhad heard the speech of the hon. and learned Member with great pleasure until he came to the final part of it—about not dividing the House. He himself entered his emphatic protest against having this Bill introduced at the very end of the session. The Royal Irish Constabulary had in the past been used for one single object—to aid and assist the Irish landlords in the collection of their rents. When the Irish Land Act of 1903 was introduced the then Chief Secretary told them that the numbers of that force were to be reduced, and the extraordinary thing was, that since a Liberal Government had been in power the numbers of the constabulary had been increased.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that I have stopped another hon. Member from referring to the same subject.
MR. DONELAN, continuing, said he did not blame the rank and file of the constabulary, who had to carry out the instructions they received, but the officers had acted in a most extraordinary fashion. He protested against a Liberal Government being driven into compensating members of the force which was causing all the trouble in Ireland at the present moment.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS) BILL
Lords' Amendments considered.
Lords' Amendments—
"In page 1, line 12, to leave out from the word 'interest' to the end of the clause."
"In page 2, line 25, after the word 'council,' to insert the words 'or councils'; in line 26, after the word 'for,' to insert the words 'its or.'"
"In page 3, line 8, after the word 'and,' to insert the words 'duly accredited representatives,' and after the word 'agencies,' to insert the word 'which.'"
"In page 3, line 9, to leave out the word 'carrying,' and to insert the word 'carry.'"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 3, line 16, after Clause 4, to insert Clause (a): '(a) Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to prohibit a local authority from admitting the public to its meetings, and, subject to the accommodation available, the public shall have the right of admission to meetings of local authorities at all times when the Press is admitted to such meetings under this Act.'"
Read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERwished to move to leave out all the words after "meetings" to the end of the clause. He thought the House would be somewhat astonished at the fact that this clause had been inserted. While the House had taken no objection to the admission of the Press, they did not make any provision for the admission under the same circumstances of the public. It was difficult to know why the clause had been added to the Bill. There was no difficulty about admitting the public at present where it was necessary to do so, but it certainly would not be right that they should be able to claim admission to meetings of education committees and other committees who deliberated in rooms which were unsuited to the accommodation of numbers of people other than the members of those committees. He thought it was perfectly obvious that, as the Press would be there to give the public every information, and while the public would have every facility, it did not necessarily follow that, where the local authority admitted the Press, they ought also to be bound to admit the public. He begged to disagree with the Lords' Amendment.
MR. JOYNSON-HICKSseconded.
Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment—
"In line 2, to leave out all the words alter the word 'meetings.'"—(Mr. Harmood-Banner.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords' Amendment."
MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid on behalf of the promoters of the Bill that they were prepared to accept the Amendment, as they thought the words added in another place carried the Bill very much beyond what the promoters intended.
Amendment agreed to.
Lords' Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 3, lines 25 to 32, to leave out Paragraph (c), and to insert the words '(c) Any other local body, board, joint board, or committee which has or may hereafter have the power to impose a rate (as defined in Section 2 of this Act) and which does not require to report its proceedings to any other local authority.'"
Read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
MR. COURTHOPEsaid the Amendment he desired to move concerned a question of language. In the second line of the proposed paragraph, the words occurred, "which has, or may hereafter, have the power to impose a rate." He thought that was a very clumsy way of expressing the evident meaning of the Legislature, and it was not desirable to put words of that kind in the Statute-book, and the Amendment, which he had handed in was to cut out the words, "which has, or may hereafter have," and to insert the word "having." The other point to which he desired to call attention was as to the words, "which does not require to report its proceedings to any other local authority." That was a very unusual way of expressing the meaning, and was more or less unintelligible in the drafting of an English Bill. It might be pointed out that the Bill applied to Scotland, and that this was Scottish phraseology, but, so far as he could make out, that was not the case, and unless some reason could be given for the insertion of these words he would like to move to leave them out.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid it was too late to move the Amendment. He had already put the Question.
MR. FORSTERsaid that surely, by agreement, an error of that kind could be rectified.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid if the hon. Member had called his attention to it, that course would have been permissible, but he was afraid it was too late now.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid he would like to call Mr. Deputy-Speaker's attention to the fact that he rose the moment the Clerk at the Table had read the wording of the clause. He handed in his Amendment eight hours ago.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid he was very sorry he had not got the Amendment.
Lords' Amendment agreed to.

CHILDREN BILL.
Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments reported, and agreed to.
To be communicated to the Lords.—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Amendment Bill, with an Amendment.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at half-past Two of the Clock.