Commons Sitting of 26 June 1908

Preamble
The House met at Twelve noon of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Audenshaw Urban District Council Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Blackburn Corporation Bill; London United Tramways Bill.—Read the third time, and passed.
Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District) Water Order Confirmation Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 11) Bill; Marriages Provisional Order Bill.— Read the third time, and passed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill.—As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

PETITIONS.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Harrogate; and Medwyn; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Middlesbrough (two); and, Shipowners of the City of London; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Thurso, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Cirencester, against; to lie upon the Table
  Petition from Harrogate, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.

  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Clackmannan, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Petition of Free Watermen, etc., of the river Thames, against, praying to be heard by counsel; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICERS BILL.
  Petition from St. Pancras, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NATIONAL GUARANTEE FOR THE WAR RISKS OF SHIPPING.
  Copy presented, of Report to the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury of the Committee appointed to consider a National Guarantee for the War Risks of Shipping; with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (CHANGES IN WAGES, ETC.).
  Copies ordered, "of the Post Office Circulars announcing changes in the wages and conditions of service of Post Office Servants in connection with the Report of the Select Committee on Post Office Servants."— (Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Proceedings under the Land Purchase Acts.
    MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what is the result of the proceedings under the Land Purchase Acts of 1885 and 1888; how much land has been sold, or agreed to be sold, under these Acts, and how much money has been actually advanced; what is the general result of proceedings under the Land Purchase Acts of 1881 and 1896; what is the amount actually issued under these Acts, or agreed to be issued under the Acts; what is the general result of the proceedings under the Land Purchase Act of 1903; what sum has actually been issued or advanced; what is the total amount of agreements lodged under all headings for the purchase of land under this Act; how much money have the Land Commission actually in hand at present; what is the total value of the estates still to be dealt with by the

    219
    Land Commission in respect of which advances have not been issued or sanctioned; and how much sinking fund has been actually paid up under all the Land Purchase Acts, and what has been done with it.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Full particulars respecting proceedings under the Land Purchase Acts of 1885, 1888, 1891, and 1896, have appeared from time to time in Parliamentary Returns and in the annual Reports of the Irish Land Commission and the Appendices thereto. I would refer the hon. Member in particular to pages 92 and 107 and page 116 of the Report of the Irish Land Commission for the year ending 31st March, 1907 (Cd. 3652, Session 1907) and to House of Commons Return, No. 90, of Session 1903. As regards proceedings under the Irish Land Act of 1903, the Land Commission inform me that up to the 20th instant applications for advances had been received by, or proceedings instituted before, the Estates Commissioners for the purchase of estates to the estimated amount of £63,598,394. Of this sum £21,940,988 had been advanced, leaving £41,657,406, representing the estimated amount of advances in respect of which proceedings are still pending before the Commissioners. The Irish Land Purchase Fund, from which all moneys are issued for the purposes of advances under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and to which all moneys received from land purchase annuitants are paid, is under the control of the National Debt Commissioners, who provide the money for advances when required by the Estates Commissioners.

    Pension of late Rector of Girls' High School, Glasgow.
    MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary for Scotland what was the amount of pension granted to the rector of the Girls' High School, Glasgow, on his retrial in October, 1905; what was the length of service he had given to the board; and what is the salary now paid to his successor.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Department are informed by the Glasgow School Board that the amount of retiring allowance granted to the rector of the Glasgow High School for Girls was £325 per annum. He entered the Board's service in July, 1875, his length of service
    220
    thus being 30½ years. The salary of his successor, a lady, commenced at £400 per annum and is now £500 per annum.

    Cadets at Dartmouth, Osborne, and on Cruisers.
    MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state the number of cadets at Dartmouth and Osborne respectively, the number of cadets in the training cruisers, and the complements of officers, instructors, warrant officers, and petty officers of the training cruisers.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The numbers asked for are as follows:—

    Cadets at Osborne College

    391

    (Cadets at Dartmouth College

    385

    Cadets in two training cruisers

    122

    The numbers allowed to each cruiser are as follows:—

    Officers (excluding naval instructors)

    19

    Naval instructors

    3

    Warrant officers

    7

    Chief petty officers

    29

    Petty officers

    50

    Potty officers, second class, and leading rates

    56

    Irish Education Grants.
    MR. J. MURPHY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state whether the condition excluding schools under an average of 35 from participation in the additional grant of £114,000 for primary education in Ireland was imposed by the Treasury against the wishes of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland; whether the Commissioners of National Education protested very strongly against the exclusion; and whether, having regard to the hardship of the condition on the poorest section of primary teachers, the Treasury would be prepared to reconsider their decision.
    (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The condition in question was not suggested by the Commissioners of National Education, and the Commissioners have, I understand, protested against it. I am, however, of opinion, after fully considering the question, that the limitation is a proper one in the circumstances, and I see no sufficient reason for reopening the decision.

    Introduction of the Agricultural Holdings and Small Holdings Consolidation Bills.
    MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, when the Agricultural Holding Acts Consolidation Bill and the Small Holdings Acts Consolidation Bill will be introduced in the House of Commons.
    (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) As soon as possible.

    Result of Labourers Act Inquiry at Dunfanaghy.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if the inquiry hold on the 16th instant at Dunfanaghy, county Donegal, to consider applications for labourers' cottages and allotments in the Creelough Division of the Dunfanaghy Union has resulted in showing that there is no necessity for such cottages; and, if not, can he say what the result of the inquiry has been.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board's inspector has not yet arrived at his decision respecting the several applications which came before him at the inquiry, as he must await the transcript of the shorthand notes of the evidence. The result of the inquiry will be communicated to the rural district council in due course.

    Transfer of Officers of Disbanded Units.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the Army Council to bring officers from disbanded units into regiments in the Special Reserve, with seniority according to the dates of their commissions; and whether such action will have the effect of placing them, in many instances, over the heads of existing officers in the regiments to which they are appointed.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It is the intention that officers of disbanded Militia units joining units of the Special Reserve shall take rank in accordance with the date of their appointment to the rank they held at the date of transfer. In the case of an officer electing to join a battalion of a regiment other than his own
    222
    in which there is no vacancy for an officer of his rank, he may, if the commanding officer be unwilling that he should rank in accordance with the date of his appointment to the rank he holds at the date of transfer, be transferred in the rank he holds, his appointment to that rank boarding the date of transfer to the now corps. The reply to the second part of the Question is therefore in the affirmative.

    TOBACCO GROWING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Not amended (by the Standing Committee) considered.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid he rose to move the omission of Clause1, which was to a great extent the whole Bill, but not entirely, because Clause 2 had a separate object to which he could see no objection whatever. The result of leaving out this clause would be that there power for the Inland Revenue to allow people to grow tobacco experimentally. He could not find that there was any great desire among his Scottish friends to have the Bill, or among Scottish agriculturists to grow tobacco, and he thought the Government took that view also. At any rate if it was necessary that Clause 1 should pass, which gave power to grow tobacco, he wanted to know why it was not to be introduced all over Great Britain. A Bill had been passed for Ireland, but he did not think this kind of piecemeal legislation was advisable, and if it was necessary that tobacco should be grown, there should be a Bill brought in by the responsible authority applying to the whole country. As far as experiment went he had no objection, but he did not see why Scotland alone should be taken and permission given to grow tobacco and alter the Customs. Clause 1 did not make it obligatory on the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to levy an Excise duty, and he intended to move later to make it obligatory. Scotland was now the home and refuge of certain kinds of statesmen, and if many more of them had to go to Scotland, which was extremely likely, he feared that if the clause passed, pressure must be put on them to allow Scotland to grow tobacco free of duty, and that would be very hard on Ireland and the rest of the Kingdom. If the clause was omitted and it was afterwards found

    223
    that tobacco could be grown profitably, a Bill dealing with England and Scotland could be introduced and the matter set at rest. He would like to know from the promoters what was the real reason for the introduction of the clause, whether there was any foundation for it, or whether it was merely that they were envious because Irish Members had an Act.
    Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted; and, forty Members being found present—
    SIR F. BANBURYproceeded. The clause read—
    "As from a date to be fixed by His Majesty by Order in Council, and as soon as Parliament has made provisions for an Excise duty on tobacco,"
    certain things should ensue. Supposing an Order in Council was not made and Parliament did not make provision, the clause would be useless, and if, as he was informed, the Government were hostile to the measure there was no chance whatever, though it might pass into-law, of its becoming of any use. Therefore that was another strong argument for the omission of Clause 1.
    He believed it was now something like 130 years since tobacco was grown in Scotland, and there was not very much experience, and it was doubtful whether in the changed conditions of agriculture it had any chance of being a success now.
    VISCOUNT MORPETHseconded.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 1, line 11, to leave out Clause 1."—(Sir F. Banbury.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'shall,' in page 1, line 17, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. COCHRANEsaid he could not support his hon, friend on this occasion. He would like to ascertain if he could what was the attitude of the Government. In Committee the then Secretary to the Treasury had endeavoured to squash this innocent Bill, which was really designed to do some good for Scotland and remove a grievance from which they suffered, but the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman
    224
    certainly did not carry weight with the Committee, because it handsomely defeated the Government. The Secretary to the Treasury adduced as an argument that the hon. Member for Clare had brought down to the House some Irish tobacco with disastrous results. But it was not necessary for hon. Members to smoke the Scottish tobacco when it was grown; there was nothing compulsory in the Bill, and tobacco might be beneficially used for other purposes than smoking. The growth of tobacco was prohibited in England in 1672 by heavy penalties. Then came the Act of Union in 1707 which it was generally considered incorporated the law of England with that of Scotland. But they held a different opinion in Scotland, and they did not believe the Act of Union imposed upon them these stringent laws regarding the penalties for growing tobacco in Scotland and for many years they continued to grow it with very considerable success until, he supposed, the inroads upon the revenue induced the Government in 1782 to pass an Act which imposed the same penalties in Scotland as were imposed in England. That was a great hardship upon Scotland. Very good tobacco had been grown, and it employed an enormous amount of labour per acre. In the experimental stages in Ireland as many as 100 men were employed per ten acres. In some parts of Scotland they could grow tobacco quite as well as in parts of Ireland, and where they were clamouring for employment of the population, it was extremely hard that they should be deprived of an opportunity of cultivating tobacco. It became necessary for the Legislature the year after passing the Act of 1782 to pass another Act to compensate those farmers who had been growing tobacco for the losses which they had sustained through prohibition. The Act of 1783 enacted—
    "That it shall and may be lawful to and for the Commissioners of His Majesty's Customs at Edinburgh, or any three or more of them, to allow and order to be paid to the owner or proprietor of such tobacco, out of any revenue under their management which is applicable to the payment of incidence, at the rate of 4d. for every pound weight of such tobacco to which the owner or proprietor thereof shall refuse to pay the full duties imposed by the said recited Act, provided that such tobacco shall be given up by him to the proper officer His Majesty's Customs to be publicly burnt or otherwise totally destroyed by such officers."

    225
    It was most unfortunate that the previous occupant of the office of Secretary to the Treasury went to the Scottish Committee, and without having fully considered the matter, put the full weight of the Treasury against the passage of this Bill on what appeared to him very insufficient grounds. He said that had there been experiments already in Scotland, as there had been in Ireland, and had they proved to be successful, he would agree to the passage of such a Bill. He (Mr. Cochrane) thought he had not looked up the fact that growing tobacco in Scotland had passed the experimental stage, and had been practically and commercially tried, and proved a great success before these duties were imposed. The Secretary to the Treasury had endeavoured to make a most immoral bargain with the Committee. He said, "Do not pass this Bill, and the Treasury will give you permits to grove tobacco." He challenged the right of the Treasury to grant these permits to break the law. Under what statute had the Treasury power to grant permits? The hon. Gentleman was absolutely unable to furnish him with the information because he knew perfectly well that the Treasury had no statutory right to grant them. Similar permits had been granted in Ireland, but everybody familiar with the administration of the law in Ireland knew that the Irish were allowed to do things which the Scottish were not. The Scottish were essentially a law-abiding race, and instead of condoning these irregular methods on the part of the Government, they preferred to have the industry legalised by an Act of Parliament. Therefore some gratitude was due to the hon. Member for taking such an interest in the subject and introducing this Bill. In his opinion there was no reason why it should not be passed into law. He had risen to support the hon. He hoped the Bill would be passed and that the occupants of the front bench would explain their attitude. Had they receded from the hostile attitude taken up in Grand Committee, and did they intend not only to give their blessing to the Bill, but after it had passed that it should be practically operative and not have placed any obstacle in the way of its success?
    MR. MORTONsaid this was not a party matter, and he was very sorry the hon. Baronet was opposing the Bill. He was satisfied from his knowledge of the City of London that he would not be supported in not allowing the Scottish people to do what the Irish people were allowed to do. He had no objection to a Bill being passed for England and Wales as well as Scotland and Ireland, but it was more the hon. Baronet's business to introduce such a Bill than his. He specially represented Scotland on this occasion. They had all so far as he knew supported the Irish Bill which was carried without any objection. The Irish Bill was also passed unanimously by the House of Lords, and, therefore, on those grounds there ought to be no objection to this Bill for Scotland. Scottish Members were obliged to hon. Members opposite for the assistance they had given them so far in carrying this Bill. Tobacco had been successfully grown in Scotland. He had in his hand some tobacco and cigars which had been produced and grown in Scotland and both were as good quality as could be produced anywhere else. That was a substantial reason why they should at least give the farmers of Scotland an opportunity of developing this industry if they wished to. Tobacco required a great deal of labour to be bestowed in its cultivation; therefore, if they grew tobacco they would go a long way towards finding employment for the people of the country. Tobacco was grown in Scotland before. [Cries of "When?"] It was grown previous to 1782. There was no question that it could be grown in Scotland just as well as in Germany, Holland, Belgium, or any other country. It was true that in regard to tobacco-growing there might be a bad year occasionally, but that would occur in regard to any other kind of crop. This Bill was put forward with the express object of giving the people of Scotland an opportunity of growing tobacco for the benefit of the trade of the country generally. No harm could possibly be done by the passing of the Bill, because those who did not wish to take advantage of its provisions need not do so. So far as he knew the Government did not intend to oppose it. The restrictions in the Bill were those which the Government had insisted on

    227
    in the case of the Irish Bill. It was no doubt the duty of the Government to look after the revenue, and they had only done what they thought was right to protect the revenue. He hoped the hon Baronet the Member for the City of London would withdraw his Amendment and allow the people of Scotland to have the benefit of this Bill. He trusted the House would carry the Bill unanimously as was done last year in the case of the Irish Bill.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYsaid he was in favour of the Bill, and hoped the hon. Baronet for the City of London would withdraw his Amendment. On the previous day they were discussing the troubles of the West of Scotland, and it was the duty of every citizen to try to find some industry for those far-off highlands and islands, because the trouble in the West of Scotland would disappear if the inhabitants could be furnished with an industry like tobacco-growing. He had relations who had tried tobacco-growing in Ireland, and he knew that it was going to pay there. He did not see why it should not be equally a success in the West of Scotland. It would encourage additional means of transport and in many ways be a great help to the people.
    SIR J. JARDINEsaid there were many good reasons why the Amendment should be withdrawn and the Bill passed. At the time of the American War, when the supplies of tobacco from abroad were cut off, the farmers of Scotland grew tobacco, especially round Kelso and Jedburgh. In 1798 at the instance of Sir John Sinclair a history of agriculture in the county of Roxburgh was published by the Rev. Robert Douglas, D.D., minister of Galashiels. He stated that in Crailing parish a farmer grew tobacco on 13 acres; but as the Act of 1792 came into operation he had to sell the crop to the Excise at 4d. a pound, so he got £104, or £8 an acre. The Statistical Account of 1841 showed that he had sold it on the ground for £320; but he was obliged to hand it over for only the £104. The general loss caused by the Act to Roxburghshire farmers came up to £1,500. But later experiments in parts of Norfolk and Kent and Ireland
    228
    had shown that there were numbers of places where tobacco could be profitably grown. Tobacco was just the kind of crop to be grown by people who had only a small area or small holding to cultivate. He hoped the House would accede to the reasonable and natural demands of the people of Scotland in this matter. In counties like Roxburghshire it would do something to stop the depopulation, and it would benefit the revenue. It would give farmers an opportunity of varying their craps, and it would give employment to more people. The industry of small holders would be benefited, and generally it would help localities which were largely interested in the development of agriculture. Before the Act was passed prohibiting the growing of tobacco in England capitalists in London and elsewhere complained of the injury done to the Colonial trade by the cultivation of tobacco here, and they wished to encourage the growing of tobacco in Virginia which was a purely English Colony. He hoped the hon. Baronet would not press the Amendment.
    MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid that when he came to the House he thought it would be a good thing if this Bill did not pass into law, but since he had listened to several admirable speeches from the representatives of Scottish constituencies, and especially to that of the hon. Member for Roxburghshire he was convinced that the Bill will prove of benefit to Scotland, and, therefore, he joined in the appeal to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London to withdraw his objection. So far as he could see, the passing of the Bill might mean the starting of a new industry in Scotland which would prove of benefit to small holders in that country. He hoped that the tobacco grown in Scotland would prove equal to that grown in Ireland and foreign countries. If Scotland and Ireland were to have the right to grow tobacco, he thought a Bill should be passed next year giving England the same privilege. He would like to hear from the hon. Member representing the Government whether they would be able to acquiesce in that suggestion, or whether it would be necessary for a private Member to bring forward a Bill on the subject.
    MR. C. B. HARMSWORTHsaid he wished to support the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite. Personally, he should support this Bill just as he supported the Irish Bill last year, because he had never been able to appreciate the arguments used in favour of the prohibition of the growing of tobacco, or the production of any other kind of merchandise, in this country. He had smoked Irish tobacco and survived, and he had no doubt that Scottish tobacco would be found to be equally good. He was surprised at the opposition of the hon. Baronet, because at present the Treasury regulations really operated in the direction of protecting the foreign producer. The hon. Baronet was unquestionably a supporter of fair trade, and therefore he ought to support the Scottish Members in the passing of this Bill. His only right to intervene in the discussion was that he was the representative of an agricultural division. He sincerely hoped that his hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury would either promote a similar Bill for England, or allow some of his faithful followers to do so. If the hon. Baronet would bring in a Bill to allow tobacco growing in England, he would be very happy to support it.
    MR. CARLILEsaid it was difficult to understand why this Bill should not at once be extended to England. His hon. friend had suggested that this might be done next year. He did not see why Scotland, which had many advantages over England, should have the further advantage of being allowed to grow tobacco a year in advance of this country. One was at a loss to understand why the different parts of the United Kingdom should not be allowed to grow almost anything out of which a profit could be made. He supposed there would be a moral objection to the growing of the poppy for the production of opium. There were many people who regarded the use of tobacco as almost as pernicious as the use of opium, but that view, he was thankful to say, was not generally held by the people of this country. He objected to Scotland being given the power to grow tobacco while England was prevented from doing so. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London was averse to giving permission to grow tobacco. That might be because he feared that a Radical Government
    230
    would prohibit the importation of Havana cigars, of which he was an appreciative consumer. He hoped that the hon. Baronet would withdraw the Amendment. At present every branch of agriculture was more or less in a depressed condition.
    SIR F. BANBURY: No.
    MR. CARLILEsaid he remembered that the hon. Baronet, himself, and other agriculturists did pretty well last year. They were able to sell wheat at 38s. a quarter. There was, nevertheless, strong competition to contend against, and it seemed to be a pity that farmers should not be allowed to produce any kind of crops which would yield a profit. The Government had done little towards reducing unemployment in the country, and here they had an opportunity of promoting an industry which had long since passed the experimental stage, and which would increase employment. There should be no difficulty with regard to the Excise arrangements for the protection of the revenue in the different parts of the United Kingdom.
    MR. WEIRexpressed his satisfaction that the Bill had reached a stage which afforded strong hope of its becoming law this session. It was a measure which would do something to alleviate distress in the West Highlands of Scotland. He hoped the hon. Baronet would withdraw his opposition and allow the Bill to pass.
    MR. YOUNGERappealed to his hon. friend not to press his Amendment. They were all agreed in committee that while it might not be of great advantage to Scotland as a whole, there was one particular district where tobacco might be grown with success. Personally, he had little hope that the product in Scotland would be of a very high quality, and he would be sorry himself to smoke it. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] He had had experience in endeavouring to smoke Welsh tobacco, where the conditions were likely to be more satisfactory for growing the plant than in any part of Scotland, and any gentleman who could smoke that tobacco must have a pretty strong throat, and be able to stand a good deal. At the same time there was no reason why the

    231
    experiments of tobacco growing in Scotland, which had been conducted on a considerable scale, should not be proceeded with, and he hoped the hon. Baronet would therefore withdraw his Amendment.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,)said he accepted the invitation of the hon. Member below the gangway, but he promised to detain the House for only a moment. He understood that there were a large number of Scottish representatives in the House who were very anxious that tobacco should be cultivated in Scotland, not, as he gathered from their speeches, that they might smoke it themselves, but rather that they might offer it to their friends. It would be very ungracious on the part of the Government to stand in the way of any benevolent intentions of that kind, and he, therefore, on behalf of the Government, accepted the Bill.
    MR. CARLILE: What about England?
    LORD BALCARRESsaid he had no objection to this Bill except as regarded the limitation of the title. So far as he understood, the Secretary to the Treasury had given sympathetic expression to its extension to Scotland. He confessed he was not familiar with the experiments in tobacco growing which had been carried on in Scotland, and he questioned if they were likely to be as successful as those which had been made in Ireland. Indeed, he was quite sure that East Anglia and Lincolnshire were more suitable for tobacco growing than many portions of Ireland, and he would have wished that the hon. Gentleman's predecessor had treated with less hostility the idea of making the experiment of the cultivation of tobacco in England.
    MR. MORTONsaid that the supporters of this Bill had not said a word against the idea of bringing in a Bill to apply to England and Wales.
    LORD BALCARRESsaid he understood that the Treasury was hostile to a measure for England.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid that as it appeared that there were a considerable number of
    232
    Members for Scotland who were desirous of having the Bill passed he would be glad to withdraw his Amendment. His point was similar to that of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire that the Bill only applied to Scotland, and it would be out of order to move that it should be extended to England. His object had been to ascertain whether there was a real desire on the part of Scottish Members to have this Bill, and it also occurred to him that if it was good for Scotland it would be good also for England. His hon. friend made a speech in Committee to extend the Bill to England, but his proposal was rejected at the instigation of the Treasury. He congratulated the Government on their change of front, and he hoped that next year the provisions of the Bill would be extended to England. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR F. BANBURYhoped the Government would accept the Amendment standing in his name to leave out in the first Clause, line 19, the word "may" for the purpose of inserting "shall." This part of the Clause referred to the Board of Inland Revenue fixing the excise duty. The Inland Revenue ought not to be deprived of any excise duty as the result of the passage of this Bill, and if the Board exempted Scotland from taxation, as it might if "may" was retained, that might operate very hardly on the rest of the United Kingdom. His hon. friend might say that "may" in law meant "shall," but "shall" was a plain old-English word which was understanded of everybody.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 1, line 19, to leave out the word 'may,' and insert the word 'shall,' "—(Sir F. Banbury),—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Bill."
    MR. MORTONsaid he did not himself object to the alteration, but he was bound in good faith to stand by the Bill as agreed to in Committee. The word "may" was insisted upon by the Government in

    233
    the Irish Bill last year, and he had no doubt that the Government would insist on the same condition for Scotland as they did for Ireland. They could not ask any more.
    MR. CAELILEopposed the Amendment. It was not necessary to strengthen the Bill by the substitution of "shall" for "may." "May" was quite strong enough. The Inland Revenue would not be loth to put their powers into force. What he wanted was to put the position of the agriculturist in as favourable a light as possible, and they could leave the Treasury to look after itself.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third, time and passed.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS) BILL.
    As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
    MR. GULLANDmoved a new clause (Application to Scotland). He said that in the Standing Committee the hon. Member for South Aberdeen proposed that the Bill should apply to Scotland, and that was unanimously agreed to; but it was found impossible there and then to frame words, which were very complicated in detail, applying the Bill to Scotland. The new clause had now been drafted, and as he understood the Scottish Office had approved of it, he hoped the House would accept it. He bogged to move.
    MR. WATTseconded the new clause. He hoped that no objection would be raised to the application of the Bill to Scotland. What was good enough for England was good enough for Scotland.
    New clause—
    "In the application of this Act to Scotland —(1) the expression 'local authority' means—(a) a county council, a town council, a parish council, a school board, and a district committee constituted under the Local Government (Scotland) Acts; (b) a central body and a distress committee under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905; (c) a joint committee or joint board or any other body constituted under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, and any Act amending the same, the Lunacy (Scotland)
    234
    Acts, 1856 to 1900, or any other Act of Parliament or Provisional Order, and administering or entitled to administer funds derived from any rate; (2) the expression 'Local Government Board' means the Local Government Board for Scotland; (3) the definition of the expression ' local authority,' in Section 2 of this Act, shall not apply to Scotland,"—(Mr. Gulland,)—
    Brought up, and read a first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be road a second time."
    MR. CARLILEopposed the clause on the ground that he did not wish the measure to be introduced into Scotland, because he did not wish to see the Bill brought in for England.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was not entitled to discuss that as the principle of the Bill had already been agreed to, and this Amendment was merely to explain the powers of the Bill in Scotland.
    MR. CARLILEcontended that it was not necessary to extend the powers of this Bill to Scotland, and its only effect would be largely to increase Scottish oratory in all sub-committees of local authorities in that country. The House had an illustration on the previous day of how a comparatively small group of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies could occupy the whole of a sitting in discussing a small matter, and the Bill would result in the amount of verbosity and eloquence being increased tenfold. Everybody familiar with local bodies in Scotland knew that very often where the Press was present there was the maximum of oratory and the minimum of work.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was not discussing this clause at all, but the Bill at large. The Bill applied to Scotland already and this was the interpretation clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.
    SIR F. BANBURYmoved to insert at the end of line 7, in Clause 1, the words "as often as may be desirable at any meeting." It might be that at the

    235
    beginning of a meeting there was no business which in the opinion of the council or committee it was best to keep private, but something might happen subsequently in regard to which it might be thought that the Press ought to be excluded from the discussion. The meeting might have forgotten to move the resolution, and when the second order came on it might be held that it was impossible to exclude the Press because the motion had not been made before the first order was discussed. Probably the hon. Member in charge of the Bill would accept the Amendment which it was quite clear only carried out the intention of the Bill. He desired only to make perfectly clear what was intended so that the Press and the local authority might work amicably together.
    MR. LANE-FOXseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 1, line 7, to insert the words 'as often as may be desirable at any meeting.' "—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONhoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. In his opinion it was altogether unnecessary. Local authorities already had the power of exclusion, and he objected to the words of the Amendment because they would form a standing invitation to local authorities to exclude the representatives of the Press from their meetings. The object of the measure was to guard the rights of the public by enabling the fullest information to be obtained for them in regard to the actions of their representatives upon local authorities.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. MASTEKMAN))said the Government thought the Amendment useful. In its present form the Bill seemed to imply that once the representatives of the Press were excluded they would be excluded during the whole
    236
    of the time that a particular meeting lasted. Therefore the Government had no objection to this Amendment, which he thought might be accepted by the hon. Member.
    MR. YOUNGERsuggested that the point was met by the use of the word "temporarily" in the clause.
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONinclined to the opinion that the suggestion of the hon. Member who had just sat down to insert the word "temporarily" would cover the whole point raised by the hon. Member opposite.
    MR. CARLILEsaid he did not think the word "temporarily" would be sufficient to meet the case, nor did he think it would have the same effect as the words of the Amendment, which suggested that the Press might be excluded at various short intervals during the one sitting.
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONdid not think it mattered very much, and was inclined to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. GUINNESSproposed to omit "two-thirds" and insert "a majority," in order that a bare majority of the members of a local authority might be able to pass a resolution excluding the representatives of the Press from a meeting when such exclusion was advisable in the public interest in view of the special nature of the business to be dealt with. In the case of the London County Council there was a standing order that the public and the Press should be admitted, and that standing order could be changed by the will of a bare majority. If the vote of a majority of two-thirds of the members of an authority were insisted upon, party feeling might induce a minority not representing the view of a majority of the ratepayers, to vote against the exclusion of the Press, and in that way to defeat the public interest and the views of the majority of the council. He thought private sittings of a local authority when exercising judicial functions were desirable. The manner in which a county

    237
    council acting as the licensing authority for music-halls carried on its work at present was almost a scandal, for after evidence had been heard party speeches were made and party recriminations indulged in, and in such a case as that it was highly desirable that the Press should not be admitted.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 1, line 8, to leave out the words 'two-thirds,' and to insert the words 'a majority.' "—(Mr. Guinness.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'two-thirds' stand part of the Bill."
    MR. GODFREY BARING, in supporting the Amendment, said it was almost essential that discussions as to the purchase of property by local authorities should not be carried on in the presence of representatives of the Press; but if only a small majority of the members of an authority were in favour of a particular purchase, the Press could not be excluded under the Bill in its present form.
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONconsidered there was a great deal of force in the arguments with which the Amendment had been supported, and expressed willingness to accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR F. BANBURYmoved to insert the following proviso: "Provided also that it shall be lawful for such local authority to determine by a like majority that any matters discussed thereat shall not be published, and to provide by standing order, regulation, or otherwise, as may be approved by the Local Government Board, that any infringement of such resolution may be punished by exclusion of the person offending from future proceedings of the local authority for a period not exceeding three months." It might well be that there was a rather delicate matter under discussion, but that the local authority did not think it was desirable to exclude the Press. Some dispute might arise between members of local authorities and some unseemly discussion take place, and he did not think anything was to
    238
    be gained by washing dirty linen in public. He therefore thought there should be power given to the local authority to point out that that particular matter should not be published. He thought the Amendment really was in the interests of everybody, although he admitted it was not of very great importance. They knew very well that the fifth-rate Press was inclined to take to small personal matters and publish them, and he did not think any hon. Member wanted that to be done.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 1, line 14, at the end, to insert the words 'Provided also that it shall be lawful for such local authority to determine by a like majority that any matters discussed thereat shall not be published, and to provide by Standing Order, regulation, or otherwise, as may be approved by the Local Government Board, that any infringement of such resolution may be punished by exclusion of the person offending from future proceedings of the local authority for a period not exceeding three months.' "—(Sir F Banbury.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    LORD R. CECILsaid he did not think the Amendment would do as it stood, because it did not take account of the Amendment last put in. But apart from that it would be unreasonable to put it in, because there was no advantage in the representatives of the Press being present at all unless they published the proceedings.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid there was another point. Supposing the representatives of the Press had been excluded and individual members of the authority published what took place, he thought that ought to be prevented, and his Amendment, he took it, would provide for that. What was the good of excluding the Press if they left the power with any single member of the local authority to publish the proceedings? He was naturally desirous of giving every consideration to the opinion of his noble friend, but he thought he had overlooked that point.
    LORD R. CECILsaid that if that was the meaning of the Amendment he thought it was quite out of order, because

    239
    it would be an attempt, not to regulate the presence of representatives of the Press at meetings of local authorities, but to regulate the rights of members of local authorities themselves.
    MR. RAWLINSONthought the Amendment was in order, the object of it being to prevent representatives of the Press, when they had been excluded by a majority of the local authority, from publishing what occurred in their absence by getting their information from members or by other means.
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid he was rather disposed against the Amendment before it was moved, but since it had been moved and explained he must say, on behalf of the promoters, that they were most strenuously opposed to it. They had no right in their Bill to curtail the rights and privileges of members of the various local authorities, and on that account he hoped the House would negative the Amendment.
    THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. EMMOTT,): I do not think the words are really out of order.
    MR. GUINNESShoped the House would accept the Amendment, because it appeared to him that it was impossible for any local authority to know what would be brought out in a debate beforehand, and confidential documents might be quoted by members of the council which, in the public interest, should not be published in the Press. Only the other day, on the London County Council, an extremely confidential document was sent to a certain paper and published, against the interests of the Council. If the Amendment was not accepted they would have no redress in a case of that sort. He thought they could not expect the Press to respect the confidence of these councils unless they could be punished in some way if they neglected to do so.
    SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that if every document submitted to a local authority must be published, were they quite sure that that authority would be supplied with
    240
    information of a confidential character? It was sometimes not agreeable to tell the whole truth, and it might incur an amount of unpopularity. He had had some experience of these matters, and he knew the great difficulty there was to obtain a full disclosure of the facts which it was necessary to consider before they could arrive at a proper conclusion.
    MR. WATTthought the Amendment would complicate the machinery of the Bill. The offender would not be a person but a newspaper, and the difficulty of tracing the connection between the newspaper and the person present at the meeting who had communicated the confidential matter would be very great.
    MR. MASTERMANhoped, the hon. Baronet, would see his way to withdraw the Amendment. It was perfectly true that it was within the scope of the Bill, but in its application it would go far beyond the scope of the Bill. As far as he could judge it would allow a town council to exclude one of its own members if he communicated confidential statements to the Press. He had no objection to that; it might be a good thing. Such things had been done, he regretted to say, even in connection with Committees of the House of Commons, but he did not think it ought to be brought within the Bill, which dealt entirely with the Press. Confidential documents might be a difficulty, but the Press were at the present time present at the great majority of town council discussions, and it was his experience that they habitually responded to that kind of appeal; whereas if they passed this Amendment it would not only exclude confidential documents but give the local authority the right to prevent the Press reporting things, even verbal indecencies—using indecencies as a mild expression, such as scenes in the council, which were certainly scandals but which ought to be reported.
    MR. CURRANstrongly opposed the Amendment. Committees of local authorities conducted many of the affairs of the local

    241
    authorities, and it was often desirable that their transactions should be reported in the Press. The Amendment, however would tend towards shutting out from the ratepayers any information as to the transactions of such committees. On those grounds he strongly opposed the Amendment. He believed that the transactions of popularly elected men in these committees ought to be open to the public Press, and if that had been the case up to now there would not have been any scandals such as those which had been revealed in recent times in regard to the business transacted by certain boards of guardians.
    MR. CAVEsaid he wanted to ask his hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment. If it applied only to the Press it was not wanted, for when an appeal was made to the Press not to publish any matter on the ground that it was not for the public interest that it should be published, it was his experience that they always responded and did not publish the matter in question. But if the Amendment applied to the members of the local authorities he could not for a moment support it. No doubt members of local authorities sometimes did publish what had better not be made public; but if a member so offending were to be excluded for three months, it was not he who would be punished but those who sent him to the authority, and he did not think it was in the public interest that such a power of exclusion should be given to any public body whatever.
    SIR F. BANBURYthought that on the whole the opinion of the House was against the Amendment, and although he thought it would act well, he did not intend to press it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CAVE*MR. CAVE moved to insert after "regulations," the words "as to the evidence to be furnished of the appointment of representatives of the Press, and." The effect of it would be that any person claiming to be a representative of the Press might be required to produce some credentials. He thought the local
    242
    authority ought not to be put in the position that a person whom they did not know might claim to be admitted as representing the Press. There might be cases where someone with no credentials desired to enter the Press gallery, and the authority might have to admit somebody who had no right to admission, or if they excluded him they might under the Bill, as it stood, be proceeded against. He did not think any elaborate evidence of authority should be required, but that there should be power to make a regulation requiring that the representative should produce a pass or card to show the officials that he really represented a paper.
    MR. STAVELEY-HILLseconded.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 1, line 16, after the word 'regulations,' to insert the words 'as to the evidence to be furnished of the appointment of representatives of the Press and.' "—(Mr. Cave.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONthought there was a good deal in the point that the local authority should be satisfied that a Press representative was really acting officially on behalf of his paper, and he was going to accept an Amendment later on inserting the words "duly accredited representative." He did not know whether that would meet the point of his hon. and learned friend. If, however, it did not he was prepared to accept this Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WINFREY MR. WINFREY (Norfolk, S.W.) moved to insert in line 19, after "representatives," the words "direct or indirect." His object, he said, was to cover news agency correspondents and so forth. He thought his proposal would be accepted by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle.
    MR. CLOUGHseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 1, line 19, after the word 'representatives,' to insert the words 'direct or indirect.' "—(Mr. Winfrey.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONthought it was really necessary to accept some such words in order to safeguard the representatives of Press associations.
    MR. MASTERMANsaid the words "direct or indirect" would really not strengthen the clause. He would submit that the proper place to discuss the question of Press agencies was at the end of Clause 2, where the hon. Gentleman had some Amendments which he thought both the promoters of the Bill and the Government were prepared to accept.
    MR. CAVEthought the words "indirect representatives of the Press" very value, and he hoped they would not be inserted.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    ME. WINFREY ME. WINFREY moved to insert at the end of line 20, after "opinions" the words "or on the ground of any reports or comments published by such newspaper." He thought it was obvious that these words would very much improve the clause on the ground that sometimes newspapers might be excluded because of comments published editorially.
    MR. CLOUGHseconded.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 1, line 20, after the word 'opinions,' to insert the words 'or on the ground of any reports or comments published by such newspaper.' "—(Mr. Winfrey.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONthought the words introduced a very great improvement, and he accepted them.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. NANNETTI*MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green) moved to insert in line 20, after "newspaper," the words "or through
    244
    the agency of such representatives.'' An agency might give offence in some way to a local authority, and he thought it would strengthen the clause and safeguard the public if the representative of a news agency was also not debarred from exercising his calling in that way.
    MR. C. B. HARMSWORTHseconded.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 1, line 20, after the word 'newspaper,' to insert the words 'or through the agency of such representatives.'"—(Mr. Nan-netti.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid, having regard to the fact that they had not inserted "direct or indirect" he was disposed to accept the Amendment. It seemed to him that they would require some words to cover the case of the representatives of various Press associations. If this was the right place to insert the words he accepted them.
    MR. MASTERMANsaid that this was a penal clause, and as agencies were admitted in the last section of Clause 2, he thought it might be desirable, if not altogether essential, to insert the words in this place.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. GUINNESS*MR. GUINNESS moved the insertion of the following words: "Nothing in this Act shall prevent the exclusion of the representatives of any newspaper on the ground of the publication of confidential documents." He felt that it was necessary to move this Amendment in view of the fact that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City had withdrawn his Amendment. The Amendment which he now proposed was to deal with a difficulty which might very often arise. There was a case only last week in the London County Council where a document marked "private and confidential," a report officially to the council, and intended only for the use of members, had been obtained by a certain newspaper and published by them, although they stated in their columns that it

    245
    was marked "private and confidential." He thought in a case like that the local authority ought to be in a position, to protect themselves.
    VISCOUNT MORPETHseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill.
    "In page 1, line 20, after the words last inserted, to insert the words 'nothing in this Act shall prevent the exclusion of the representatives of any newspaper on the ground of the publication of confidential documents.' "—(Mr. Guinness.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    MR. DALZIELhoped the Government would not accept the Amendment. It seemed to him that the hon. Member was taking the opportunity afforded by this Bill to drag in a local question pertaining to the London County Council. When opportunity offered, there would be a full and adequate reply to the suggestion which the hon. Member had made. If the Amendment were adopted, it would give a great power to the local authority. What would be the position? A local authority would only need to call everyone of their documents "private and confidential" to keep all information from the public. Who was to decide what was "private and confidential"? The very case to which the hon. Member alluded was the strongest argument that could be put forward against the Amendment. He understood that the document referred to was of an entirely public character, and surely it was open to the Press to doubt the wisdom of a committee or of a local authority who might be disposed to mark any and every document "private and confidential." He thought that in this instance it was the chairman of the committee who had described it as "private and confidential." But whether it was or not it did not alter his objection to the Amendment. He thought that the Bill without it would be strong enough, and to insert the words proposed would encourage local authorities to mark too many of their documents "private and confidential," and to keep important facts entirely from the public.
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONhoped the Amendment would not be pressed. In the first place, this subsection was really drafted by those for whom the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment was really acting. In Committee upstairs he had promised that he would meet the hon. Member's point, and he had met it by accepting this subsection. Having done so, he thought it was just a little unfair on the Report stage to ask him to accept such a drastic Amendment as was now proposed. For that reason and for other reasons which he could state, he must decline to accept the Amendment.
    MR. MASTERMANhoped the hon. Member for Bury would see his way to withdraw the Amendment, especially as they had given way on the point of a two-thirds majority, and an absolute majority. The Amendment did not really deal with the Bill. This clause was a special clause against newspapers. There had been a long debate in that House in reference to The Times newspaper's publishing confidential documents of Committees, and if the Amendment were adopted, they might have the town council of Orkney and Shetland, if Orkney and Shetland had a town council, excluding The Times reporter because The Times in London had published a confidential report or document of that House. That was an impossible position so far as this Bill was concerned, and they held that, if there was any discussion on a confidential document, it was for the local authority by a majority to declare that it was inexpedient in the public interest that the Press should be admitted. If, however, representatives of the Press were admitted, they should have a right to publish the document, but the Press should not be held responsible or penalised if they obtained it through another source.
    VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid that the Bill was now in the House of Commons, and not upstairs in Committee, and they had their rights in that House, irrespective of arrangements come to between parties upstairs. He had no knowledge of the quarrel that had taken place in the London County Council in regard to the

    247
    publication in the Press of a confidential document. He did not know in that particular case on which side the rights were. But it was quite obvious, looking at it from a general point of view, that in the London County Council there must be some documents of a confidential character, and who was to be the authority to decide that a document was confidential, and treat it as such? Was it to be the local body which was entrusted with the duty of administering local affairs, or was it to be the Press? Were the Press to be the judge of whether a document ought to be confidential? Anyone could imagine quite easily that there were a great many things in local government which it was desirable to keep confidential, at any rate, for a time. There were now under the Education Act a great many matters affecting the discipline of teachers in the schools, in which delicate inquiries had to be made, and it might be most prejudicial to justice if they were made public before they were completed, and whilst the papers were still private, and ought to be private. During the holding of such inquiries it would be most undesirable that the proceedings should be published broadcast in the Press. Anybody could easily understand that in such a case as the purchase of lands and sites it would be most prejudicial to the interests of the public that there should be reports published in regard to the estimates of cost, while the documents were still confidential. There ought to be some means of dealing with a newspaper which wilfully disregarded these private and confidential matters, and which, judging for themselves, were a law to themselves and published things which ought to be regarded as private. For that reason he supported the hon. Gentleman in his Amendment because it seemed to him that the penalty was a very mild one for what might be a very serious offence.
    MR. BYLESsaid he did not see how a document which was read in a public local authority with seventy or eighty representatives could be confidential. The noble Lord had suggested cases whore negotiations were going on for the acquisition of land, and it was very undesirable that the public should know the intermediate processes in the
    248
    transaction. No doubt it was very undesirable indeed, but no public authority would be foolish enough to read such a document while negotiations of that kind were in progress, and if they did, although the reporters were absolutely forbidden under penalty to publish it, with eighty representatives it would be out directly, and very likely some of these representatives would go and secure the property for themselves. It was of the last importance that all transactions affecting the public and local public resources should be watched by the public or the Press which represented the public. Another objection which he had to the Amendment was that it proposed to punish a newspaper, which published one of these confidential documents, even inadvertently, or by an error of judgment, for ever. That was to say, if a document had appeared in the leading local paper which had been criticising rather smartly the doings of a local authority, they would for ever after that be excluded from the public body.
    MR. NANNETTIhoped the House would not accept the Amendment. It was admitted that the Press would be excluded, and if a document marked "private and confidential" was circulated in the Press it was proposed to punish the newspaper. Why should they punish the newspaper for the action of an individual who was on his honour asked to keep a document confidential and strictly private? That was a matter for the corporation or the local body that had to deal with it. If a member abused the privilege or gave a copy to a newspaper, he could not for the life of him see why the newspaper should be compelled not to publish that document if they so desired. It might even be in the public interest. It might happen that a document of vital interest to the public might be marked "private and confidential" arid then no newspaper would dare to publish because of the penalty that the Bill would impose. Any of the members present at the meeting might give a copy of a document and it would be an interference with the liberty of the Press to prohibit its publication under such circumstances. They were the best judges as to whether a document marked "private and confidential" should be published or not, and he thought in that democratic House they were not going to attempt to

    249
    bring in restrictions on the Press and on responsible editors who knew what they were doing and would not publish a document dealing, for instance, with the sale of land. With regard to the document relating to London County Council finance, the universal opinion was that it should have been published. He was not going to find fault with the paper that published it. It was quite justified in publishing it. Having had the document given them it would be a mistake if the Press did not use their judgment and publish it if they so desired. He hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Dr.
    MACNAMARA,)did not deny that this was not at all an easy matter. On the face of it it would almost appear that they wanted some punitive power over a Press representative who misused the right which this Bill conferred on him. At the instance of the hon. Baronet they had said that by a bare majority they could exclude Press representatives as often as they pleased during the course of a meeting. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were afraid lest, notwithstanding these precautions, they might get into their hands a confidential document and make an improper use of it. The noble Lord the Member for South Birmingham was particularly anxious about that and spoke of the early publication of matters affecting the purchase of land and the disciplinary treatment of teachers. He was a little surprised to hear it from him because the noble Lord was for a number of years Chairman of the School Accommodation Committee of the London School Board, and he should say never under any circumstances had he to complain of any misuse at any time in these very important matters by the Press of any private and confidential information which might possibly have come into their hands.
    VISCOUNT MORPETH: I have no personal complaint, nor do I know personally any instance of a grievance, but I want to guard against cases that might arise.
    DR. MACNAMARAsaid that was what he thought. But a local authority
    250
    might mark all it s papers "private and confidential" and defeat the whole object of the Bill, which was to confer on the Press a right which it did not at present possess. Then under the terms of the Amendment, because of the misuse of a document—and he did not understand how it could come into his hands, because he could be turned out as often as was desired during one meeting whenever a matter of a confidential character turned up—but if it came into the reporter's hands by some mysterious means he could be turned out for ever. He was sure the mover would not go quite so far. Then there was the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board that if a member of the local authority for reasons best known to himself, having access to all private and confidential documents, handed them to the Press, the result would be that the unfortunate Press representative would be turned out. Although he admitted the difficulty and could not but admit the reasonableness of having some punitive power for misuse, this was not a form in which they could in any practical way apply it, and he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
    MR. RAWLINSONsaid the hon. Gentleman had failed to appreciate the position of those who were pressing the Amendment. It had a much wider scope than he had realised. There was a document which the local authority were of opinion was confidential. A newspaper got hold of it by some means or other. It was absolutely impossible for the local authority to prove who was the person who had given it up. At present the local authority had full power to deal with newspapers. This Bill was going to take that power away; therefore he asked the House to pause before they did that and left no power to deal with what might be a very serious matter. The hon. Gentleman appealed to his noble friend whether or not he ever had any trouble with the Press when at the school board. But they were taking away the power which the local authority had now of dealing with the Press. One obvious reason why they had had no trouble was that they had the means of dealing with it if trouble occurred. But further than that, they knew that confidential documents

    251
    had been disclosed from time to time. By whom? That was exactly the difficulty they were invariably met by, and suspicion was thrown on clerks and others who had had possession of the document.
    MR. DALZIEL: The reporter may have the contents summarised and sent to him.
    MR. RAWLINSONsaid in that case, the local authority whom they were trusting with such very great powers in other matters would never think of dealing unfairly with a newspaper which did such a thing as that. They must trust the local authority not to do such a grave act of injustice as to treat a newspaper unfairly in that way. They must assume that the local authority knew the tremendous importance of the power which resided in them, and some part of which should be kept in their hands, and that they would only deal with newspapers who had got hold of documents which were really furnished by a breach of trust on the part of somebody, it was impossible to say whom, and therefore were making money out of the publication of a confidential document, and so increasing their circulation to the exclusion of other papers who had run perfectly straight. He had had a great deal to do with confidential documents, and he knew the temptation to which clerks in receipt of small salaries were exposed. It was idle to tell him he had to prove who had broken his trust before the newspaper published the document, because it could not be proved. But local authority ought to have some power in its hands. It had it now, and the Bill ought not to take away such a power to deal with a newspaper which had in their opinion published a document contrary to the express wish of the local authority. The hon. Member for Dublin asked who was the best judge. Surely the local authority must be made the judge in the matter. In this very Bill they had given the power to exclude the Press as often as they liked. If they excluded them whilst a confidential document was being read and it was published directly afterwards the exclusion was worse than a farce, because they simply hit the pressman who had played the game and not published the confidential
    252
    document, and it would be to the benefit of the particular paper which had managed to get the document. For that reason this should be supported as an important Amendment. It was of the last importance that many documents should not be made common property. As they were taking away a power, some sort of restriction of the kind should be left in the Bill. It could do no harm to the Press, and he was sure local authorities could be entrusted with power to deal with the Press who had knowingly published a confidential document.
    LORD R. CECILsaid the Government did not really quite appreciate the basis on which the Bill rested. Everybody knew it rested on the celebrated case in which a local authority unfairly excluded representatives, not of the Press at large, but of a particular newspaper. That was the grievance they had to meet, and the whole point of the Bill was to prevent such a thing being done, and the first clause, which gave power to exclude in the public interest, said specifically that one newspaper must not be excluded and another admitted. The Amendment as drafted would undoubtedly destroy the whole Bill. There could not be any question about that. A local authority would merely have to mark every single document "confidential," or afterwards decide that it was, and proceed to exclude the newspaper in the future. Then it did not say "knowingly published." If the newspaper accidentally published they would have the power to do it. Lastly, the exclusion would be quite indefinite, and it would not be effective because the newspaper would be able to make arrangements with other newspapers if it was unscrupulous, and go on doing what it had done before. The Amendment would not be successful. It went much too far as far as drafting was concerned, and if there was anything in the danger—for he was not disposed to say there was nothing—it would have to be dealt with by a very different kind of Amendment, and could only be considered, if at all, in another place when they had time to consider exactly what could be done and what could not. He hoped the hon. Member would see his way to withdraw the Amendment without prejudice to his being able to raise the matter on another occasion.
    MR. GUINNESSsaid he quite realised that the House was in rather a difficulty in discussing the Amendment because of necessity he had only put it down at the last moment, and he also realised that there were strong objections to the present form of wording, but he thought that could be dealt with so as to meet points that had been raised. The point that the Amendment involved the permanent exclusion of the Press could easily be met by putting in the words "pending satisfactory explanation," and if the newspaper showed that it did not do it wilfully, the exclusion could of course immediately be cancelled. There was another point which also had a good deal of force, that the newspaper might not know that the documents were private and confidential. That could easily be met by omitting the words "confidential documents" at the end and penalising newspapers from the publication of documents issued by the local authority to its members as private and confidential. The particular point which he had in his mind was that newspapers could now boast of issuing these private and confidential documents, and he thought in the interests of local government it was most necessary that officials of local authorities should be protected from this undesirable publication. It was most necessary that the officials should be free from any suspicion of party bias, and if their private recommendations to a committee could be published by a newspaper, he thought they made the position of the permanent officials of these authorities practically impossible. He did not think there was any danger of newspapers being excluded without just cause if they made it an essential that these documents should have been issued and marked "private and confidential." If they did not agree with this Amendment they would put a great advantage in the hands of those newspapers who were unscrupulous enough to publish an official document with a view to improving their circulation. The Secretary to the Admiralty asked the noble Lord the Member for South Birmingham whether, when he was on the London School Board, he ever met any case of misuse of privilege by the Press, and his hon. friend said he did not; but in those days the Press could be very easily penalised, and there was nothing to prevent the London School Board, if the Press had published a
    254
    confidential document, saying: "We will keep out the representative of that particular newspaper." But if the Bill passed in its present form that deterrent would be taken away from the Press, and they would be able to publish confidential documents with absolute inpunity. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted in the form which he now proposed, limiting the period until there was a satisfactory explanation, and the documents to those issued as private and confidential.
    MR. MASTERMANsaid the course the hon. Member was adopting was an impossible way of doing business. The hon. Member confessed that this idea had never occurred to him until the hon. Baronet spoke. Surely this was a question of a penal clause quite apart from the Bill. He was not satisfied with these alterations. It might conceivably be desirable that it should be made possible to prosecute the Press in certain circumstances under due safeguards; but that was a totally different matter from excluding Press representatives. If the Press wished to publish confidential documents, it had no difficulty in getting those documents from other sources. It might be desirable that a Bill penalising the Press should be introduced, but he submitted that this was not the proper place to do it.
    MR. A. ALLENhoped the House would not accept the Amendment in one form or the other. During the ten years he had been a member of the London County Council he never remembered the public interest being seriously injured by publications in the Press, though great inconvenience had sometimes been caused to parties. A public authority could call any document "private and confidential." Indeed, practically every document of the London County Council except the Council agenda paper and one or two papers circulated with it was already so marked. It was ridiculous to give a local authority power to mark all its documents confidential, and then take action against the Press.
    SIR ARTHUR BIGNOLDreferring to the obligation imposed by the words "private and confidential" upon a letter, recalled a case in which the Duke of Wellington, when Prime Minister, received

    255
    a letter so marked, and sent it the following morning to the Press. The Duke's argument was, first, that the writer had no justification for marking the letter "private"; and, secondly, that the right of so treating it or not was in the receiver and not in the writer of the document. He could not support the Amendment to the Amendment.
    SIR F. BANBURYagreed that this was a very difficult matter. No one wanted to prevent the Press from publishing what ought to be published, but there was a possibility that they might publish some document, as they thought in the interest of the public, which ought not to be published. Therefore he thought that, on the whole, some safeguard was necessary, and he should vote with his hon. friend. The reason given for passing the Bill was that in an isolated case one newspaper had been excluded, but it should not be overlooked that they were now dealing with all newspapers. He confessed that he was not much enamoured of local self-government, but it was a little hard to allow the Press to be judges as to whether a document was confidential or not, as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Dublin.
    MR. NANNETTIsaid that what he suggested was that the Press should be allowed to use their discretion as to whether they published them or not.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid that what would happen under this proposal was that the Press would be excluded altogether.
    MR. GUINNESSasked leave to withdraw his original Amendment, and to substitute the improved form of words he had suggested to the House.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 1, line 20, after the words last inserted to insert the words 'Provided also that nothing in this Act shall prevent the exclusion pending satisfactory explanation of representatives of any newspaper on the "ground of the publication of documents issued by the local authority to its members as private and
    confidential' "—(Mr. Guinness).
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    MR. C. B. HARMSWORTHsaid he could not see that the hon. Member had in any way improved a wholly impracticable proposal. If documents could be marked in such a way that every man would know they were private and confidential it might be useful to have some legislation on the point; but the difficulty was that the Press had no means of knowing whether a document was private and confidential or not. He held that if punishment was to be meted out it should be meted out to the proper person, that was, the person who circulated the private and confidential document. He had never known a case of a private document being brought to a newspaper, except by a person to whom it had been confided. Where a document was known to be private and confidential, and when it was not to the public interest to publish it, the practice was to suppress it. He would like to sec some steps taken to punish the actual offender. He did not think the hon. Member had improved his Amendment by the alteration he had suggested, and he hoped it would be rejected unanimously by the House.
    MR. STAVELEY-HILL MR. STAVELEY-HILL moved to strike out from the Amendment the words "pending a satisfactory explanation" in order to insert the words "for a period not exceeding three months." He said they did not wish to put any penalty on the Press, and if a satisfactory explanation were forthcoming the exclusion would probably not exceed a week.
    MR. CARLILEseconded.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill—
    "To leave out the words 'pending satisfactory explanation,' and to insert the word 'for a period not exceeding three months,"— (Mr. Staveley-Hill.)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'pending satisfactory explanation' stand part of the proposed Amendment to the Bill."
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked if it was in order upon this Bill to deal with matters that might never arise as part of the business of those local authorities. The Amendment referred to documents which might be sent privately to the members of the authority,

    257
    and might never come before the actual meeting.
    VISCOUNT MORPETHsuggested that the provision should be exclusion for having violated confidence.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid he thought the Amendment was quite in order. The exclusion proposed was within the scope of the Bill.
    MR. DALZ1ELsaid that this Amendment was asking the council to declare some offender guilty, expel him, and then ask him to furnish a satisfactory explanation. Surely the proper course to take would be to write and ask for this explanation before penalising the offending person. The suggestion in the Amendment seemed to him absurd. According to the Bill if a newspaper published a document which was regarded as confidential the clerk would be instructed to make a representation to the newspaper and then the Committee would decide whether there was any ground for action. By this Amendment they were proposing to expel the newspaper without any opportunity of being heard. ["No."] They must leave a certain amount of discretion to the local authority. Were
    they going to penalise the reporter and say that for three months he was not to be admitted? In that case the editor could easily send another member of his staff, or he could obtain a report from other sources. Whatever clause of this kind they introduced with the object of limiting the Press they could easily find ways of getting round it.
    MR. GUINNESSsaid his Amendment would not prevent the clerk to a local authority communicating with the newspaper before taking action.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Proposed words there inserted.
    Question put, "That the words 'Provided also that nothing in this Act shall prevent the exclusion for a period not exceeding three months of representatives of any newspaper on the ground of the publication of documents issued by the local authority to its members as private and confidential' be inserted after the last Amendment made to the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 40; Noes, 164. (Division List No. 139.)

    AYES.

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

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Pee

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Doughty, Sir George

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Ashley, W. W.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham

    Valentia, Viscount

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Haddock, George B.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Banner, John S. Harmood.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

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

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

    Younger, George

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Mr. Guinness and Viscount

    Cave George

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

    Morpeth.

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    NOES.

    Agnew, George William

    Branch, James

    Cooper, G. J.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Bright, J. A.

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

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Crean, Eugene

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Cameron, Robert

    Crooks, William

    Beale, W. P.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Chance, Frederick William

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co)

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Clough, William

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Brace, William

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

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

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

    Scott, A. H. (A'ht'n-under-Lyne

    Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Seddon, J.

    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Shackleton, David James

    Essex, R. W.

    M'Crae, George

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

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Ferens, T. R.

    Meagher, Michael

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Menzies, Walter

    Snowden, P.

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs. N. W.)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Steadman, W. C.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Mooney, J. J.

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Gulland, John W.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Summerbell, T.

    Halpin, J.

    Muldoon, John

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

    Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

    Murray, Capt. Hn AC.(Kincard.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Torrance, Sir A. M.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Napier, T. B.

    Verney, F. W.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Nicholson, CharlesN, (Doncast)

    Vivian, Henry

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Walsh, Stephen

    Henry, Charies S.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wardle, George J.

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    O'Dowd, John

    Waring, Walter

    Hodge, John

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

    Hogan, Michael

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

    Watt, Henry A.

    Hudson, Walter

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

    Weir, James Galloway

    Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

    Radford, G. H.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Rees, J. D.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Joyce, Michael

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

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Williamson, A.

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Lamont, Norman

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Winfrey, R.

    Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Lundon, W.

    Rowlands, J.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Master of Elibank and Captain Norton.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 21, to leave out the words 'any newspaper,' and to insert the words 'the Press.'"—(Mr. Winfreyy.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 25, to leave out the word 'it,' and to insert the word 'they.'"—(Mr. Masterman.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MASTERMANsaid subsection (3) of Clause 1 gave the representative of any newspaper the right of appeal to the Local Government Board if he felt aggrieved by the regulations made by a local authority for the accommodation of the representatives of the Press. The subsection gave the Local Government
    Board power to vary or alter such regulations, but there was nothing in the Bill to prevent the local authority from going back next day to the old regulations. He moved to amend the subsection by adding words which would prevent the local authority from taking such action.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 25, at end, to add the words 'and no regulations in so far as they are so varied or altered shall be subsequently varied or rescinded by the local authority without the consent of the Board.'''—(Mr. Masterman.)
    MR. LAMONTmoved an Amendment to provide that notice of meetings of the local authority should

    261
    be sent by the clerk not only to the editor as proposed, but to the local representative of any newspaper circulating in the district of the local authority. As illustrating the necessity for this Amendment, lie stated that one of the papers which circulated most largely in his constituency was published at Largs. Great delay would be caused if notice had to be sent to the editor at Largs instead of to the local representative at Millport. As he understood from the hon. Member for Barnard Castle that he would accept this Amendment, he would not further detain the House by argument in its favour.
    MR. WATTseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 1, after the word 'editor, to insert the words' or the local representative.'"—(Mr. Lamont.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CARLILEsaid that, while he had all sympathy with the Press, he thought this Amendment was an undue extension of the subsection. Was the correspondent in every little village to be recognised as the local representative of a newspaper to whom the clerk of the local authority was to be obliged to send notice of meetings? The Amendment would make the subsection far too wide, and he hoped the obligation placed upon the clerk would be confined to sending notice to the editor who was the responsible person on the staff of a newspaper.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSONhoped the Amendment would not be accepted. If these words were inserted, the clerk of the local authority would be liable to be charged with a breach of duty because he did not comply with a written request to be furnished with notices of meetings from one who described himself as the local representative of a newspaper. The editor was not inaccessible, and he was surely enough for all practical purposes. He objected to so peremptory a duty as the Amendment required being placed on the clerk of the local authority.
    MR. BYLESsaid he did not think the hon. Baronet understood the position. The Amendment appeared to be perfectly reasonable. It was reasonable that the local representative in a small country town should be the recipient of the notices of meetings. The editor might be in a city a considerable distance away. If a newspaper had a branch office in a town fifty miles away from the place of publication, it would be absurd to require that the notice should be sent to the editor to be re-transmitted to the representative on the spot who was responsible for the reports of the meetings of that particular local authority.
    MR. REESsaid he wished cordially to support the Amendment. He thought hon. Members opposite who had opposed the Amendment did not realise the situation. The local representatives of newspapers were often separated by long distances from the editor, and unless the subsection were amended, the newspapers concerned would be under great disabilities. He would take the case of a newspaper with a circulation in a group of boroughs edited at one borough, and with a competing paper at another borough. The editor could not personally conduct all the business or make all applications to the local authority, while on the other hand the local representative of such a newspaper would be a perfectly well-known and trustworthy person, and he submitted that there was very good reason in scattered constituencies for adopting the Amendment, of which he cordially approved.
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid that if they did not accept some such Amendment they were going to alter what had been the custom, especially in rural districts, for very many years. He could give a concrete illustration. In his own constituency there were two leading morning newspapers circulated. They had representatives who were in constant touch with the local authorities, and they got notices of meetings. If the notices in future were to be sent to the editors twenty miles away, the existing arrangements would be disturbed. He was prepared to accept the Amendment.
    MR. STANLEY WILSONopposed the the Amendment on the ground that it went a great deal too far. He thought every one of the villages in his own constituency had representatives of the Tory or Radical Press of Hull. Were these local representatives to be in a position to request the clerk of the local authority to send them notices of meetings? He thought the hon. Member might be content with having notice sent to the editor or sub-editor.
    DR. MACNAMARAsaid that this was a matter of mutual local convenience, purely administrative, and not a very serious one. The Bill was rather a useful little Bill, containing one or two important matters of principle which he hoped they might be allowed to come to. With regard to the Amendment, he reminded the House that the promoter of the Bill had undertaken in the definition of newspaper representative to add "duly accredited." If this was added a great part of the difficulty would disappear.
    SIR F. BANBURYmoved to leave out the words "circulating in the district of the local authority." He did not see why the subsection should be restricted by these words. What was good for one was good for all.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 2, to leave out the words 'circulating in the district of the local authority.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
    Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," put, and negatived.
    MR. LAMONTmoved an Amendment providing that the notice of a meeting sent to the editor should be accompanied "with the agenda of business." In order to carry out this Amendment it would only be necessary to print a few more copies of the agenda, and he did not think that would involve much additional cost.
    MR. WATTseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 3, after the word 'notice,' to insert the words 'with agenda of the business.'"—(Mr. Lamont.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GUINNESShoped the House would not accept this Amendment. He believed it would involve large additional expense to the local authorities. The mover of the Amendment thought it would only mean the printing of a few extra agendas. He himself thought it would mean the printing of a few hundred extra agendas. Perhaps the mover did not realise that in many cases the agenda contained a great deal of interesting information, and to supply it to a large number of newspapers would be to provide them with cheap and economical "copy." It seemed to him it was enough that the agenda paper should be sent to the reporters who actually attended the meetings. If it was sent to every newspaper in the kingdom it would entail great additional expense from which they would get no advantage in return.
    MR. REESsaid that if the words "circulating in the district" were thrown out, as he understood they had been, it was absolutely necessary to reject the Amendment, because there would be no limit to the trouble and expense caused by it. There was enough printing done now a days which nobody read. One of the greatest troubles of the age was the growth of printed matter, and even the throwing of it into the waste-basket occupied a great deal of valuable time.
    SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that the hon. Gentleman had not considered the extremely ponderous character of these agenda papers, the distribution of which would lay an inconvenient burden and. expense on the local authorities. All that was wanted was covered by the words "due notice."
    MR. LAMONTsaid that it seemed to him that if the editor had a copy of the agenda paper it would enable him to decide whether it was necessary to send a reporter to the meeting or

    265
    not. However, after the expression of opinion which had been given, he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 4, at end, to add the words 'and wilful neglect to do so on the part of such clerk or other officer shall be an offence punishable at summary jurisdiction by fine not exceeding five pounds.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MASTERMANsaid he had an Amendment to propose which was rather important and which he hoped the House would accept unanimously. It was to omit subsection (b), which provided that an education committee, established by a council under the Education Act, 1902, should, for the purposes of this Act, be a "local authority," so far as regarded its proceedings which did not have to be reported to the council for confirmation. Representations had been made that an education committee, acting as an executive authority, was in exactly the same position as many other committees, and therefore the Government asked the House to omit the subsection making it a general rule that that publicity should be given. Then, if this Motion to omit were carried, when he came to propose the amended clause he would move it in a somewhat different fashion. Representations had been made that, from the nature of the business transacted, it would be exceedingly inexpedient to throw all these committees open generally to the Press. They did not insist upon throwing open a watch committee, the committee dealing with the discipline of the police force, and the visiting committee under the Lunacy Act. These were considered private and confidential. But in the case of other committees with delegated powers, for instance, of an out-relief committee of a board of guardians, when they discussed delicate details and took no action except to report to the board, their proceedings would be private; but when the committee, instead of reporting to the central body, dealt with cases themselves, then it was desirable the Press should be admitted.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 16, to leave out subsection (b)."—(Mr. Masterman.)
    Question proposed, "That the words an education committee' stand part of the Bill."
    SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he knew how extremely confidential the matters were which were discussed by the relief committees of boards of guardians, and with that reservation he thought the Amendment might stand.
    MR. GUINNESSthought that it was most undesirable that this suggestion should be accepted. It would be perfectly impossible to distinguish between the business of the committee to which the Press should be admitted under the new subsection and the business from which they ought to be excluded. He had spoken to the clerk of the London County Council, who had had large experience, and who told him that in his opinion it would be practically impossible to distinguish those items on the agenda paper which were dealt with under powers which devolved on the committee and those upon which the committee had to report to the council. Moreover, it would be impossible without an enormous amount of inconvenience to have the Press representatives present at one moment, and not at another. He quite agreed with what had been said as to the relief committees. He thought that the wording of the new clause was very ambiguous. There were many subjects remitted to the committees on which they took no action. That was in the discretion of the committees themselves. There was the structural question also. There was no room for the Press representatives in the committee rooms. It might be suggested that the committees should meet in the council chamber; but that would be impracticable, for a number of the committees met at the same time on the same day. The great advantage of the committee system in local government was, that it got rid of the party bias which so often cramped business at the meetings of the whole local body. They all knew that many members frequently discussed business more with an eye to the effect which

    267
    it would have upon their subsequent re-election than in the interests of the ratepayers; and if the representatives of the Press were allowed at every committee meeting the same vicious principle would be introduced there. At the present time a great deal of work was done in committee in the most expeditious manner possible, because the Press were not present and there was no inducement to members to make speeches. Another advantage of the absence of the Press representatives was that in the administrative work of the committee the officials could come in and speak their minds freely. If the reporters were present, the words of these officials might be twisted to serve party purposes, and efficient local government would no longer be possible. Municipal officials, like Civil Service officials, should be free from party bias. At present it was difficult enough to obtain business men of sufficient leisure to undertake the duties of local government and to attend committee meetings; but if the Press were admitted to these meetings the proceedings would be spun out from two or three to six or even seven hours, which a busy man could not afford to give up. It had been said that the presence of the Press at committee meetings checked corruption; but he thought that corruption could perfectly well be prevented by any honest member of the committee, if he chose, bringing the whole question before the council. Freedom of the Press did not mean that the committee rooms should be thrown open to the Press to report confidential matters which in the interests of the community should not be made public
    MR. BYLESsaid he felt there was a good deal in the arguments pressed by the hon. Member. He himself spoke from considerable experience when he said that the newspapers did not desire their representatives to attend all Committee meetings, nor did they make constant inquiry into confidential details. As he understood from the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, where-ever a public body had the power of levying a rate on the public that was a meeting at which the Press were entitled to be present. He was disposed to accept the Amendment with the view
    268
    of lightening the Bill and making progress.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he should very much regret if by omitting subsection (b) the House lost altogether the results of a discussion on the later clauses. He was aware that when the Education Act of 1902 came into force the exclusion of the public from committee meetings was not an advantage. It was exceedingly important that the public should know what took place at these committee meetings. On the other hand, anyone who had taken part in the deliberations of municipal bodies and their committees knew very well that the presence of reporters destroyed discussion of important questions when an election was drawing near. The committees worked with unimpaired energies and always did their duty fairly when there was no election impending.
    MR. MASTERMANsaid that he had only dealt with committees with delegated powers.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he understood that whenever a committee had executive powers, whether statutory or delegated, the reporters might be present. But in all cases where matters came up to the local authority itself for approval that approval might be merely formal, so that very considerable affairs of public interest might be discussed and really settled in committees from which the reporters would be excluded. He was sorry that the whole question had been delayed to this late stage.
    MR. RADFORDsaid he was sorry that the representative of the Local Government Board proposed to omit subsection (b). The promoters of the Bill had done quite right to insert in their definition clause the education committee as a committee at the meetings of which the Press ought to be represented. There was a good deal of plausibility in the suggestion that all committees should be treated alike and there should not be any differentiation, but Parliament had recognised that the functions of an education committee were so large and so important

    269
    that it was desirable to treat it in a different manner. Ever since the passing of the Education Act of 1902 there had been a conflict among the local authorities as to whether the Press should be admitted or not. He believed that now the Press was admitted to all the Education committees of the various county councils. The London County Council was the last to submit, and they had now fallen into line. But in order to justify the exclusion of the Press they had invented a theory that where there was delegation of powers to the committee there should be publicity, but where there was no delegation the Press should be excluded. He was sorry that the virus of the London County Council had been inoculated into the Local Government Board. He thought the House in deciding that point should not deal with the larger question raised by the Local Government Board as to whether the Press was to be admitted to all committees. The hon. Members' theory broke down in practice. They could not sit down in committee and distinguish in a moment when the Press should be excluded and when not. The Press came in and stayed all the time. It had been found in practice that the differentiation between the delegated and the other functions of a committee was impracticable, and the distinction, if embodied in an Act of Parliament, would be futile. He hoped the Amendment proposed from the Treasury Bench would not be persisted in.
    LORD R. CECILsaid the promoters of the Bill did not really care very much how the House decided this point. They felt there was a distinction between the education and other committees because as a matter of fact people took more interest in education than in other controversial matters. There was also a great deal of force in what was stated by the hon. Member. If the House thought fit to accept the Amendment proposed by the Government it would not interfere with the views of the promoters so far as this Bill was concerned, but he suggested that it might be desirable, in order to save time, to allow the Bill to stand as it was.
    MR. MASTERMANsaid the noble Lord had anticipated what he thought of suggesting. If the House approved he would withdraw the Amendment to omit the sub section, reserving his right to move a new sub section upon which the question of an education committee could be considered on its merits.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WINFREYmoved to add after "committee," the words "and a joint education committee." This was specially provided for in the Act of 1902. There were certain county councils who had a joint education committee and he suggested that the words were necessary to make the definition complete.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 16, after the word 'Committee,' to insert the words 'and a joint education committee.' "—(Mr. Winfrey.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    LORD R. CECILagreed that, as a matter of drafting, the words should be inserted.
    VISCOUNT MORPETHthought there should be some further information as to what the joint committee was. There were many different kinds of joint committees, some of which had very great and others very limited powers conferred upon them. It could not be too often impressed upon this House that to admit the Press to committee meetings was very often to waste time, to introduce party politics, and to lead to the introduction of speeches to the hindrance of the work for which these committees were appointed—purely administrative work. He welcomed the statement by the hon. Member for Salford who had urged upon the House on every occasion that they should, allow the Press access to meetings of local authorities, but that he did not claim and did not desire that they should be admitted to committee meetings, because he recognised that by so doing the work of the committee might be made slower.
    LORD R. CECILpointed out that the Amendment was limited by the words of the subsection and did not extend beyond those cases in which the committees were not required to submit

    271
    their decision to the county council for approval. The point was of great importance, but he thought it would be better raised later on.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 188; Noes, 48. (Division List No. 140.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Henry, Charles S.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

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

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Agnew, Geo ge William

    Higham, John Sharp

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

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

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Hodge, John

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

    Baring. Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Hogan, Michael

    Radford, G. H.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rees, J. D.

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Hudson, Walter

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

    Beale, W. P.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln).

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Bethell, T. R, (Essex, Maldon)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Joyce, Michael

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Brace, William

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Rowlands, J.

    Branch, James

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Lambert, George

    Scott, A. M. (Ashton under Lyne

    Cameron, Robert

    Lamont, Norman

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Seddon, J.

    Chance, Frederick William

    Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E.

    Shackleton, David James

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

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

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Cleland, J. W.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Clough, William

    London, W.

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Cooper, G. J.

    Luttrell. Hugh Fownes

    Snowden, P.

    Corbett, CH Sussex, E. Grindst'd

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Crean, Eugene

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B' ghs

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Cremer, Sir William Randal

    Maclean, Donald

    Steadman, W. C.

    Crooks, William

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Curran, Peter Francis

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Summerbell, T.

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    M' Callum, John M.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    M' Crae, George

    Tennant. H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Devlin, Joseph

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Tomkinson, James

    Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Torrance, Sir A. M.

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

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Verney, F. W.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Meagher, Michael

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

    Menzies, Walter

    Walsh, Stephen

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

    Elibank, Master of

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Wardle, George J.

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Waring, Walter

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Ferens, T. R.

    Muldoon, John

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Fuller, John Michael F.

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

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Napier, T. B.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast' r

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Guinness, Walter Edward

    Nolan, Joseph

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Gulland, John W.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

    Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

    Halpin, J.

    O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wood, T. M 'Kinnon

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

    O'Dowd, John

    Hart-Davies, T.

    O'Malley, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Winfrey and Mr. Holt.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Sassoon. Sir Edward Albert

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff' sh.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gretton, John

    Talbot, Lord K. (Chichester)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Haddock, George B.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

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

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Carlile, K. Hildred

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Moore, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Viscount Morpeth and Mr.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Ashley.

    Cross, Alexander

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

    MR. WINFREYsaid the next Amendment was consequential.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 16, to leave out the words 'by a council.' "—(Mr. Winfrey.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. WINFREYsaid his next Amendment was to leave out all the words after "1902." It had already been pointed out during the discussion that it was practically impossible for the Press to distinguish between matters that were and were not to be submitted by a committee to a council, and it would be better to leave out the words and trust to the discretion of the Press from time to time.
    MR. HOLTseconded.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 17, to leave out from the word '1902,' to end of line 20."—(Mr. Winfrey.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    DR. MACNAMARAexpressed the hope that the words would be allowed to remain in the Bill. It was one of the original objects of the promoters and, therefore, the Bill as amended upstairs took the form that when the education committees dealt with matters that they were competent to carry into effect without reporting to the council the
    Press should be present. Wherever the education committee was dealing as a committee, discussing questions upon which they would have to report to the parent committee, the Press were not to be admitted. This Amendment would result in ensuring that the Press was present on every occasion. He, therefore, suggested that it should not be accepted as it would carry the Bill further than desirable.
    MR. GUINNESShoped the hon. Member would stick to his Amendment. It was much better to leave these words out and so simplify the Bill in that way.
    VISCOUNT MORPETHalso asked the hon. Member to adhere to his Amendment. The education committee set up by the Act of 1902 was a different committee from other committees. It was a statutory committee. He was in favour of the Press being admitted to the proceedings of the education committee, and submitted that it was not possible to draw the distinction, which the Secretary to the Admiralty had tried to draw, between that business of the committee which required the approval of the county council and that which did not.
    MR. HARMOOD-BANNERhoped the Bill would be allowed to stand as it, was at present. Evil results might follow if all discussions in committees took place in the presence of the Press. For instance, there were such questions as the

    275
    acquisition of land for school purposes and teachers' salaries and other subjects at the discussions upon which the local Press would no doubt like to be present. He had some experience of these meetings and so far as he knew the Press came in, and after certain matters had been discussed they were told there was nothing more of any public interest to be discussed and they then left. If the Press were always allowed to remain, he did not think it would be in the public interest; therefore, he hoped that the clause would stand as at present.
    LORD R. CECILalso expressed the hope that the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment. The Bill did not compel the attendance of the Press, but only gave them a right to be present. He hoped, under these circumstances, as the promoters were very anxious to get the Bill through the House, they might now pass from this matter.
    Amendment negatived.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid that, as the Bill under certain circumstances applied to Ireland, he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
    CAPTAIN J. CRAIGseconded the Amendment as he considered that in this respect it should be extended to Ireland.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 32, at end, to insert the words '(g) In the application of the Act to Ireland there shall be included boards of guardians, asylum committees, school attendance committees, and boards of any hospitals or infirmaries in receipt of a grant from public funds.' "—(Sir F. Banbury.)
    LORD R. CECILtrusted that this Amendment would not be persisted in. The promoters of the Bill were desirous that it should extend to Ireland, but provision already existed for certain
    276
    representation in Ireland, and if this Amendment were passed without serious consideration it might lead to serious difficulty.
    MR. CARLILEthought that in the interest of the newspaper Press itself the Amendment should be withdrawn. He contended that if one newspaper with a larger capital and more leisure than its contemporaries chose to attend all these meetings its competitors would be compelled also to attend them, and that might involve an intolerable burden being placed upon the Press.
    SIR F. BANBURYfailed to see why Ireland should be put into a different position from England in this matter. What was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. He, however, quite agreed with his noble friend that there was a possibility of a difficulty arising, that a number of authorities not included in this Amendment might, upon consideration, be included in it, and, therefore, if his noble friend gave him an assurance that an Amendment having these objects in view would be moved n another place he was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment.
    LORD R. CECILsaid he was willing to give that undertaking and do his best to meet his right hon. friend.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 1, after the word 'means,' to insert the words' duly accredited.' "—(Mr. Winfrey.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. J. P. NANNETTIsaid that the Amendment he now proposed to move should be taken in conjunction with an Amendment lower down on the Paper. What he desired to do

    277
    was to insure that accredited representatives of other papers should have this right. The case he had in his mind was this. Supposing an editor of a London newspaper desired to send down a reporter to a particular meeting in the public interest he might under this clause be excluded. He had been advised that unless this Amendment was accepted it would lead to a good deal of hardship. A great scandal might arise at one of these meetings where it might be to the interests of the public that this right should not be confined to the local Press. He moved.
    Amendment proposed—
    ''In page 3, line 1, to leave out from the word 'means,' to the end of the clause, and to insert the word 'persons.' "—(Mr. Nannetti.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'representatives of newspapers' stand part of the Bill."
    MR. GUINNESShoped the House would not accept this Amendment. The Bill was wide enough to enable the whole of the Press to be present and this Amendment if carried would enable people to come in who thought the Press gallery was more comfortable than the public gallery. If all these people were allowed to come in it would be quite impossible for those who ought to be present to do their work under comfortable conditions.
    MR. MASTERMANsuggested that this Amendment should be withdrawn and that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London should move his Amendment moving out the words "circulating in the district of the local authority" and that the hon. Member for Norfolk should move in the words "and of news agencies systematically carrying on the business of selling and supplying reports
    278
    and information to newspapers." The Government were of opinion that those two Amendments would cover this point.
    Amendment, by leave, with drawn.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid his next Amendment was in the interests of the Press He begged to move.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, lines 2 and 3, to leave out the words 'circulating in the district of the local authority.' "—(Sir F. Banbury.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 3, after the word 'newspaper,' to insert the words 'and of news agencies systematically carrying on the business of selling and supplying reports and information to newspapers.' "—(Mr. Winfrey.)
    Amendment agreed to.

    INCEST BILL.
    As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
    MR. RAWLINSONsaid he had put down an Amendment to omit Clause 1 of this Bill. It was a Bill which dealt with a very disagreeable subject, and naturally the sympathy of the House was against the persons who committed the offence which this Bill was brought in to prevent. The reason why he moved to omit this clause was the same as that given by greater authorities than he, namely, Lord Halsbury and Lord Davey in the House of Lords when this Bill was discussed on the last occasion before that House. Those reasons were that

    279
    the Bill made it an offence subject to a term of penal servitude of not exceeding seven years for all who were convicted of incest with a granddaughter, daughter, sister, or mother. It only dealt, therefore, with certain relatives and subjected the people committing the offence to seven years penal servitude, practically making a fresh crime. The first consideration he would put before the House was that up to the present time these offences against morality had never been made a crime. The House, therefore, should hesitate before making a sweeping addition to the criminal law of England at a late period on a Friday afternoon at the instigation of a private Member. Ho would deal with the particular reasons which were adduced against the Bill in a moment, but he thought, to start with, there should be a very strong case made out by the promoters of the Bill for making such a change as was proposed. So far as that House was concerned the Bill had never been before the House as a whole. It came on one night after eleven o'clock, and was not discussed. This offence was for the first time made a criminal offence, and subject to the criminal law. If the criminal law was brought in to deal with offences against morals they would be met at every turn with the difficulty that it was adults who committed these immoral offences. The words brother and sister in this Bill included half brother and sisters. Let them take the case of a brother and half sister. Was it right to make such an offence a crime; was it desirable? Once cases of this kind were brought before an Assize Court it would be found, as everybody familiar with the criminal law knew, that a prosecution of this kind would bring up a crop of similar cases in the particular locality. It was well-known that where a case of a disgusting nature came before an Assize Court the mere publication of it resulted in a crop of that particular class of cases.
    280
    Further, by making this immoral offence a crime the door was opened to blackmail of every kind. There was a matter which would be brought to bear in all cases where consent was no defence to the particular crime charged. In such a case as he had mentioned the one was put in the power of the other. There was the further difficulty of people who threatened to make false charges in the case of an offence where both parties must be equally guilty, which there would be great trouble to disprove. This offence was not on the same lines as that of rape or anything of that kind. Here was a brother and half-sister living in one house and any person for reasons of enmity or of blackmail could give any information against them. It was a grossly immoral offence, and though he felt it was unpopular to oppose a Bill of this kind in the House, he ventured to submit that before this offence was made a crime the House should see to it that they did not take any step that might do more harm than good. He again wished to impress upon the House that they should be very careful in dealing with a question of this kind not to make a crime of an offence which had never before been treated as a crime in this country. What case was there? There was no suggestion that this offence was on the increase; indeed, it was far less known now than it was twenty or thirty years ago in parts of England, and only now and then was there a case in the criminal Courts. Was there the slightest reason to doubt that the spread of education and of civilising influences was doing away with this evil, and that there was, therefore, less need to deal with the matter so drastically as was proposed by the Bill? His right lion, friend had pointed out that the subject was discussed in 1903 in the House of Commons. True it was, and on that occasion the example of Scotland was cited. He understood that in Scotland this had an offence ever since 1757, or from

    281
    an earlier date. The hon. and learned Member opposite, who had considerable experience of the law in Scotland, would perhaps agree that prosecutions for this offence in that country were exceedingly rare. He thought he was right in saying that only about twenty years ago did this cease to be a capital offence in Scotland, not that there had been many executions. In the debate to which he had referred, an hon. Member, who was a great authority on Scots law, said that prosecutions for this offence were practically unknown in Scotland. The Bill did not apply to Scotland, and he need not pursue that point further. There were certain details of the Bill which he did not think had been properly dealt with, and he would ask the House before passing a measure of this kind, having regard to the strong remarks of the two eminent lawyers who had sat on the opposite side of the House, and whose words he had quoted, to consider the whole subject carefully. Those distinguished lawyers raised the objection years ago that to make this a criminal offence would do more harm than good; and, however well intentioned the Bill might be, by bringing these matters into the light of the criminal Court, they would experience those consequences of publicity which were so well known to lawyers who attended criminal Courts. They should deal with the matter more by way of education than by extending the offence and making it criminal. He moved to omit Clause 1.
    MR. STAVELEY-HILLin seconding the Amendment, said the subject was one which they did not wish to discuss at length. He seconded the Amendment for very similar reasons to those which had been advanced by his hon. and learned friend. There was a very large and increased demand among those lawyers who practised in the criminal Courts for a further consolidation of the criminal law,
    282
    that it should be brought more up-to-date, and that various alterations and Amendments should be made in it. He thought that if they were going to create a new crime, the way to do it was not in a small Bill of this sort. Of course, if this offence were made a crime, no one could say otherwise than that the penalties which were provided in this clause were very moderate indeed, because no words could express the horror one had of this offence. He was very much afraid, however, that by making this a new crime, they were opening the door very wide to blackmailers, and to charges being brought against persons without proper foundation. They knew very well that in regard to an offence of a similar character, charges were brought by young girls which had no foundation whatever in fact. Relatives lived together under circumstances which no one questioned, but a charge of this sort might be brought and there would be, as they knew, the very greatest difficulty in furnishing any disproof. He thought that the Bill, if passed, would make the conditions of society in certain circumstances more dangerous than they were at the present moment. To create a new crime of this sort was very easy indeed, but where a charge was brought the difficulty of disproving it would be very great. It was for these reasons, and in the hope that nothing would be done until there was a general Amendment of the criminal law, that he seconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 5, to leave out Clause 1."—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of page 1, line 12, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. MACLEANsaid the grounds on which this Amendment had been moved were that they were creating

    283
    a new crime, that there was no increase of this offence, and that there was a danger of blackmailing. But he thought the whole sense of the community was in favour of making this grave moral offence a crime. Out of every 1,000 people, 999 were under the impression that it was a crime, and most people would be astonished to hear that it was not. His professional experience had led him to know a good deal about this offence. No less than thirty-five cases, really of a most gross character, had come under his personal notice, within the last twelve months and he had known instances producing no less than three or four children of weak intellect, idiots and imbeciles. The cases were of the most grave kind. The hon. Member who had moved the Amendment, perhaps, had not such a large experience as he possessed as to this crime, which was rife, he was sorry to say, in certain parts of the country, and there was a case for the Bill on sociological grounds. In Scotland it was less common, but it did occur, prosecutions were treated by the Press with great discretion, and punishment was meted out, with a beneficial result, in that country. As to blackmailing, that objection would apply to almost every kind of offence. He did not see any real danger arising from that cause, as was feared by the hon. Members opposite. In regard to the objection, that they were creating a new crime by this Bill, he would point out that at one time this offence was a crime under the law of England. When the Puritans had sway over things in this country they made a long list of capital offences, which included adultery and incest. At the Restoration they swept away these penal offences, including that with which they were now dealing. It was a pure oversight, owing to what happened at the Restoration, that it was not a crime in England to-day.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,)said he desired on the part of the Home Office to say a few words in support of the principle of the Bill. The Home Office had been long aware, from the reports they had received from the police and other sources, that it was exceedingly necessary to add to the law provisions of the character proposed by this Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University said the offence was probably less rife than it was in the past. He doubted whether anyone could say with any degree of certainty either that it was increasing or that it was decreasing, but it was quite certain, that the offence was by no means rare, and it was essential that some steps should be taken by the Legislature to put a stop to it. It was not merely the case of a moral offence affecting grownup people, but it might entail consequences of a disastrous kind on the offspring which sometimes followed from such intercourse, and from that point of view society had a special interest that should lead to steps being taken to put a stop to it. Nor was it the case that in Scotland the law was a dead letter. Every year there were a small number of convictions—on the average six each year—which showed that the law was necessary and that it could be put into force. So far from there being a danger, through this Bill, of persons being accused of the crime without being able to disprove it, he was afraid that, on the contrary, the danger would be found to be the great difficulty in proving the cases. But however difficult cases might be to prove, he hoped the House would agree that this offence should be regarded as a crime, and that the crime, when detected, ought to be punished.
    MR. REESsaid the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge had remarked that it was undesirable to make crimes of these immoral offences, and had used

    285
    what was no doubt a strong argument as to blackmailing. But he would observe that the same argument applied to many other things. The deceased wife's sister was a case in point, and, if that argument had been allowed, they would never have passed the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Act. But the point to which he wished to refer was this: The hon. and learned Gentleman forgot that in India, which was under British law, the Courts treated adultery as a criminal offence, a fact which seemed very relevant to this discussion. He did not know that he was concerned with the ethics of that subject, but he remembered that one of the most learned Judges in India, a Brahmin, had discussed with him the fact that under the law in England that was treated as a civil offence which in India was made criminal; and the Judge had been sorry to have to explain the difference by saying that the leniency adopted in England towards so serious an offence as adultery was due to the exigencies of modern European society. He would, of course, himself, be sorry to adopt that view or to put it to the House, but he did submit that it was very relevant to the argument to point out that in our greatest dependency the course which the hon. and learned Member now deprecated was actually pursued, and the most conspicuous, and perhaps most common moral offence, was actually regarded in law as a crime.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he wanted a little more information. He did not wish to prevent the Bill from passing and from doing good. What he did not understand about it was whether it was intended as a deterrent or punishment. All the speeches made had been in favour of the measure, and he did not wish to say anything in opposition to it if it was necessary. All the speeches
    286
    had been directed to proving that it was necessary to have punishment. That was contrary to the ideas of modern legislation. The infliction of punishment in these days was that it should act as a deterrent. But the point in reference to this Bill was that they might be rather increasing the evil than stopping it, and therefore he thought that they had not had from the Government or from anybody else a sufficient statement as to whether this offence was on the increase, and whether it was necessary to do something to stop it, or whether it was likely to be stopped in any way by this Bill. If the Bill would really act as a deterrent he thought that it would be a valuable addition to the law. But, as far as he could see, there had not been one word said as to that. It was perfectly true that if they made a man liable to three, five, or seven years penal servitude he was likely to avoid doing that which would involve the risk of such a punishment. He would like to hear a little more, however, as to the necessity for the Bill, and as to the probability of its being of some efficacy in preventing the commission of the crime against which it was directed.
    MR. RAWLINSONsaid he wished to say one word in reply to the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs, who had put forward exactly the right argument that this offence was in precisely the same position as other moral offences, and that if they made this a crime it followed logically that they must make adultery a crime in England. The hon. Member quite fairly accepted that. He thought it a very dangerous question to start, certainly on a private Member's Bill at a late hour of a Friday afternoon. He did not think that they would find many English lawyers of position to support the argument that because adultery was a crime in India, where the circumstances were very different in

    287
    many ways, therefore it ought to be a crime here. Did the House really think that a case had been made out for a change in the law, when, as had been pointed out, the charge would be exceedingly hard to prove, and when there would be most dangerous results where there was a case made out? He did not wish to detain the House, and, if the sense of the House was against him, he would not press his Amendment.
    MR. LUPTONsaid he was surprised that they were asked to pass a Bill of this sort. Poor people were forced to live together, men and it women often in the same room, and it was easy enough for anybody to make accusations which could not be disproved against parties who were totally innocent. They would make family life impossible if they passed such legislation. They would make it impossible for members of a family to live at home without running the risk of terrible accusations being brought against them. They all knew how convictions were brought about. Persons went into the witness box and swore what they said was true, and the jury ware advised if they believed them to convict the prisoner. Nobody, however, could go into the witness box and disprove accusations of this description. An accused might kiss the Book, and swear he did not do it, but, of course, his evidence would be useless, whilst the evidence of the person who said he did it would stand good. It would be only necessary for some malicious person to get up and swear falsely, and the accused would be sentenced to seven years penal servitude. He thought they might take advice from the fact that their ancestors had refrained from passing, legislation of this kind. Once they began with this class of legislation, they must go on, and what would happen to humanity if people were to be open to accusations of crimes which they could not possibly disprove? None of the parties to the alleged offence might
    288
    make any complaint, and yet some third party might come forward and complain. It was contrary to all principles of the law to make this a criminal offence. Arguments had been used against it by men in the highest position and of the greatest repute; and he asked the House to pause before they tried to make the world good by legislation passed in a headlong rush. They might thrash and imprison people, but they would not make them good. There were appointed ways of dealing with immorality, and that was to try and lead people kindly by preaching religion and morality to them. When they left that path, which on the whole had answered so well, and had made us a great, a glorious, and a good nation, when they turned aside from the assistance of the clergy, the schoolmaster, and all the ladies and gentlemen who went about doing good, and simply relied upon the policeman, then they took the wrong course, and would make the world not better, but he was afraid very much worse.
    Amendment negatived.
    THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS, Glamorganshire, Mid.)said there was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Kingston Division of Surrey. He had spoken to his hon. friend about it, and he begged to accept it.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 12, after the word 'is,' to insert the words 'alleged in the indictment.'"—(Sir Samuel Evans.)
    SIR SAMUEL EVANSsaid there was another Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston, which, after consultation with him, had been accepted in a slightly different form. He begged to move,

    289
    accordingly, in page 1, line 29, to leave out all after the word 'over' down to the end of line 3 on page 2, and insert 'such female; and, if the offender is the guardian of such female, to remove the offender from such guardianship and in any such case to appoint any person or persons to be the guardian or guardians of such female during her minority or any less period." The House would see that the effect of that would be that upon conviction for an offence under the Act against a female with regard to whom the person convicted was a guardian, he could be removed from his position of guardian or any position of authority, and the Court would appoint some other person in his place.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 29, to leave out all words after the word' over' down to the end of line 3, on page 2, in order to insert the words 'such female; and, if the offender is the guardian of such female, to remove the offender from such guardianship and in any such case to appoint any person or persons to be the guardian or guardians of such female during her minority or any less period.'"—(Sir Samuel Evans.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put, and negatived.
    Proposed words there inserted.
    MR. RAWLINSON MR. RAWLINSON moved the omission of Clause 4. It was, he said, a very exceptional class of crime where a wife was made to give evidence against her husband or a husband against his wife; and he certainly thought that if the Bill was to be passed this clause ought to be sacrificed. It was making the Bill much too strong to make it compulsory for a wife to give evidence against her husband.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, to leave out Clause 4."—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
    And, it being Five of the Clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.

    POLLING DISTRICTS AND REGISTRA TION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
    As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH MR. J. MACVEAGH (Down, S.) moved a new clause. (Alteration in method of compiling register.)
    Proposed new clause—
    "Any county council in Ireland may with the sanction of the Local Government Board for Ireland arrange to have the register of voters or any part of the register, prepared alphabetically in townlands or, as regards urban districts, in streets,"—(Mr. J. MacVeagh,)—
    Brought up, and read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words 'within the meaning of the Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885,' and to insert the words 'or parliamentary division thereof.' "—(Mr. Cherry.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 9, at the end, to insert he words '(1) The Lord-Lieutenant in Council may make rules for adapting to the provisions of this Act the enactments relating to the registration of electors in Ireland and the precepts and forms contained in or used under those enactments.' "—(Mr. Cherry.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    MR. MOOBEobjected.
    MR. J. MACVEAGHappealed to the Attorney-General to say whether the new subsection was essential. If it was not, he hoped he would drop it so that the Bill might go through.
    MR. CHERRYsaid the object of it was to bring the Bill into harmony with the general scheme of registration. Unless the Lord-Lieutenant were given the power to deal with these rules, there would be two authorities dealing with the subject.
    MR. MOOREsaid the hon. Gentleman had refused to apply the Bill to towns.
    MR. CHERRYsaid the hon. Member was mistaken. An Amendment had been made on the Motion of the hon. Member for South Down.
    MR. MOOREsaid that if the hon. Gentleman would put it off for a week they would consider it; they objected now.
    MR. J. MACVEAGHappealed to the hon. Member to withdraw his objection.
    MR. MOOREsaid he had received an objection from, the registration officer in his division, and until that was met he must object.
    Objection being taken to further Proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

    POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL.
    Not amended (by the Standing Committee), considered; to be read the third time upon Friday next.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A. (in respect of the Access to Mountains Bill): Viscount Castlereagh; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. O'Neill.
    Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B. (in respect of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill): Viscount Castlereagh; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Claude Hay.
    Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C. (in respect of the Post Office Savings Bank Bill): Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Watson Rutherford, and Mr. Starkey; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Lord Balcarres, Mr. Courthope, and Mr. Staveley-Hill.
    Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C. (in respect of the Prevention of Crime Bill): Mr. Rawlinson; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Staveley-Hill.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.
    Adjourned at nine minutes after Five o'clock till Monday next.