Commons Sitting of 24 March 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION) (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH)
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of
  1184
  Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—Wath-upon-Dearne Urban District Council Gas Bill [Lords.]
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Stockport Corporation Bill (King's Consent signified).—Bill read the third time, and passed.
  City of Glasgow Bill.—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Police and Sanitary Committee.—Ordered, That the Committee of Selection do nominate Three additional Members to serve on the Police and Sanitary Committee."—(Mr. Burns.)
  Wolverhampton Corporation Bill—Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Leeds Corporation Bill.—Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B).
  Sir HENRY KIMBERreported from the Committee on Group B. of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Twelve of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to: Madras Railway Company (Annuities) Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to make provision for dealing with the arrears of dividend on the preferred shares of the Inter-oceanic Railway of Mexico (Acapulco to Vera Cruz), Limited; and for the increase and rearrangement of the capital of the company; and for other purposes." [Inter-oceanic Railway of Mexico Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the water limits of the Council and to enlarge their powers in various respects; and for other purposes." [Briton Ferry Urban District Council Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision with reference to the substitution of a memorandum and articles of association for the existing constitution and regulations of the Commercial Union Assurance Company, Limited, and for extending its objects, and to repeal The Commercial Union Assurance Company, Limited, Act, 1886, The Commercial Union Assurance Company, Limited, Act, 1890, and The Commercial Union Assurance Company, Limited, Act, 1900; and for other purposes." [Commercial Union Assurance Company Bill [Lords.]
Interoceanic Railway of Mexico Bill [Lords]; Briton Ferry Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Commercial Union Assurance Company Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  CHILDREN BILL (JUVENILE SMOKING CLAUSES).
  Petition from Woodford and other places, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (NO. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Swansea, against; to lie upon the Table.
  ELECTIONS AND REGISTRATION (LONDON) BILL.
  Petition from Westminster, against; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Walton-on-Thames, against; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from West Riding of Yorkshire, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN).
  Petitions for legislation; From Leicester; Madeley; and Stratford and West Ham; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: From All Cannings and other places; Cirencester; Devizes; Devizes, Seend and Melksham; Lechlade; and Weymouth; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Bainbridge (four); Bolton (four); Brompton; Canterbury (four); Enfield; Helensburgh; Northallerton (five); Nottingham: Portsmouth; Redcar; and Streatham Hill; to lie upon the Table.
  MORAY FIRTH (ILLEGAL TRAWLING)
  Petition from Brora, for prevention; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Leicester; and Worksop; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of Accidents and Casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several Railway Companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ended 31st December, 1907, together with Reports of the Inspecting Officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain Accidents which were inquired into; Part I., Return of Accidents [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST).
  Copy presented, of the Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No.

  1187
  15) Warrant, 1908, dated 12th February, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  TROPICAL DISEASES RESEARCH FUND.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Advisory Committee for the Tropical Diseases Research Fund for the year 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRICES OF EXPORTED COAL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 18th February; Mr. David Alfred Thomas]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 97.]

  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Inquiry into Charities (Administrative County of Devon).—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 26th July, 1905; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 98.]

  Statement showing the On-Licences extinguished with Compensation in each of the years 1905–6–7.

  Devonshire (County Area and County Boroughs.)

  Year.

  Number and description of licences.

  To licensee.

  To other parties.

  Total.

  £.

  s.

  d.

  £.

  s.

  d.

  £.

  s.

  d.

  1907

  5

  alehouses

  258

  10

  0

  4,685

  6

  6

  4,943

  16

  6

  11

  beerhouses

  823

  2

  10

  7,763

  17

  2

  8,587

  0

  0

  16

  —

  1,081

  12

  10

  12,449

  3

  8

  13,530

  16

  6

  1906

  12

  alehouses

  965

  8

  0

  5,344

  8

  3

  6,309

  16

  3

  9

  beerhouses

  635

  10

  0

  5,267

  10

  0

  5,903

  0

  0

  21

  —

  1,600

  18

  0

  10,611

  18

  3

  12,202

  16

  3

  1905

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Total

  37

  —

  2,682

  10

  10

  23,061

  1

  11

  25,733

  12

  9

Oral Answers to Questions
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Licences Extinguished in Devonshire.
    MR. SOARES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he can state the names of the public houses in Devonshire extinguished under the Act of 1904, the total amount of compensation awarded in each case, and the amount paid thereout to each individual licence-holder.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I regret that I cannot undertake to obtain the information asked for as regards individual houses. The annual volumes of Licensing Statistics contain all the information which I can give in regard to the County of Devonshire, and I must refer my hon. friend to them. I have, however, had the following figures extracted for his convenience—

    Licensing Compensation under the Act of 1904.
    MR. BERRIDGE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what is the total annual amount of the compensation levy authorised by the Licensing Act of 1004, giving the figures separately for each licensing area, and distinguishing in cases where the amount authorised has only partially or has not been levied; and whether, if the foregoing information is not available, it would be possible to secure the same at an early date.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The information available on this subject is given in Table II. (c) of the Licensing Statistics for 1907, Cd. 3951, and in the corresponding tables in the volumes for previous years. It is estimated that if the maximum charges had been imposed in all cases in the year 1907 the total of £1,099,052 shown in Table II. (c) would have been increased by a sum of about £67,000.

    Commercial Travellers and Bankruptcy Laws.
    Mr. A. ALLEN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to the disability suffered, under the present bankruptcy laws, by commercial travellers who are paid by commission and who, in the event of the firm employing them becoming bankrupt, are only entitled to rank as ordinary creditors and not, as is the case with commercial travellers paid by salary, as preferential creditors; and whether he can hold out any hope that he will introduce an Amendment to remedy this in any legislation he may introduce dealing with the amendment of the bankruptcy laws.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am advised that it is doubtful whether the disability suggested by my hon. friend exists under the present law, as judicially interpreted. I will, however, carefully consider whether any amendment of the law is necessary in the event of the introduction of a Bill to amend the Bankruptcy Acts.

    Ships not Returned in the Annual Battle Practice Return.
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether he will state the names of those ships which have not been returned in the Annual Battle Practice Return as having completed their annual practice.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) "Argonaut," "Arrogant," "Amphitrite," "Andromeda," "Africa," "Argyll," "Bonaventura" "Brilliant," "Cadmus," "Cressy," "Cœsar," "Charybdis," "Cambrian," "Cornwall," "Commonwealth," "Clio," "Diadem," "Dwarf," "Devonshire," "Drake," "Euryalus," "Eclipse," "Europa," "Flora," "Forte," "Good Hope," "Glory," "Goliath," "Hampshire," "Hogue," "Highflyer," "Hyacinth," "Hebe," "Hindustan," "Indefatigable," "Isis," "Lapwing," "Niobe," "Prince George," "Perseus," "Proserpine," "Pyramus," "Roxburgh," "Redbreast," "Sapphire," "Suffolk," "Shearwater," "Skipjack," "Speedwell," "Scylla," "Terrible," "Venerable," "Vindictive," "Warrior."
    Note.—The above list includes both ships whose firing was delayed and ships which did not fire at all, owing to date of paying off, absence of umpiring committee, or other cause.

    Prosecution of Mr. F. Persse.
    MR. DUFFY: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the recent law proceedings at Gort when Mr. F. Persse, J.P., was prosecuted for unlawfully discharging firearms on the public road; under what Act were the proceedings instituted; and will he explain why Mr. Brady, resident magistrate, contrary to the expressed opinion of his brother magistrate who assisted on the occasion, marked the case dismissed, instead of, as is usual in all such cases, adjourned to next petty sessions.
    (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The proceedings against Mr. F. Persse, J.P., were brought by the police under the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1851. I

    1191
    am informed that one of the two magistrates was for a conviction and the other for an acquittal. In these circumstances it was open to the magistrates to make one or other of two orders, namely, to dismiss without prejudice to the complaint being renewed or to adjourn. The resident magistrate informs me that his fellow magistrates expressed no desire to adjourn the case, and the usual procedure in that court was therefore followed, that is to say, the case was dismissed without prejudice to the complaint being renewed if thought desirable.

    Japan and Chinese Railways.
    MR. LYTTELTON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the attention of His Majesty's Government has been directed to the protest raised by the General Chamber of Commerce of Niuchwang against the attitude of Japan in forbidding the construction by China of the Hsinmintun-Fakumen Railway; is His Majesty's Government in possession of a copy of the alleged agreement by which Japan claims the right of vetoing the construction of that railway; was it received simultaneously with the receipt of the Chinese-Japanese treaty of 1905, and, if not, when was it received by His Majesty's Government, and does it bear the signature of the plenipotentiaries of the Chinese-Japanese treaty of 1905; and, if the alleged agreement does not bear these signatures, has it any validity.
    (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The reply to the first part is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government are in possession of the text of the clause of the protocol by which Japan claims the right of vetoing the construction of the Hsinmintun-Fakumen Railway. It runs as follows: "The Chinese Government engage, for the purpose of protecting the interest of the South Manchurian Railway, not to construct, prior to the recovery by them of the said railway, any main line in the neighbourhood of, and parallel to, that railway, or any branch line which might be prejudicial to the interest of the above-mentioned railway." This was communicated to His Majesty's Government in April, 1906, shortly after the treaty
    1192
    referred to by the right hon. Member. We are informed that the protocol bears the signatures of the Chinese representatives; there can be no doubt as to its validity.

    Indian Railway Finance.
    MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has under consideration the question of separating railway finance from the general finances of India in order that funds may be raised for the railway system, which returns over 5¾ per cent. on the capital invested, at a more favourable rate than 3½ per cent.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) There is no intention of adopting the policy which my hon. friend appears to have in mind, nor have I any reason to believe that its adoption would reduce the rate at which capital can be obtained for Indian railways.

    Nationality of Indian Magistrates.
    MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India could, without undue labour and expense, enter in the existing judicial statistics the nationalities of the presiding officers, in order that information may be readily available as to the quarter in which responsibility lies for the great majority of the decisions of the civil and magisterial courts in India, and as to the limited extent to which Europeans dispense justice between man and men in India.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I am not prepared to call upon the Government of India to introduce into the judicial statistics a complication which would undoubtedly add considerably to the labour of preparing them, without serving, in my opinion, any very useful purpose.

    Scottish Fishing Rights.
    MR. MENZIES: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state approximately what is the yearly income derived by landed proprietors in the Highlands and in the Lowlands, respectively, from the fishings in the streams, rivers, and lochs of Scotland.

    1193
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) It is not possible to give, even approximately, a complete answer to my hon. friend, for in many districts it is impossible to separate angling from other sporting values. The assessable rentals of thirty-one river districts in which local fishery boards exist amount to about £117,000.
    MR. MENZIES: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if, considering the interest and anxiety upon the subject of fishing rights in Scotland, especially in the Lowlands, it is his intention to introduce legislation, and, if so, when, which will clear up the existing state of uncertainty as to the law of Scotland upon this matter, and upon such matters as the powers of riparian proprietors to prohibit fishing for trout in streams and rivers, and the period of continuous free fishing by permission of the proprietor which would give a legal right to the people thereafter to fish without his permission.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) It was stated last session that this subject is not being lost sight of by the Government, but it is not possible for me now to make any statement as to the prospects of legislation.

    Employment of Auxiliary Labour in the Post Office.
    MR. WARDLE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, in Paragraph 53 of the Hobhouse Report, it was recommended that auxiliary labour should be limited as far as possible, and that persons working full time should not in future be engaged while suitable men having little or no employment are available; whether he has accepted this recommendation; and whether, seeing that recently men have been asked for to perform letter sorting in Liverpool, and engaged on the express understanding that they must be engaged outside the office, in regular employment, he will investigate the circumstances.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have not lost sight of the Committee's recommendation, with which I am in accord, and I am considering how far it is practicable to adopt it. I concur generally with the view that men in full-
    1194
    time employment outside the Post Office should not be employed as auxiliaries. I may say, at once, however, that in my opinion it is very undesirable to employ men who have no other employment on auxiliary duties which only occupy three or four hours a day. This principle was rightly applied in the case of certain men recently selected at Liverpool.

    Wakefield Post Office Alterations and the Fair Contract.
    MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the firm of Higgins and Pashley, of Wakefield, who have secured the contract for an alteration to the Post Office in that town, have sub-let the carpenters' and joiners' work to a Mr. Lazenby, who does not pay the standard rate of wages; and whether he will take steps to compel this employer to observe the spirit and letter of the Fair Wages Clause.
    (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) My consent has been asked for this sub-letting but, before granting it, I am making inquiries in order to satisfy myself that the Fair Wages Clause will be observed.

    Case of Postman Slidders, of Broughty Ferry.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in November last Mr. Slidders, of Broughty Ferry, appealed to him for mitigation of punishment; that he has received no reply to his petition; and whether he will inquire into the case.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Postman Slidder's case was carefully reviewed, in connection with appeals from him in February, March and October, 1907; and on the last occasion he was definitely told that he was to regard the reply as final. In these circumstances I was not prepared to reopen the case in November last when he again submitted an appeal to me.

    Board of Agriculture Offices.
    MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the First Commissioner of Works what premises are at present occupied by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and under what tenure and at what rent; and whether it is proposed to

    1195
    provide premises which will accommodate all the departments of the Board in a single building.

    Premises.

    Tenure.

    Rent or rental value.

    4 and 5, Whitehall Place

    Leases expiring April 1912. Office of Works have option of extending term to 5th April, 1919, at rack rental.

    £1,199 2s.

    3, St. James's Square

    Lease expiring Michaelmas 1917, but determinable at 1910 at six months notice.

    £1,500

    3, Delahay Street

    Government property.

    £350

    Queen Anne's Chambers, Westminster (storage).

    Apportionment (part of premises leased to February 1926, but determinable on notice at 1912 or 1919.)

    £25

    8, Whitehall Place

    Lease ten years to Midsummer 1917, determinable in 1909 or 1910, on six months notice.

    £650 during first three years, £600 thereafter.

    Great Scotland Yard (rear of 3, Whitehall Place).

    Part of premises held on lease to 1919. The remainder (front portion) sub-leased to 1919.

    £200

    In reply to the second paragraph I have to say that proposals for accommodating all the departments of the board in a single building are now under discussion.

    Admiralty Coal Stock.
    MR. HOLT: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, what number of tons of coal were contained in the stock valued on 1st April, 1907, at £1,070,959; what is the number of tons of coal estimated to be in stock on 31st March, 1908, and valued at £1,135,000; and what were the number of tons of coal received into stock and issued out of stock during the year 1907–8.
    MR. HOLT: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the sum of £1,535,959, estimated value of issues of coal during 1907–8, includes the coal supplied direct by contractors to His Majesty's ships without going into stock; and, if so, what number of tons of coal were supplied direct by contractors.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The sum of £1,535,959, estimated value
    (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) The answer to the first part of the Question is as follows—
    of issues of coal during 1907–8, includes coal supplied direct to His Majesty's ships without going into stock. Having regard to the interests of the public service, it has been the uniform practice of the Admiralty to withhold information in regard to the other particulars asked for in these Questions.

    Yard Craft No. 11.
    MR. HOLT: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the estimated speed of "Yard Craft No. 11" (for Sheerness); and whether she is a paddle-wheel, single, or twin-screw vessel.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson). "Yard Craft No. 11" is not fitted with propelling machinery, but has a boiler which supplies steam for working the capstans, windlass, and other appliances, used in heavy mooring work.

    The Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers and Government Contracts.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether the Portland Cement Company are contractors for the supplying of cement to his Department; and, if so, whether he is aware that the said Company in the Gravesend district are reducing the number of men employed and replacing them by boys, thereby effecting a considerable saving as to the cost of labour; and, if so, whether this is an infringement of the conditions entered into on receiving the Government contract.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane). The hon. Member probably refers to the Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers, who are contractors to the War Department. I am not aware whether the process referred to is taking place in this company. Such changes do not involve an infringement of the Fair Wages Clause or any condition of the contract.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Naval Battle Practice.
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether certain ships fired trial shots at the target prior to commencing the regular battle practice; and, if so, what are the names of those ships.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No ships fired trial shots at the battle practice target.

    Channel Fleet Battle Practice.
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Channel Fleet have taken from September, 1907, until March, 1908, to complete their battle practice.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The answer is in the affirmative.

    H.M.S. "Dreadnought."
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty why the "Dreadnought" fired her annual course in Aranci Bay.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Experience of a battle practice in the "Dreadnought" was urgently required for the fitting of other ships of her class building. Her experimental cruise to Aranci afforded the earliest opportunity.
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: How many shots were fired before the actual course was taken into consideration?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I have no information, but if the noble Lord wishes I will inquire.

    Naval Gunnery.
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a competent Admiralty Committee is inquiring into the whole question of gunnery with a view to its improvement.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No, Sir; the practical experience of the Fleet is constantly affording better information and advice than any Committee which could be convened.

    Loch Long Torpedo Range.
    MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when the negotiations to acquire the site for the Loch Long torpedo range at Greenock were commenced with Sir Hugh Shaw Stewart; when they were completed; and who was the First Lord of the Admiralty at the time the negotiations were entered into.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Negotiations were begun in November, 1905, and completed in January, 1908. In answer to the third Question, the First Lord was Lord Cawdor.

    Battle Practice Return.
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he would state the names of those ships which have not been returned in the Annual Battle Practice Return as having completed their annual practice.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The list is too long for an oral Answer, and I propose to hand the noble Lord a copy, and have it printed with the Votes.
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: Is the "Cape of Good Hope" among the ships
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Yes, Sir.

    Case of Seaman Eli Bath.
    MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the case of Ordinary Seaman Eli Bath, Royal Navy, could now be reconsidered, in view of the fact that he has already been in penal servitude for more than three years, that the assault was entirely unpremeditated and committed in a sudden burst of passion, and that he was only about nineteen years of age at the time.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Had this man's conduct in prison been satisfactory, he would probably have been released before the end of the third year. His conduct has not been satisfactory, and in the opinion of the Admiralty there is no ground for remission of the sentence.

    Reserve Battalions—Pay of Sergeant-Majors.
    MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, when the existing regimental depots are absorbed into the Reserve battalions, it is intended that the same rate of pay and pension will be issued to sergeant-majors of the Reserve battalions as is now issued to the sergeant-majors of regimental depots, in view of the fact that they will be carrying out the work now performed by the depot sergeant-majors in addition to that of their own Reserve battalions.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): It is not considered necessary to give sergeant-majors of Reserve battalions, if amalgamated with depots, more than is now given to Militia sergeant-majors, as their work will not be so onerous as that of sergeant-majors of Line battalions.
    MR. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men will have more work under the new regulations than under the old?
    MR. HALDANE: No, Sir.

    Territorial Yeomanry.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state why, having regard
    1200
    to the fact that quartermaster-sergeants and squadron sergeant-majors of the Territorial Yeomanry are to receive the same rate of pay, wives of the latter are to receive a lower rate of separation allowance than wives of the former.
    MR. HALDANE: The arrangements for the Territorial Force follow those for the Regular Army where the regimental quartermaster-sergeant and the squadron sergeant-major draw the same rate of pay but different separation allowance. The quartermaster sergeant ranks a class above the squadron sergeant-major in accordance with paragraph 282 of the King's Regulations.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?
    MR. HALDANE: I see no reason to alter what is laid down in the King's Regulations.
    EARL WINTERTON: Are the King's Regulations necessarily to be followed in all cases?
    [The Answer was inaudible.]

    Trade Roads from India to Tibet.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India contemplates the improvement of the trade roads from India into Tibet.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): The Government of India have submitted no proposals to me for improving the roads from India into Tibet.

    Low-Grade Technical Training in India.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is intended to establish industrial schools for low-grade technical training, such as would provide a suitable field of recruitment whence to draw students capable of benefiting from the courses provided by the expensive machinery and costly equipment of the Thomasson College at Rurki, which is now practically fulfilling the functions of a low-grade technical school.
    MR. MORLEY: I have no information as to the intentions of the Government of India. I have seen nothing to suggest

    1201
    that the local Government are not satisfied that the college is being used to the best advantage in view of existing conditions.

    Military Churches in India.
    SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether there are any other military stations in India in like circumstances with Jullundar, as having no Presbyterian or unconsecrated church, and to which Scottish regiments are not in future to be sent because of the absence of such buildings; and whether he will state what the military stations are to which they are not to be sent in future.
    The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper:—
    SIR J. JARDINE: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state in what year the Government church in the Jullundar cantonment was built; whether it was built out of funds accruing from the taxes in India; and whether any annual charge on the Indian finances is caused by the keeping up and repair of the building or as salaries to beadles or caretakers.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can give an undertaking that no church built wholly or in part with public money shall in future be allowed to be consecrated except on the express terms that such consecration shall not be doomed to give rise to any claim to special or exclusive use.
    MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the Bishop of Lahore's assertion that since the Government church, built with public money at Jullundar, has been consecrated, the Church of England has the monopoly of using it; will he say whether the question has ever been tested in any court of law; and whether the Indian Government will take steps to maintain the governmental and public rights to that church by taking legal action to challenge the alleged monopoly.
    MR. ANNAN BRYCE: To ask the Secretary of State
    1202
    for India what the total cost will be of moving the Gordon Highlanders form Jullundar cantonment to Calcutta in order to provide them with a Presbyterian church; and what will be the cost of moving to Jullundar the regiment which will take their place.
    MR. ANNAN BRYCE: To ask the Secretary of State for India what regiment will take the place of the Gordon Highlanders at Jullundar cantonment.
    MR. ANNAN BRYCE: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he proposes to take steps to provide a method for removing the consecration of Anglican churches built with public money in Indian cantonments.
    MR. ANNAN BRYCE: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he proposes to take steps to give the metropolitan bishop in India power to overrule the decisions of suffragan bishops.
    MR. COWAN: To ask the Secretary of State for India what were the strengths of the Gordon Highlanders and the Leinster Regiment respectively at the time of the Bishop of Lahore's action as to the use of the Government church in the Jullundar cantonment; what were the numbers of the wives and children moved with these battalions; and whether the expenses of the removal from the one station to the other will be a charge on the Indian or the British taxpayer.
    MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he can say upon what statute or statutes, if any, of this country or of India the claim to the exclusive use of consecrated Government churches is based.
    MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can say when and by whom the bishopric of Lahore was instituted; when and by whom the present bishop was appointed; by whom his stipend is paid; and how, if at all, his status in India differs from that of any other minister of religion.
    MR. LAIDLAW: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will give the names of the military stations, including health resorts, in India,

    1203
    from which, under recent orders, the Scottish regiments will be precluded on account of there being no place of worship for Presbyterian and other Nonconformists.
    MR. LAIDLAW: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will lay upon the Table the correspondence relating to the action of the Bishop of Lahore in regard to his licence for the use of the Government church in Jullundar cantonment, and the exclusion therefrom of the Gordon Highlanders as regards the celebration of the Christian sacrament.
    SIR HENRY CRAIK: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will cause a Memorandum, explaining the position of the different religious communions, whether Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or Roman Catholic, in respect to the places of worship in military cantonments in India, to be prepared and laid upon the Table of the House, showing the grounds upon which special privileges are claimed by, or granted to, any one communion; or whether he can refer Members to any document from which this information can be obtained.
    MR. MORLEY: With your permission, Sir, I should like to state the position in a sentence or two dealing with this question. All these Questions touch one particular subject from the different points of view of the various interrogators. I submit that I should be saving the time of the House and consulting the desires of those who have put these Questions on the Paper, if, instead of answering on this subject point by point, I were to place on the Table of the House, as an hon. Member opposite, in fact, proposes that I should, a Memorandum containing the whole history and facts of this rather complex, intricate, and certainly very delicate question. I believe that by so doing I shall do what the House, if they were acquainted with all the circumstances, would desire me to do, and therefore I hope that I may be absolved from answering these Questions in detail, because I will undertake that the Memorandum shall contain an answer to every point raised by my hon. friends. There are Papers already in possession of the House, and have been for several years, but then hon. Members do not
    1204
    always have time to read Blue-books; but they will find a good deal of information on all these points in Command Paper 129 of the year 1900—Papers relating to the use of Presbyterian and Wesleyan services in garrison churches in India. I would only add this, that I understand that the Metropolitan Bishop of Calcutta sails for this country on the 25th of this month, and I shall have every advantage of consultation with him before I am called upon to reply to any points that may occur to hon. Members in connection with the matter.
    MR. GULLAND: May I ask if there will be any opportunity to discuss the question after those Papers have been laid?
    MR. MORLEY: That is a point which I am not competent to answer. It must be addressed to the Leader of the House.
    SIR J. JARDINE: When will the Memorandum be laid?
    MR. MORLEY: I should say within a week.
    *SIR J. JARDINEintimated he would draw attention to the matter and move a Resolution. He also inquired what arrangement was likely to be made about the Presbyterians in the Royal Regiment of Artillery and the use of those churches.
    MR. MORLEY: I think my hon. friend will be well advised to wait until he sees the Memorandum, and then he can put further Questions.
    SIR. J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office is consulted as regards any intended consecration of Government churches in India which are used by British troops for the purpose of Divine services.
    MR. HALDANE: The reply is in the negative.

    Madras High Court of Judicature.
    SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, as regards the High Court of Judicature at Madras, any native of India qualified

    1205
    as a barrister to be a Judge thereof has a seat on the bench of that High Court?
    MR. MORLEY: The reply is in the negative. The Indian Judge is a Vakil of the High Court.

    Bombay Ecclesiastical Inquiry.
    SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that an inquiry was hold last month at the Government Secretariat in Bombay by the Bishops of Calcutta, Madras, Lucknow, and Travancore, as regards certain matters of doctrine and ritual in dispute between the Bishop of Bombay and certain clerks in holy orders in which counsel were heard; and whether he can state if the assembly of bishops sat as a court having jurisdiction to pass binding decisions or merely as a council of the Church or as arbitrators by consent of parties?
    MR. MORLEY: I have no knowledge of the inquiry referred to in this Question.

    Simla Municipal Committee.
    MR. LAIDLAW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that, by the conditions under which the newly constituted Simla Municipal Committee is to be formed, the constitutional method of electing representatives has been abolished, and that representatives are now to be selected by nomination, and that the largest section of ratepayers in Simla, viz., the owners of private house property, are to have only one representative, out of a total of seven nominated members; and will he take steps to bring about a continuance of the elective system, and also see that the owners of private house property have at least two representatives to protect their large and important interests.
    MR. MORLEY: In reconstituting the Simla Municipal Committee in the manner described the Local Government has acted within its legal powers. The Municipal Act of the Punjab leaves it to the Government to settle whether a municipal committee shall be constituted by appointment or by selection. The Government, which has a predominating interest in the good administration of Simla, and has largely financed the municipality, considers that the change
    1206
    will secure greater efficiency and a fairer representation of interests. I am not prepared to interfere in the way suggested.

    British Indians in Canada.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he had received a telegram from Vancouver from a large meeting of British Indians, which was held in the Sikh Temple, protesting against deportation and exclusion from Canada.
    *MR. MORLEY: I received the telegram from Vancouver to which my right hon. friend refers. The only addition I can make to that statement is that I have the matter under my very careful consideration and I am discussing it with the Indian Government and—in concert with the Colonial Office here—with an envoy of the Dominion Government of Canada with the hope of bringing to an end, if possible, this extremely difficult, intricate, and possibly dangerous question.

    Transvaal Mining Industry Commission.
    MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I bog to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonios, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Transvaal Mining Industry Commission.
    THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,: When the Report is received from South Africa the question of laying it upon the Table shall be fully considered.

    Portuguese African Natives in the Transvaal Mines.
    MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Natives of Portuguese Africa employed in the Transvaal mines are allowed to take their wives and children with them; and whether any accommodation is provided for their families in the compounds.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Provision for taking wives and children is not, as far as I know, made in any of the contracts, but a certain number of women do, as a matter of fact, emigrate and settle in the Transvaal.
    MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the rate of pay received by natives recruited for the Transvaal mines from Portuguese Africa, the number of hours they work per day, and whether there are restrictions preventing them doing other than unskilled labour.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot answer the Question in detail, but generally speaking, the conditions on which natives from Portuguese East Africa work are the same as those on which other Kaffirs work.
    MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the indenture entered into by the Natives from Portuguese Africa when they are recruited for labour in the Transvaal mines.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The form has been altered since the copy in the possession of the Colonial Office was received, but amended copies are being sent home by the Governor, and the correct form shall be laid when it is received.
    MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Transvaal Government take steps to satisfy themselves that the natives recruited from Portuguese Africa thoroughly understand the terms of their contract; whether natives who complain of having entered into their contract without full knowledge of what they are undertaking are repatriated out of public funds; and, if so, how many have been so repatriated since June, 1907.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I understand that contracts are registered before a Portuguese official. But in view of the very large number of natives who resort to the mines from Portuguese East Africa there can be little doubt that in any case the conditions would be well understood, and I am not aware of any complaints such as are referred to in the Question having been made.

    Steamship Communication in East Africa.
    SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: I beg to ask the
    1208
    President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the large consignments of British produce now being carried in foreign ships from ports along the East African coast, he will consider the advisability of granting practical facilities to some responsible line of British steamers to perform this increasing commercial and Imperial service.
    MR. CHURCHILL: My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. The matter to which my hon. friend refers has engaged the attention of His Majesty's Government for some time, but the negotiations which have been carried on with a view to establishing an adequate service of British steamers on suitable terms have not, up to the present, been successful.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERasked whether the Government had under consideration the question of giving subsidies to some line of British steamers trading to East Africa.
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid that that question had been under consideration, but whether under favourable consideration was another matter.

    Natal Premier and British M.Ps.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of the Colonial Secretary has been directed to the speech delivered on Saturday last by Mr. Moore, the Premier of Natal, in which he commented on the action of Members of the House of Commons in putting Questions which were answered frankly and without protest in relation to the continuance of a system of martial law in that Colony, and the incidents of the administration of that system, and applied to the conduct of such Members the term "damnable interference." And whether, regard being had to the fact that Natal owes the preservation of its existence to the defence and protection of Imperial troops maintained by the sums voted by the House of Commons, the Governor of Natal will be requested to represent to the Prime Minister the impropriety of such expressions and the grave results they are calculated to produce.
    MR. CHURCHILLrose to reply, when
    EARL WINTERTON, on a point of order, asked Mr. Speaker to say whether, in view of his ruling of last May that there was no Department in this country responsible for the Colonial Premiers, it was in order to ask this Question.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I should like to have had an opportunity of seeing the Question. It is a long one, and has been sprung upon me at a moment's notice. I do not like to pronounce judgment upon it without having a few moments to consider it. I think it contains a quotation, and, as the hon. Member is well aware, quotations are not permitted in Questions. Perhaps the hon. Member will kindly put it down on the Question Paper.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The quotation is not put in the form of a quotation in the Question. I make myself responsible for it.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down.

    Natal Native Affairs Commission.
    MR ALDEN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can inform the House as to what action, if any, the Natal Government has taken with respect to the Report of the Natal Native Affairs Commission.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot at present add anything to my reply to a similar Question put by my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean on 3rd February.

    Registration of Trawlers in Norway.
    MR. A. WILLIAMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now state what is the total number of steam trawlers registered in Norway.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): No, Sir. I have not yet received the information, which will not be ready for some days. It is the intention of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to lay a Paper showing the number of steam
    1210
    trawlers and drifters respectively registered in the ports of Western European States, including Norway.

    Japan and Formosa.
    MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information to the effect that the Japanese authorities have arranged a plan to extirpate the aboriginal population of the island of Formosa; and, if so, whether he proposes to make any representations to the Japanese Government on the subject.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have neither heard of any such plan, nor do I believe in its existence.
    MR. BYLES: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a speech by the Chief Administrator of Formosa in which he said the Government were engaged in clearing the islands.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of that Question.

    British Understandings with Foreign Powers.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any understanding exists between Great Britain and any Foreign Power which imposes upon the British Government an obligation to keep up either the naval or military forces of the Crown, or any part of them, to any particular strength or standard?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer is in the negative. There is no undertaking imposing such an obligation.

    Licensing Compensation.
    MR. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can say what was the total amount of compensation awarded under the Licensing Act, 1904, in England and Wales, outside the County of London, during the last year for which the figures are available; and how much of that compensation was awarded to licence holders, to brewers and distillers, and to other parties, respectively.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): The volume of Licensing Statistics for 1907 shows that the total amount of compensation paid under the Licensing Act, 1904, in the year 1907 in England and Wales outside the County and City of London was £1,324,808 9s. 8d. Of this a sum amounting to £145,880 13s. 8d. was paid to the licence-holders. The remainder went to other parties interested. I am unable to say how much of it was received by brewers and distillers.
    MR. JOHN WARD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in the small amount that went to licence-holders, in some cases the holders were also the owners of the property?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; that would be so, I take it.

    Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill.
    SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from chambers of commerce and similar bodies with regard to the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill; and how many of such chambers have announced their support of the measure.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have received deputations representing the Shipping Federation, the Railway Companies Association, the British Iron Trade Association and other similar bodies, besides many chambers of commerce. Numerous written resolutions have also reached me. I have not received from these or similar bodies representations in support of the Bill. These deputations and resolutions have been concerned with the possible economic effects of the Bill in increasing the cost of production and hampering commerce and industry. In almost every case their forecasts are founded on a basis which is not the basis of the Bill, and are consequently erroneous. I may say that I have laid and am paying the closest attention to the probable effect on output of any given limitation.
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: Will the fact of there being no support of this
    1212
    measure have any effect upon the right hon. Gentleman?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I pay more regard to the fact that the Bill imposing the eight hours limitation was twice read in this House without a division last year and the year before.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that contracts for the future delivery of coal have been entered into with a proviso in them that if this Eight Hours Bill becomes law the coal will be 1s. 6d. to 2s. per ton higher in price?
    MR. GLADSTONE: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will bring to my notice any such contract I shall be glad to consider it. I am aware that statements have been made that such contracts have been proposed. I have made considerable efforts without success to find out whether such contracts have been made.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is it not a fact that the Newcastle-under-Lyme Board of Guardians yesterday accepted a contract with those condidions?
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that Question.
    MR. W. HARVEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Trade Union Congress, representing over a million people, are unanimously in favour of your Bill?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir.
    MR. JOHN WARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the mining constituencies at the last election at least 100 Unionist candidates had this proposal on their programmes?
    MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. friend may feel quite confident I am carefully looking into that.
    MR. WATT: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the present moment opportune for bringing in this measure?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Certainly. Why should it not be?
    MR. PIKE PEASE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the miners of Durham and Northumberland are not really in favour of this Bill?
    MR. GLADSTONE: There has been a continuous movement in Durham and Northumberland towards an attitude favourable to the Bill.
    Several Members rising to put supplementary Questions to the Home Secretary—
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. I think the rest of this debate had better be taken on the Bill.
    MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can say whether the Second Reading of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) (No. 2) Bill will be taken before Easter.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I hope so, but I am not yet in a position to say definitely.

    China and Earthenware Industry—Lead Poisoning.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that during the months of January and February of this year there were seventeen cases of lead-poisoning in the china and earthenware industry, as against ten for the same two months of 1907; that seven out of the ten persons affected by lead-poisoning during the month of February this year were females; whether he can inform the House as to the number of china and earthenware factories represented by these cases; and how many of these cases have resulted in death.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The figures quoted by my hon. friend are correct. The seventeen cases occurred in fourteen factories and one of them was fatal. As I have already announced, I am appointing a Committee to make a further inquiry with regard to lead poisoning in this industry.

    Motor 'Bus Traffic in London Streets.
    SIR HENRY CRAIK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what statute the traffic
    1214
    of motor omnibuses in the streets of London is regulated; and whether they are subject to any restriction as to the amount of smell, noise, and vibration which they cause, from a failure to use machinery of the best type, or from their excessive weight.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The traffic of motor omnibuses in London is regulated under the Motor Car Acts of 1896 and 1903, the several Public Carriage Acts, and the Orders made under the Motor Car and Public Carriage Acts. The maximum weight and permissible speed of these vehicles is laid down in the Local Government Board Order of the 27th December, 1904. Some check to unnecessary smell and noise is afforded by the regulations of the Commissioner of Police as to the conditions to be fulfilled before a licence is granted. Moreover the owners of vehicles which are found to offend in these respects are frequently served with notices forbidding them to use the vehicle again until the defect has been remedied.

    Central Telegraph Staff Grievances.
    MR. WILES: I beg to ask the Postmaster - General whether telegraphists in the cable room of the Central Telegraph Department are recruited from the staff in the inland section, and forfeit seniority upon their appointment to the cable section; whether an allowance of 2s. 6d. per week is granted to operators who can speak French and Gorman; if it has now been decided that the increment of 3s. per week granted to all telegraphists upon passing a test in technical and professional knowledge is to be merged in the language allowance for the cable staff; and, if so, whether these operators will therefore only receive 6d. per week extra for possessing qualifications that secure 3s. per week to other operators.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The statements in the hon. Member's Question are generally correct, except that the allowance of 2s. 6d. is given to all the operators in the cable room. The merging of the cable room allowance in the technical allowance is in accordance with an explicit recommendation of the Select Committee.

    Dallas Letter Deliveries.
    MR. A. WILLIAMSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that there are several householders within two miles of the village of Dallas, in Morayshire, who have a delivery of letters twice a week, while others who live four miles from the village have a daily delivery; and whether he will endeavour to improve the present arrangements for the delivery of letters in that district.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have called for a report on this subject, and on its receipt I will communicate with the hon. Member.

    Indian Mail Time Table.
    MR. LAIDLAW: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he contemplates the early introduction of the revised time table for the Indian mails; if he will consider the advisability of arranging for a Friday morning instead of a Saturday morning delivery in London; and whether he is aware that the present time table enables Continental firms to reply to their correspondents a week earlier than the British, who are thus seriously handicapped in their competition with foreign traders.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The time table for the Indian mails under the new contract is already in operation. It provides for a delivery of homeward mails at Brindisi at 8 p.m. on Wednesdays, and their receipt in London at 10 p.m. on Fridays. In the monsoon season (May to October) the time is thirty-six hours later. It is probable that occasionally, when the mail arrives at Brindisi in advance of the contract time, a delivery on Friday in London will be possible; but a delivery on Friday morning could only be secured either by an increase of speed, which it was not found practicable to obtain, or by a complete alteration of the time table for Bombay and other Eastern ports. The existing time table was arranged with the concurrence of the Indian Government to the best advantage which circumstances permit; and I regret that I am not in a position to make the desired alteration.

    Penny Postage to France.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he
    1216
    will favourably consider the proposal to reduce the rate of postage between this country and France to 1d. per half-ounce, as an experiment, during the six months which the Anglo-French Exhibition will be open this year; and whether he is aware that the French authorities are favourably inclined to this proposal, and that the extension of postal and telegraphic facilities with foreign peoples will promote good feeling among the nations and greatly benefit trade.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have received no communication from the French Government in regard to the question, nor am I aware what may be their views in the matter. I do not see how the proposal made by my hon. friend is feasible, nor that it would constitute any real or useful test of the advantages or otherwise of penny postage between France and England.
    MR. PIRIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the French postal authorities in reply to a deputation from the chambers of commerce have expressed themselves in favour of a reduction of the rates?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have received no communication from the French Government on the subject, but of course any communication that may come will receive due consideration.

    The National Gallery—Precautions against Fire.
    MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether any competitive tests have been made for the purpose of ascertaining which was the best system of fire resisting construction for the National Gallery extension; and whether Messrs. Fawcett & Company have offered to make competitive tests of their system against the reinforced concrete of foreign design now proposed.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): The Office of Works does not hold competitive tests for fire-resisting construction. We are quite content with the results of the tests carried out by the British Fire Prevention Committee. It is open to Messrs. Fawcett

    1217
    to arrange with that committee to test their methods.

    Kirkburton Church Schools.
    MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the managers of the Church school at Kirkburton propose to appoint a Nonconformist assistant teacher in order to give Nonconformist religious teaching; and whether he will procure for the information of the House a copy of the syllabus for that Nonconformist religious teaching and a list of the tests that they propose to apply so as to ascertain whether or not that teacher believes in such instruction.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH,): I understand that the promoters of the new voluntary school at Kirkburton propose to provide facilities for those children whose parents do not desire them to receive denominational instruction, but my right hon. friend thinks it would be premature to endeavour to obtain the information desired at this stage of the proceedings.

    Royal London Friendly Society.
    MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies is aware that the Royal London Friendly Society is about to take a poll upon the question of its conversion into a mutual insurance company on 10th April, 1908; whether he is aware that the effect of the conversion of the Britannic Friendly Society and the Wesleyan Refuge General Friendly Society has been to depreciate the value of the collectors' books from twenty-five times to five times, and to nil, respectively: and what steps, if any, the Registrar-General is taking to prevent similar depreciation befalling the collectors' books of the Royal London Friendly Society in the event of its becoming converted into a mutual insurance company.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): The Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies informs me that he is not aware that the Royal London Friendly
    1218
    Society is about to take the steps mentioned in the first part of the Question. His jurisdiction does not arise until a meeting has been hold and resolutions have been properly passed at such meeting and transmitted to him for registry under the Friendly Societies Act. With regard to the latter part of the Question, the Chief Registrar has no knowledge whatever. He has nothing to do with collectors' books or their value.

    Boy Clerks.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that service marks are given by the Civil Service Commissioners to boy clerksin compensation for the difficulties under which their studies are carried on, he will arrange to give service marks to boys of Glasgow and other large towns who can show equal difficulties in the way of carrying on their studies, owing to the demands of their employers on them.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: No sir; I think the course proposed by my hon. friend is open to several objections which render it quite impracticable.
    MR. WATT: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously hold that boys in Government employment are more hardly worked than boys outside?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: No sir; but it is quite impossible to apply the same regulation to boys in private employment and to those in Government offices.

    Stirling Crown Lands.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the application for ten five-acre small holdings on the Crown lands at Stirling, adjoining Stirling Castle.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I must refer my hon. friend to the Answer which I gave yesterday to a Question on the same subject by my hon. friend the Member for Stirlingshire.

    Tolsta and Ness Road.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed at a recent meeting at Ness, Stornoway, Island of Lewis, representing

    1219
    4,000 inhabitants of the Ness district, and pressing for the construction of a road between Tolsta and Ness; and will he state what action it is proposed to take in the matter.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The resolution was duly received and referred to the Congested Districts Board for consideration.

    Carloway and Stornoway Road.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Congested Districts Board will consider the expediency of making arrangements to complete the road between Carloway and Stornoway.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I can hold out no prospect at present that the very serious expenditure involved in this enterprise can be undertaken by the Board.
    MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Tory Government made one-half of this road—7½ miles—and would it not be a graceful thing for a Liberal Government to complete it?
    MR. YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware also that all the grants made to crofters in this district have been made by the Conservative and Unionist Government?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Dog Poisoning in Ross-shire.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the persons responsible for dog poisoning last year in the Kilmuir and Logie districts of Ross-shire have now been brought to justice.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The active efforts of the police in this matter have proved so far unsuccessful.
    MR. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of sending detectives to this district, seeing that the dog poisoners are never caught?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Education (Scotland) Bill.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether
    1220
    he can yet say when the Education (Scotland) Bill will be introduced; and whether he is aware that all parties are agreed that there should be legislation on this matter this session of Parliament.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I can only refer my hon. friend to my reply of 19th March to the Question of the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities, to the effect that I hope to be able to make a definite statement upon this point before Easter. I note my hon. friend's opinion as to the attitude of all parties upon this subject.

    Canal Communication in Scotland.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether in view of the changes which will be brought about by the construction of a naval base at Rosyth and the extreme desirability of the shipbuilding facilities in the Clyde being placed in direct communication with it, he will consider the desirability of appointing a Commission to report fully upon the question of enlarging the existing canal between the Clyde and the Firth of Forth and on the economical, commercial, strategic, and naval advantages to be derived from such a great public work.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): My hon. friend is no doubt aware that a Royal Commission is now considering the whole question of the Canals and Waterways of the United Kingdom, and it therefore seems unnecessary to appoint another Commission at the present time to consider this particular matter.
    MR. PIRIEasked whether it was not the case that the terms of reference of the existing Commission did not include strategic considerations, and whether it would be possible to enlarge the terms of reference.
    MR. ASQUITH: I will inquire into that.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY (St.)asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would have this particular canal considered by the Commission.
    MR. ASQUITH: I am told it has been considered.

    Landless Cottars Raid in Barra.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has any information to the effect that the wives, sisters, and daughters of thirty-five landless cottars have taken forcible possession of that part of the farm of Ealigarry in Barra, known as Vaselin, the property of Messrs. William and Murdock M'Gillivray; and will he state whether the Government propose to take any steps to secure land for the landless cottars in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.
    MR. SINCLAIR: For the reply to the first part of my hon. friend's Question, I beg to refer him to the reply given to the Question of the hon. Member for North-west Lanark. The Government are fully alive to the desirability of improving the position of the landless cottars in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.

    Illegal Trawling off the Scottish Coast.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the line-fishing industry around the coast of Scotland is being ruined through the action of illegal trawlers, many of which fly the Norwegian flag; and, seeing that the State of Norway was not party to the North Sea Fisheries Convention of 1882, will the Fishery Board for Scotland consider the expediency of framing a bye-law under Section 10 of The Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Act, 1895, prohibiting vessels flying the Norwegian flag from fishing in either the Minch or Moray Firth.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I am well aware of the conflict of interest to which my hon. friend alludes, but the remedy which he suggests does not seem to offer a practicable solution of the difficulty.
    MR. WEIR: Are not these trawlers really sea robbers, and will not the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter and frame a bye-law?
    MR. SINCLAIR: That does not arise out of the Question.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest no remedy whatever?
    MR. SINCLAIR: We are endeavouring to find and employ such remedies as are possible.
    MR. A. WILLIAMSON: Do not most of these so-called foreign trawlers hail from Grimsby?
    MR. SINCLAIR: That is so.
    MR. WEIR: Are they not registered in Norway, and do they not sail under the Norwegian flag?
    MR. SINCLAIR: Yes, I believe that is the case with this particular class of trawlers.
    MR. MORTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these trawlers are ruining the fishermen and their families all round the Moray Firth?
    MR. SINCLAIR: That is rather a controversial question.

    Scottish Fishery Bills.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, seeing that he has decided to block the Trawlers' Certificates Suspension Bill and the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Bill, will he state whether it is his intention to block all Bills brought in by Scottish Members and thus prevent necessary reforms for the welfare of the people of Scotland.
    MR. SINCLAIR: No, Sir.
    MR. MENZIES: Upon what principle has the right hon. Gentleman blocked private Members' Bills relating to Scotland?
    MR. SINCLAIR: If the hon. Member will put down a Question I will give him an answer.
    MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Trawlers' Certificates Suspension Bill was drafted by the present Secretary for War when he was in Opposition?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I have nothing to add to my Answer.
    MR. WEIR: Why is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to block these two Bills?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I have already fully answered that Question.

    Penalties for Illegal Trawling.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the sheriff, in giving judgment against a trawler at Campbeltown, Argyllshire, last summer, stated that the penalties should be increased so as to compel those law breakers to obey the law as to illegal trawling; whether he is also aware that the sheriff stated there should be faster police boats; under those circumstances, what steps does he propose to take to strengthen the law in accordance with the view of the sheriff; and will he assist to pass the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Bill instead of opposing it.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I have no information other than that furnished by my hon. friend on the matters referred to in the earlier part of my hon. friend's Question. With regard to the Sea Fisheries Regulation Bill I can add nothing to my reply of 19th instant.
    MR. MORTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the judgment of the sheriff of Campbeltown?
    MR. SINCLAIR: Yes, Sir.
    MR. YOUNGER: Is it not possible to make closer inquiry in view of the fact that the fines now inflicted are found not to be deterrent in the least degree.
    MR. SINCLAIR: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a specific Question I shall be happy to make inquiry.

    Scottish School Gardens.
    MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can say how many school gardens exist in Scotland; and what steps, if any, he intends to take to bring prominently before school boards the new provisions of the Code on this subject.
    MR. SINCLAIR: Though the Department have reason to believe that such school gardens are not uncommon, they have no statistics bearing on the point. A copy of the Code has, in accordance with Article 34 thereof, to be provided
    1224
    for every school, and the alterations for the year are printed separately in an appendix. The matter, therefore, cannot very well escape the attention of school boards, but the Department are in consultation with the governors of the agricultural colleges as to the best means of organising satisfactory instruction in this subject in their several districts.

    Union Jack and Irish Schools.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any legal or departmental order prohibiting the flying of the Union Jack over national schools in Ireland where a general desire among the parents and children to do so is expressed, and where the manager raises no objection.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): I am informed that in 1888 a case was brought to the notice of the Commissioners of National Education, in which the Union Jack was exhibited in a national school, and the then Commissioners decided that they could not sanction the exhibition of flags of any description in national schools. I am not aware of any more recent decision of the Commissioners, but I understand that the question was to be considered by the Commissioners at their meeting to-day.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Will the Chief Secretary say whether, in view of the generally expressed desire in the North of Ireland, he will ask the Commissioners of Education in Ireland if they will not reverse their decision and allow the national flag to be flown on national schools where the managers, parents, and children are all agreed?
    MR. DELANY: What is the national flag of Ireland?
    MR. BIRRELL: I have no evidence before me of such desirable unanimity of opinion as would make such a thing desirable.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the Question on the Paper as to whether there is any legal objection?
    MR. BIRRELL: There is a rule of the Commissioners that no emblems or symbols of a political nature—[Loud OPPOSITION cries of "Oh!"] The hon. Member asked me whether the Commissioners had any rules on the subject. The only rule I can find bearing on the subject is of the character I was endeavouring to read to the House. Of course, if hon. Gentlemen do not wish to hear it, I am perfectly satisfied to hold my tongue. It is provided in the rules that no emblems or symbols of a political nature may be exhibited in the school or affixed to the exterior of the building, and in the case of a school which was before the Commissioners in 1888, it was decided not to exhibit a flag on the school.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman considers the Union Jack of England a political flag?
    MR. BIRRELL: The Union Jack of England represents a political transaction, and in that sense it has a political meaning, of which none of us, I hope, have any reason to be ashamed.
    MR. R. DUNCAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any precedent for calling it the Union Jack of England?
    MR. BIRRELL: I offer a thousand apologies,
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Union Jack is constantly used on placards and cards and otherwise in a party sense by Unionists?
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: And the King had to stop it at the last general Election.
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Case of Michael Gaffney at the Mountmellick Sessions.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the Mountmellick petty sessions, held on the 9th instant, in which a man named Michael Gaffney was charged by Acting-Sergeant Byrne with being drunk while in charge of a horse and cart on the 6th March;
    1226
    whether he is aware that the acting-sergeant arrested Gaffney, notwithstanding the protests of several respectable residents of Mountmellick, and placed him in the barrack guard-room, and that the dispensary doctor, who was called in by his solicitor within half an hour after his arrest, declared Gaffney perfectly sober, who was then taken before a magistrate and discharged, but was subsequently summoned by Byrne, who swore at the trial that the man was drunk and incapable on the occasion named, and insinuated in cross-examination that the five respectable witnesses who proved the contrary, amongst them the doctor, were also under the influence of drink on the 6th instant; and whether seeing that the bench of six magistrates including the resident magistrate, dismissed the case upon its merits, he will say what course he proposes taking with regard to this policeman.
    MR. BIRRELL: In this case there was a conflict of evidence between the police witnesses and the witnesses for the defence. Acting-sergeant Byrne and three constables gave evidence that the defendant was, when arrested, drunk and incapable of taking charge of his horse and cart, while four witnesses called by the defendant gave evidence that he was not drunk, and Dr. O'Brien who was called in nearly an hour after the arrest swore that he was then perfectly sober and could not have been drunk when arrested. The magistrates dismissed the case. It would therefore appear that the acting sergeant and the other policemen made a mistake, but in the Inspector General's opinion there is nothing to show that they acted otherwise than in good faith. The matter will receive the attention of the Inspector General.

    Marshall Estate, Kerry.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL,: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the case of the Marshall estate, county Kerry, requests for purchase under Section 6 of the Act of 1903 were signed by the tenants in June 1904, and that the estate was inspected and valued nearly twelve months ago; and whether, seeing that nearly four years have elapsed since negotiations were begun, and that considerable inconvenience is caused by the delay, steps will

    1227
    be taken to have the sale completed in the near future.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the originating request under Section 6 in this case was lodged in June 1905. The estate was inspected during the latter half of last year and the Commissioners hope to make a formal offer for purchase at an early date. The case is being dealt with in its proper order, regard being had to the priority of other cases in which proceedings were commenced at an earlier date.

    Kilfinane Evicted Tenants.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that on the 2nd of March, 1908, two tenants on the town property of Colonel Gascoigne, in Kilfinane, were evicted; can he say whether the landlord's representatives attended on the occasion, or did the police take part in breaking the doors; and if so, were they acting in accordance with the constabulary code.
    MR. BIRRELL: This was a case of ejection from tenements, and the warrants were addressed to the police for execution under the Act 14 and 15 Vic., cap. 92. The houses were locked up and the tenants, who were outside, refused to give up the keys. The police, therefore, broke a pane of glass in each house in order to effect an entrance. In so doing the police were acting in accordance with the law. Possession was given up by the police to the landlord's representatives.
    MR. LUNDON: Who gave the police this order?
    MR. BIRRELL: Under the Act the magistrates are bound to give the order, either to the police or to a special bailiff. Sometimes they give it to one and sometimes to the other. It is for the landlord to apply and then the magistrates make the order.

    Colonel Gascoigne and his Tenantry.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that for the past throe years negotiations for sale to his tenants have been in progress between Colonel Gascoigne and those holding
    1228
    farms on his Kilfinane estate; has a Mr. Howard, an inspector of the Estates Commissioners, at the request of the town tenants, come down to report on the propriety or feasibility of sale and purchase as between Colonel Gascoigne and the town tenants, and, if so, with what result; can the Estates Commissioners see their way to carry out the sale to the town tenants; and, in their interest and for stability of the sale, and the better to secure the repayment of instalments of purchase money, will the Commissioners negotiate for buying a large untenanted farm outlying the town to be divided among them in lots as it may be deemed advisable.
    MR. BIRRELL: Proceedings for the sale of the rural portion of this estate have been instituted before the Estates Commissioners, who have also received an application from the town tenants that their holdings should be included in the sale. The inspector has been inspecting the estate for the past few weeks, but his report is not expected for some time yet. Upon the receipt of that report the Commissioners will consider the matters referred to in the Question.

    Irish Sub-Postmasters' Pay.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether sub-postmasters in Ireland are paid at the rate of £1 7s. per month; that these officials have to work thirteen hours per day, superintend money order business, and provide at their own expense light and firing for their offices; and, if so, whether he will consider the question of having the salaries of these officials increased.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Sub-postmasters in Ireland are paid on the same scale as in the rest of the United Kingdom. The payment is not a fixed one, as the hon. Member appears to think, but varies with the amount of business transacted. The scale was examined by the Select Committee and they recommended certain changes. I am about to issue a notice on the subject to sub-postmasters.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to carry out the changes proposed by the Select Committee?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I had an interview with representatives of the sub-postmasters the other day, and as a result I hope the arrangement made for carrying out the recommendations—with one or two exceptions—meets with their approval.
    MR. SLOAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his promise immediately to increase the pay of the adult night messengers has not been carried out?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: That hardly arises out of this Question.

    Secret Service Fund.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will explain why nearly £13,000 was spent on secret service during the year 1906–7 more than was spent the previous year, 1905–6, the figures being 1905–6 £35,427 and 1906–7 £48,411.
    MR. ASQUITH: In making these grants under the head of "Secret Service" Parliament expressly waives its right to the explanations to which it is otherwise entitled in respect of all grants of public money, and to give such explanations would be to defeat the object of the grants.

    Savings Bank.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Consols held on account of the Post Office Savings Bank Fund stand at a cost price, on balance, of £103 6s. 5d. per cent., while the Consols held on account of the Trustee Saving Banks Fund stand at a cost police, on balance, of £91 3s. 6d. per cent., or a difference in favour of the Trustee Savings Banks Fund of £9 2s. 11d. per cent.; whether as regards the purchase of Consols, the Post Office Savings Bank and the Trustee Savings Hanks are equally under the control of the Government; and will he explain the difference, representing on the £59,072,319 Consols hold on the 31st December, 1907, on account of the Post Office Savings Bank Fund, an extra cost of over £5,400,000.
    MR. ASQUITH: The investments on account of the Trustee Savings Banks
    1230
    Fund began in 1817. The investments for the Post Office Savings Banks Fund did not begin till 1861. It could not be expected that the transactions on behalf of the two funds, extending over such different periods, would yield the same cost price on balance for the Consols now held. It would be impossible in answer to a question to go through the history of the two funds so as to explain how the difference of cost has arisen. But I may mention that in the period from 1895 to 1899, when the price of Consols was abnormally high, the purchases for the Post Office Banks amounted to £25,000,000, and those for the trustee banks to only £5,700,000. The investments are made-for both funds alike by the National Debt Commissioners.

    Inhabited House Duty.
    MR. H. J. CRAIG: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case of buildings let partly as offices and partly to residential tenants, he will consider a re-adjustment of the present method of assessment to the Inhabited House Duty, so as to allow of a separate assessment in respect of that portion of the building which is used residentially.
    I beg further to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the present method of assessment to the Inhabited House Duty operates so as artificially to restrict residential accommodation in central districts of London by preventing the letting of upper floors in large office blocks to residential tenants; and whether he will consider the advisability of revising the whole incidence of this tax, with a view to increasing its yield while reducing its amount and extending the field of its operation.
    MR. ASQUITH: I may say, in reply to these Questions, that I am aware that cases of hardship sometimes arise in the circumstances described, and the matter is one which shall receive my careful consideration, if and when an opportunity arises for dealing with the amendment of the law relating to Inhabited House Duty.

    Sugar Duty.
    MR. BYLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer

    1231
    whether his attention has been drawn to the estimate of co-operative societies of this country that the sugar tax has cost their customers, who are almost exclusively of the working class, no less a sum than £4,426,937 in the last seven years: and whether, in his forthcoming Budget, he will give full consideration to this burden on the poorer taxpayers of the country.
    MR. ASQUITH: I have received representations from the Parliamentary Committee of the Co-operative Congress to the effect stated. My hon. friend may be sure that no aspect of the matter will fail to receive most careful consideration.

THE LATE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): Mr. Speaker, I must ask the indulgence of the House, which I am sure will be very readily granted, for I crave permission to refer for a moment to the sad intelligence which has reached us this morning of the death of one of the most distinguished of British statesmen. In the Duke of Devonshire we have lost almost the last survivor of our heroic age. This is not the occasion upon which it would be fitting to attempt any survey of his long and eminent career, but this House owes, and I am sure will be anxious at once to pay, its own special tribute to him. It is true that it is now many years since he sat upon our benches, but we cannot forget that for the larger part of his political life he was a Member of this Assembly, that he held here in succession some of the most responsible offices under the Crown, and that for five years, unusually full of arduous and trying emergencies, he was Leader of the Opposition. I am not using the language of exaggeration when I say that in the closing years of his life he commanded in a greater degree than perhaps any other public man the respect and confidence of men of every shade and section of opinion in this kingdom. That position he won for himself, and by himself, by a life of single-minded devotion to duty. There has been no more splendid example in our time of service which can be rendered to the State by simplicity of nature, sincerity of conviction, directness of pur-
1232
pose, intuitive insight into practical conditions, quiet and inflexible courage, and, above all, I would say, tranquil indifference to praise and blame, and by absolute disinterestedness. Those are the qualities which we are proud to think our country breeds in her sons. They were never more happily mixed, or more fruitfully employed, than in the character and life of the Duke of Devonshire.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think all who have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit not only that he has done well to ask this House to join, informally, indeed, but none the less really, in expressing its profound regret at the loss which public life in this country has sustained, but they will agree with me in thinking that that tribute to a great man departed could not have been proffered in terms more exquisitely or more fittingly chosen, or that more aptly illustrated and expressed the feelings of every gentleman who heard it. This is not the time nor is it the place when we can attempt any survey of the position which the Duke of Devonshire held in, and the effect which he produced upon, the great movements of politics and parties during the long period in which he bore a prominent place in the councils of his country. I certainly do not mean to touch upon that theme. But if, as all will admit, his influence was great, I think he owed it not merely to those abilities with which he was so richly endowed, but to that transparent honesty and simplicity of purpose which not only existed in him in an exceptional measure, but was quite obvious to every man with whom he came in personal contact, to every audience which he addressed, and which, when it is real and plain is one of the most potent factors in public influence. I think of all the great statesmen I have known the Duke of Devonshire was the most persuasive speaker; and he was persuasive because he never attempted to conceal the strength of the case against him. As I put that, it might be regarded as a rhetorical art, but as a rhetorical art it would have been wholly ineffective. In the Duke of Devonshire it was effective because he brought before the public in absolutely clear, transparent, and unmistakable terms the very arguments he had been going through patiently and

1233
honestly before he arrived at his conclusions. He had seen all the difficulties which he ultimately had to pursue. He knew as we all know, that there are arguments, real and strong arguments, to be urged on both sides of almost every practical question that has to be decided. What made the Duke of Devonshire persuasive to friends and foes alike was that when he came before the House of Commons or any other Assembly, he told them the processes through which his own mind had gone in arriving at the conclusion at which he ultimately had arrived. Every man felt that this was no rhetorical device, but that he had shown in clear and unmistakable terms the very intimate processes by which he had arrived at the conclusion which he then honestly supported without fear or favour, without dread of criticism, with out hope of applause. He had that quality in a far greater measure than any man I have ever known; and it gave him a dominant position in any Assembly. In the Cabinet, in the House of Commons, in the House of Lords, on the public platform, wherever it was, every man said, "Here is one addressing as who has done his best to master every aspect of this question, who has been driven by logic to arrive at certain conclusions, and who is disguising from us no argument on either side which either weighed with him or moved him to come to the conclusion at which he has arrived. How can we hope to have a more clear-sighted or honest guide in the course we ought to pursue?" That was the secret of his great strength as an orator. As a man he had a singular gift. He had that transparent simplicity of character which gave him the power of arousing and retaining the affections of all those with whom he came into personal contact. As to his public life, that is before us. We all know it. Part of it is a matter of history, part of it has come under our own observation; and whether we regard it as historians, or look at it by the light of our personal experience, there can be but one verdict on the great career now drawn to its close—that he was a man of singularly transparent honesty and public spirit, and that in his death the whole public life of England has diminished in dignity and has suffered a loss which it is impossible in our time it can ever wholly repair.

INFANT LIFE PROTECTION.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 99.]

SELECTION (STANDING) COMMITTEES.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Education (Local Authorities) Bill): Mr. Walter Bea and Mr. Arthur Dewar; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Education (Local Authorities) Bill) Mr. Alfred Hutton and Mr. Rogers.
Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
  "To amend The Public Health Act, 1875, and The Local Government Act, 1888," presented by Mr. Cooper; supported by Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Bower man, Mr. Crooks, and Mr. Straus: to be read a second time upon Wednesday 6th May, and to be printed. [Bill 172.]

EDUCATION (CONTINUATION SCHOOLS) BILL.
MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: In rising to ask leave to introduce a Bill to establish Compulsory Continuation Schools in England and Wales, I trust that the House will deem the importance of the subject sufficient excuse for my trespassing upon its time for the space of a few minutes. The attention of the House has been largely occupied during recent years with one particular aspect of the subject of education, but it is my good fortune to-day, at least, not to have to tread the thorny path of sectarian controversy. More fortunate than my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education, I am able to direct the attention of the House to the real needs of the rising generation. The Bill covers both urban and rural districts, but the brief moments I have at disposal only enable me to

1235
deal with the larger urban side. For good or for evil, the majority of our people have become town dwellers. Far more than in any other country, our children are children of the city. Herded together in great masses, denied the simple security of existence which lies in direct access to the soil as a means of livelihood, exposed to the many vicissitudes which arise from roughly organised machine production on a large scale, the working populations of our large towns stand more than ever before in need of training in the arts of industry. Since industry is to be their occupation I submit that we must see to it that they lack nothing that we can easily bestow upon them of fit training for their destiny. And only less important because the numbers concerned are smaller, is the necessity of scientific agricultural training in rural districts. What is the actual condition of the youth of our towns? The answer is in too large a number of cases that they pass into the work of life altogether untrained. After a few brief years of elementary education they are set free, at the most dangerous period of their lives, at the beginning of adolescence, to become wage-earners. They pass into the seething turmoil of modern industry to play a game for wages without knowledge of the rules. In the great majority of cases no systematic education is received after thirteen or fourteen years of age. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I endeavour to show what the facts of the case are. At the last Census there were in England and Wales 4,600,000 youths of both sexes. How many of these continue their education? According to the Education Reports there were in attendance at various continuation schools numbers as follows: Working class and lower middle class students in England and Wales (fifteen to twenty-one years of age), 1904–5: technical institutions, 2,500; schools of art, 21,100; day technical classes, 780; day art classes, 2,600; evening schools, 360,000; higher elementary schools, 10,000; estimate for middle classes, 400,000; total, 796,980. Thus some 800,000 students between fourteen and twenty-one years of age are to be found in all England, as against nearly 5,000,000 youths of that age. Therefore
1236
only one in six of those between fourteen and twenty-one are undergoing any sort of systematic education. Even if we take those between fourteen and eighteen only, it is clear that some 2,000,000 out of 2,800,000 have done with education for ever. What is the practical result? Our towns are loaded with untrained boys and girls drifting surely into the ranks of the incompetent. For a few brief years the boys find it easy to earn money as van boys, shop boys, errand boys, lift boys. At about seventeen or eighteen years of age they find it difficult to obtain employment. Untrained, unskilled, they go to swell the ever-growing ranks of the unskilled labourers. It is in view of these melancholy facts that I beg to introduce a Bill for the continued education and training of the young. With the permission of the House I will briefly describe the provisions of the measure. In the first place, the Bill abolishes all total or partial exemptions from school attendance for boys and girls under fourteen years of age. It seems to me that it is an indispensable preliminary to compulsory continuation schools to see to it that fourteen years shall be the minimum for school exemption. Having abolished the half-timer, and made attendance at elementary schools compulsory until fourteen years of age, the Bill defines a "continuation scholar" as a boy between fourteen and seventeen, or a girl between fourteen and sixteen years of age. Having thus defined the ages within which continued education is to be compulsory, the Bill sets out the duty of the education authority in regard to continuation schools. The education authority is to establish classes, free of all fees, "for the continued education and technical training of all continuation scholars in its district who do not attend approved day secondary or day technical schools." As to the time of attendance, the Bill provides that the continuation schools are to be day schools, or, to be more precise, that the classes are not to terminate later than 6 o'clock p.m. On this point as on others, there may admittedly be differences of opinion, but I submit my own view that as the day is the proper time for work it is the proper time for school. The hours

1237
of attendance per week are to be six, and it is within the discretion of the authority to distribute those six hours over the week, whether on two days or three, or otherwise, as may least disturb the economic arrangements of the district. With a view both to interesting employers in the training of the boys and girls in their employ, and with a view to making such arrangement as shall least disturb industry, the education authority is allowed to co-opt, for the purpose of the measure, any number of employers not exceeding six. As to the standard of education and the curriculum, it is set out that the authority shall provide sufficient places, apparatus, material, books, tools, etc., as shall enable every boy and girl to be thoroughly trained. The scheme must have the approval of the Board of Education. The attendance of the scholars, as I have explained, is to be compulsory, and both the parent and the employers of the boy or girl are placed under penalties to secure such attendance. The cost of carrying out the provisions of the Bill is to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament. The scheme thus broadly outlined is admittedly drastic. There is room, obviously, for many differences of opinion as to details, as to the limits of age, the hours of attendance and so forth. I shall be very happy to consider all representations that may be made on such points, but I am not without hope that at least the principle of the Bill may be freely and widely accepted by all parties in this House. The Bill as it stands, simply seeks to carry into effect here the admirable scheme of training which is actually in successful operation at Munich, and spreading from Munich to other parts of Germany. Ahead of us in educational matters for many generations Germany is drawing further ahead. Last year, when in Munich, I had the opportunity to see the Munich Continuation Schools and to hear from the lips of Dr. Kerschensteiner, their director, a description of their method. I was immensely impressed with their efficiency and their practical results. Admittedly such a measure is costly, but how better could we spend national wealth than in raising the standard of training of the great mass of our
1238
people? If we are to hold our own in the increasing intensity of modern competition, if we are to be worthy to continue to lead a great Empire, the necessity of increased expenditure is clearly forced upon us. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move.
Motion made and Question—"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish compulsory Continuation Schools in England and Wales, and to amend the Education Acts, 1870 to 1902, in respect of the age of compulsory school attendance,"—put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chiozza Money, Mr. Alden, Mr. Ellis Davies, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Mallet, Mr. Masterman, Mr. Walker, and Mr. John Ward.
Bill presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday 13th April, and to be printed. [Bill 173.]

LICENSING (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): In asking leave to introduce this Licensing Consolidation Bill I desire to inform the House that it is absolutely a Consolidation Bill. In the course of the consolidation a few minor defects in Licensing Law have been discovered and, according to precedent, will be dealt with in the Sixth Schedule of the Licensing Bill itself. This Bill will, I think, be of very considerable service to hon. Members in discussing the Licensing Bill. I beg to move.
Motion made and Question—"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to consolidate the Law relating to Justices' Licences for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquor"—put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Gladstone, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Solicitor-General, and Mr. Herbert Samuel.
Bill to consolidate the Law relating to Justices' Licences for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquor, presented accordingly,

1239
and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 174.]

PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,): I shall perhaps meet the convenience of the House best if, instead of waiting for the discussion, I proceed at once to state very briefly the intentions of this Bill. In order to insure that this Bill shall not be discussed at great length at this stage, I may say I propose upon its passing a Second Reading to move that it be committed to a Committee of the Whole House. The object of the Bill is to separate the office of Director of Public Prosecutions from that of Solicitor to the Treasury, and to constitute an independent office. The measure is very urgent owing to the fact that the Criminal Appeal Act will come into operation next month and under the operation of that Act every appeal that reaches a hearing will have to be defended by the Director of Public Prosecutions. This it is quite clear will greatly add to the work of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is also Solicitor to the Treasury, and will put a great accession of duty on an already overburdened official. Quite apart from the Criminal Appeal Act, it has been obvious not only to my predecessors and myself, but to the Treasury, that some relief must be given to the Solicitor to the Treasury in the administration of criminal law. The House will scarcely appreciate how manifold are the duties of this officer. The Solicitor to the Treasury is also the chief responsible active solicitor for the Home Office, the War Office, the Admiralty, the Office of Works, and the Education Department. He has to act in any litigation that may arise in connection with the subordinate offices of the Treasury, such as the Stationery Office and the British Museum, and he also acts with the Solicitor-General in matters of the administration of charities, which is a very heavy and complicated branch of the public service. Besides that he is the King's Proctor, and it is
1240
his duty to intervene as such in divorce cases where it is necessary in order to prevent abuse of the Divorce Law. His duties have also lately been increased by his having to deal with questions of international law. As King's Proctor he is a member of a committee of the Hague Conference and as such has to preside over other committees. The result of all this is that in his work in the administration of the criminal law he runs the risk of being overburdened beyond endurance on the coming in of the Criminal Appeal Act. It is impossible that he can go beyond the act of supervision in the great bulk of his various offices. But his supervision must be real. He has to understand the issues that are to be tried; he has to be ready to advise upon the steps to be taken; and he must, above all, take care that prosecutions are not brought unless there is good reason to believe he will obtain a verdict. Of course he delegates some of his work, but delegation may be carried to such a point that effective supervision becomes impossible. It is to avoid that danger that the Government now ask the House to pass this Bill. Its provisions are very simple. It provides for the appointment of a Director of Public Prosecutions by the Secretary of State, and stipulates that he shall have such Assistant Directors of Public Prosecutions as are found to be necessary. The remuneration of the Director and his assistants is to be fixed by the Treasury, and paid out of monies provided by Parliament. The Director of Public Prosecutions is to be a barrister or solicitor of not less than twenty years standing, whilst his assistants must be barristers or solicitors of not less than seven years standing. I beg to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir W. Robson.)
*MR. COCHRANE (): As a simple layman I hesitate to offer any remarks at all on a Bill of this character, especially when the object of it is to set up a new and expensive office to be filled by members of the legal profession. But I rise for the purpose of getting

1241
official information from the hon. and learned Gentleman. I wish to know why it is this Bill becomes necessary. This Bill re-enacts the Act of 1879 which was superseded. That Act separated these offices, but in the year 1883 it appeared that the continued separation of these two offices was costly and not efficient, and a strong Committee was appointed to inquire and report. They acquired a greater knowledge than I possess of the subject, and I call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to their remarks. The Committee was composed of Sir William Harcourt, Sir Henry James, Lord Herschell, Lord Randolph Churchill, Sir John Gorst, Sir Henry Fowler, and others. We have among them, therefore, the distinguished legal authority of Lord James of Hereford and Lord Herschell. They recommended that the system introduced in 1879 should be departed from, and that the offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions and of the Solicitor to the Treasury should be once more united. They did so on the ground of practical convenience and the saving of expense. They pointed out that the Director of Public Prosecutions with a salary of £2,000 a year was absolutely unnecessary; that he had also six assistants to help him to do his work; and that it would be much better to employ the services of the Solicitor to the Treasury which were immediately available. They said—
"We are of opinion that the existing system—which in its conception was necessarily of a tentative character—requires modification and development. At present the Director of Public Prosecutions is consulted and determines upon prosecutions, but takes no practical part in their conduct—a duty which is remitted by him to the Solicitor to the Treasury."
I presume the Solicitor to the Treasury will still have to be consulted on the question of prosecutions—that he will still have to come in. The Report proceeds—
"By the light of experience since gained, it appears to us that it would conduce both to efficiency and economy if the duty of deciding in which cases the State should undertake the prosecution were united in the same department as that upon which is devolved the duty of practically conducting the prosecution when determined on. We have accordingly considered to which of the two existing departments the combined duties might be most conveniently assigned. If they were to be en-
1242
trusted to the separate office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, as at present constituted, it would be necessary to create a new and expensive staff competent to conduct all the criminal prosecutions of the State."
They went on to say that it was true the staff of the Solicitor to the Treasury was available, and could be used for the purpose, but that they did not see their way to an arrangement for dividing the two offices without a considerable waste of administrative power. The Report continues—
"We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the better plan will be to unite the two branches of the work under the control of the Treasury Solicitor. If this recommendation is adopted there will no longer remain any duties for the Director of Public Prosecutions or his assistant to discharge; and the two offices could be forthwith merged and consolidated by appointing the Solicitor of the Treasury to the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions."
These are questions to which I wish to direct the attention of the Solicitor-General, in order that he may explain, in view of this Report, signed with these names, why it is necessary to depart from the Act of 1884, which resulted from those recommendations, and revert to the Act of 1879. The cost of the office after 1879 was only £2,000; I have no doubt, if you again separate the offices, that in the present day the cost would be £4,000. The Attorney-General spoke slightingly of delegation, but under Section 5 of the Bill there is a rather sweeping power of delegating to the Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions those powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions which he is authorised to exercise by or in pursuance of any Act of Parliament. The Assistant Director may do anything his Director may do. In the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions he has to have ten years legal standing; in the case of the Assistant Director he is only to have seven years standing, yet he is to carry out exactly the same work as the Director of Public Prosecutions. There seems to be room for explanation there. The main question is why it is thought necessary to repeal the Act of 1884, based on that Report to which I have referred, and revert to the Act of 1879, which the Committee condemned because it was inefficient and expensive.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the Attorney-General had supplied the answers which his hon. friend had asked for. He understood that there would be a great amount of work thrown on the Treasury by the new Criminal Appeal Court, and that it was necessary to separate the two offices. The Attorney-General had not alluded to this Report, but he presumed that with his great knowledge he was aware of it. The hon. and learned Gentleman assented to that; but he must say, after listening to his hon. friend's very clear exposition of the Report, that it struck him as affording very good ground for opposing the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that the amount of work which would be thrown upon the Solicitor-General by the Court of Criminal Appeal Act would be very great.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir SAMEL EVANS,): It will be enormous.
SIR F. BANBURYdid not see why they should not wait for a year to see. He supposed that if they wait for a year they would then know what steps to take. As economy was the order of the day, it would be better to wait for a year to see what was going to take place under the Criminal Court of Appeal measure, before they went in absolute opposition to a Report signed by such eminent men, and set up another and extremely expensive office. As he understood, the hon. and learned Gentleman was going to take away from the Solicitor to the Treasury not only the new work which would arise under the Court of Criminal Appeal Act, but all the work which he did now in connection with public prosecutions. If that gentleman had been able to carry out public prosecutions satisfactorily up to the present time—he was not sure that they had always been caried out satisfactorily—he did not see why the work should be taken from him. Why not take away from him only the new work in connection with the Court of Criminal Appeal? It was evident from what the Solicitor-General said, that the Director of Public Prosecutions would have plenty
1244
to do, and, if they limited his work to that which arose from the Court of Criminal Appeal, they would not be obliged to appoint an Assistant-Director. All upon those benches desired economy, and they would do all they could to carry out the Government work with as little expenditure of public money as possible. Under these circumstances he thought his suggestion ought to be carried out, and that they should limit the work of the new official to the Court of Criminal Appeal, at any rate for a time. It would be perfectly easy to extend it afterwards if found necessary. There was one thing which always puzzled him when he looked upon the work of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It always involved the creation of a new post for somebody. Not a single Bill they brought in but created a post for someone. He believed that was a very bad thing to do, because if there was afterwards any demand to reduce expenditure it was always met with indignation by the people who received the salaries. The hon. and learned Gentleman was an exceedingly able debater, and he had listened with a good deal of curiosity to hear what he would say about some of the salaries to be paid to these gentlemen, and what he estimated the total cost of the Department would be. But he had not said a single word about it, except that the money would be paid by Parliament. Of that they were all aware, it was about the only place where they could get money at the present moment; but if they went on in that way even Parliament would have no money to give. Before they consented to the Second Reading of the Bill he asked for some assurance from the hon. and learned Gentleman that he would limit its expenses as much as possible, and that for the time being he would limit the duties of the new official, the object of course being that they should not appoint Assistant Directors. According to the Bill, not only was there to be a Director of Public Prosecutions, but assistants, though there was nothing to show how many or how few. The assurance asked for, that the work would be limited in the way he suggested, was most reasonable and businesslike. Any

1245
great firm worked at first in a small way and waited to see how the business was going before they extended it. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would give them that assurance. He hoped he would tell them what the salaries of the Director and his assistants were to be, what the total cost would be, and what answer he had to give to the Report read by his hon. friend. If these questions were satisfactorily answered, no doubt they would be very pleased to assent to the Second Reading.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid it was very much to be regretted that this Government continued the bad habit of previous Governments, drawn from both sides of the House, of hurrying legislation, and of saying that the Bill must be passed at once, the arrangements being such that they could not be carried out unless a new post was created. Not only did this Government pose as the friends of economy but as the friends of social reform, and he felt very strongly that before they authorised any further amount to be drawn from the Treasury for legal appointments the interests of social reform should be met. His hon. friends had emphasised the fact that the Attorney-General in his speech had not given the slightest indication as to whether the provisions of the Bill would result in a demand for £1,000 or £10,000 a year on the Exchequer, nor had they any notion how many appointments were to be made. Everything was left to the Treasury, and as far as he could see, once the Bill became law the House of Commons would lose all control over these legal officials. Ever since this Parliament had existed, the Treasury Vote had never once come up for discussion, so that once the Treasury got hold of the power to spend the money the House of Commons had lost all power of criticism or effective control. It was becoming a scandal, because the essence of the financial system had been each year that the House of Commons should criticise and control and direct the expenditure of the various public offices. He would be the last to grudge the hon. and learned Gentleman who now adorned the offices of Attorney-General and Solicitor-General the salaries which they enjoyed; he could
1246
not but think, however, that if they practised the economy which they emphasised so strongly on public platforms, and had regard to the votes which perhaps they themselves might have given when sitting on that side of the House, they would agree that some of the salaries necessary under this Bill should be taken from the fees and salaries which they enjoyed for their respective offices. He remembered in the last Parliament a heated debate and a division on the salaries of the Solicitor and Attorney-General. He had not had time to look up the records, but he would not be surprised if the present occupants of those offices both voted for the reduction of the salaries. He hoped they would take the proceedings of Parliament into account in that respect, and that this occasion would be seized to review the salaries of all the legal gentlemen connected with the Treasury. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for the City of London, that unless they could at this stage get full information as to the cost the Bill would involve it would be proper in the interests of economy, and having regard to the pledges which had been given by Gentlemen on both sides of the House, that they should not agree to the Bill.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid it was surely rather unusual in bringing in a Bill of this sort not to state exactly what the salaries were to be. In the case of the Scottish Land Bill the salaries of the new offices were stated, and surely that was far more for the convenience of the House in such circumstances, especially when there were Reports which showed that the particular office in question had been abolished very largely because of the charges which it imposed. At the time of that Report the services which it was now proposed to set up again imposed a charge of about £6,000 a year on the Exchequer, and the Report said that the Committee were convinced that that amount could be very materially reduced by the consolidation of the Departments. That would certainly lead him to vote against the Bill unless they had a satisfactory explanation. Why was it necessary to set up a separate Department? If the

1247
Treasury work was as great as it was alleged to be it might have been met by the subsection which said that extra assistance could be provided. He would have thought there might have been far greater economy in appointing one or more assistants as might be necessary, keeping the matter under the control of the Solicitor to the Treasury, as head of the whole Department, than in setting up a new Department which was hound to involve additional expense beyond the salary of its chief official. If they had a satisfactory explanation of these points he would be prepared not to go into the division lobby against the Government, but pending that explanation he agreed that the position was unsatisfactory.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I do not want to prolong the debate, but I want to ask one or two questions of one or other of the learned Gentlemen opposite. I am afraid I do not entirely share the views of my colleagues on these benches with regard to the necessity for this Bill. I look upon it as a necessary corollary of the Bill passed last year for the setting up of a Court of Criminal Appeal. Whether or not the Act will entail very great expense is another question. I ventured to express the opinion last year when that Bill was being considered that the work under it would be enormous, and I thought hon. Gentlemen opposite rather belittled the amount of work in order that they might not incur the charge of having recklessly gone into increased expenditure. But I remember perfectly well, on the Second. Reading of the Bill last year pointing out the very large number of cases which I thought would be raised under the Bill, and how nearly every criminal, especially the habitual criminal, the hardened offender, would take his chance of having a lighter sentence or having his case reversed. Therefore, I thought there would be a large amount of business and consequently a very considerable expenditure. The House passed that Bill last year; it was a very important Bill, devolving very important duties upon the Public Prosecutor, and therefore, although I was not entirely in favour of all the clauses of that Bill, I think that, having got it, in the interests
1248
of the country it ought to be carried out as well as it possibly can be. Therefore, it may be necessary for the Government to get an extremely efficient man to act as Public Prosecutor. In passing, may I express a hope that the present Solicitor to the Treasury, one of the very best public servants of the State, though I believe his time is getting rather short, may be able to start the proceedings under this measure, because there is in the country no man of greater experience than Lord Desart, and no man who could start the new machinery more efficiently or know more about the work. The Attorney-General in giving a clear explanation of the Bill explained how the Department of Solicitor to the Treasury was to be divided into two separate Departments, and he expressed the opinion with which I entirely agree, that it is necessary to preserve the position of King's Proctor. It might have been my own stupidity, but I did not gather whether the King's Proctor was to be in the new Public Prosecutor's Department, or to remain in the office of the Solicitor to the Treasury. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentlemen will tell me that. At all events I am quite clear, both from my experience at the Home Office and from my somewhat longer experience at the Treasury, that it is really impossible to load the Solicitor to the Treasury, without further assistance, with any more work in connection with the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Department has been extremely hard worked for a long time, and it will be necessary to increase its staff unless you take some steps such as you are taking in this Bill. So that, although I know the Bill will increase the expenditure, you cannot complain of that so much to-day as you could last year. It was in giving assent to the Act of last year that we pledged ourselves to increased expenditure. To me it matters little whether it is spent in increasing the staff of the present Solicitor to the Treasury or whether you combine the two offices and divide the amount of money necessary under two separate heads. At all events I do not think it will make much difference to the amount of money to be spent. I hope the Secretary of State will be fortunate enough to secure the services of an extremely able man to set

1249
up the exceedingly difficult and important work involved. I hope the Solicitor-General will assure me on the two points I have put before him. I will not trouble the House further on this stage of the Bill, though there are two or three questions I wish to raise at greater length when we come to the Committee stage.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir SAMUEL EVANS,), who was indistinctly heard in the gallery, was understood to say that anybody who had had experience of Lord Desart would re-echo the words kindly spoken of him by the right hon. Gentleman. He was a most excellent public servant and it would be a great loss to the State when it was no longer able to avail itself of his services. The chief dividing line between the two officers would be that the civil work would belong to the Treasury Solicitor, and the Criminal Department would be vested in the new office. He remembered that the right hon. Gentleman had prophesied last year that the work under the Criminal Appeal Bill would be very large indeed, and he agreed that it would be enormous. That necessitated that they should have a fresh Department to deal with the fresh work. Everybody who was in favour of the Criminal Appeal Bill had spoken very strongly last year against the possibility of any delay in the working of its provisions. It was of the utmost importance that people who had a right to appeal to the law as it now stood should have the right to go to trial as early as possible. For that purpose it would be well to arrange now for the setting up of machinery under the supervision and control of one man who would have the responsibility, so that when the Act came into force, as it would do on 18th April next, they would have it in order and there would be no delay. Reference had been made to the Report of 1884. It was quite true that the Report was made and was vouched for by the very eminent legal names to which the hon. Member for North Ayrshire had referred, but he had only one answer to make. It was that that Report was made twenty-four years ago, and since then they had all had time to be born again and to attain their majority. A
1250
great deal happened in twenty-four years, and the work of the Treasury Solicitor had enormously increased in connection with the Admiralty, the War Office, and every Department of the State. No public servant had much harder work than the man at the head of this branch; and now, with the enormous work which would devolve upon him under the Criminal Appeal Bill, it was absolutely necessary to make some provision of this kind. He would only say one word further with regard to the question of expense. First of all, in answer to the noble Lord who had cited an instance where the salaries were stated in the Bill, that measure was one in which Special Commissioners were appointed by the Act of Parliament itself. In this case they were merely creating new public servants and their salaries would be ascertained by the Treasury. It appeared to him that the proper time for discussing that would be upon the Resolution which they must have before going into Committee on the Bill. One thing that was certain was that if there was a desire for economy exhibited on the other side they would have assistance from hon. Members on the Government side, and between the watch-dogs on both sides of the House and the watch-dogs of the Treasury, he felt pretty sure the salaries of these gentlemen would not be excessive.
*MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid it was no answer for the Attorney-General to tell them that opportunities would arise for discussing this question on some other stage. He refused to believe that no kind of estimate had been formed of the probable expense of the measure. They all knew how extremely visionary the opportunities of discussing money Resolution were. Why was there such an unwillingness to produce the estimate of the probable cost? That was the one thing which the House was entitled to know before they were asked to read the Bill a second time. The discussions in Committee of Supply of the Vote for the Director of Public Prosecutions were not very easy, because they had on the one hand to guard against anything like a re-trying of the cases, and on the other hand against insinuating that in taking up or not

1251
taking up particular prosecutions he had been actuated by corrupt or scarcely less worthy motives. He did not see why the valuable protection afforded by Section 6 of the Act of 1879 was being repealed in the present Bill.
EARL WINTERTONsaid it was not at all clear that the question of these salaries could be referred to on the Financial Resolution. The House would remember that on the consideration of the Scottish Land Bill it was held that the Land Courts and their officials could not be discussed. The Committee stage of the Bill might be taken in the small hours of the morning some time in July, and it would be much more convenient to have the matter discussed now. They ought to be given some information as to the number of these officers and their salaries.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Thursday.—(Mr. Attorney-General.)

CHILDREN BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,): This measure was introduced in a speech so brief but yet so clear and succinct that it seems almost impossible to add now to that exposition. The Bill, nevertheless, is one of considerable complexity, and many of its provisions are of a novel character. The subject as a whole is essentially a non-party one, but one can see that considerable friction may arise at future stages of the Bill. The prospects on all sides at the present time are so favourable that we are hoping to secure a speeds passage of the Second Reading. There was a time in the history of this House when a Bill of this kind would have been treated as a most revolutionary measure; and, half a century ago, if such a measure had been introduced it would have been said that the British Constitution was being undermined. Now a Bill of this kind finds itself in smooth water
1252
from the outset. This measure is not the development of the political ideas of one party, but the gradual development of a quickened sense on the part of the community at large of the duty it owes to the children. Many high-minded men and women, and many philanthropic societies, have been working upon this subject, and of recent years one is glad to note a large development of scientific knowledge. All these facts, together with two notable things which have recently occurred, namely, the Report of the Committee on Physical Training and the Report of the Commission on Physical Deterioration, have made out the case for this Bill from no political point of view, but rather as a gathering together of the general sentiments of the country. Consolidation under this Bill has been carried out on the usual lines, and the Government hope that the effect of that consolidation will be found to be useful to all local authorities in the administration of the Act. There are one or two points to which I desire to call the attention of the House, not referring to the consolidation part but to the new clauses.
I wish to make one or two brief observations with regard to those provisions of the Bill which deal with the protection of infant life. One new provision occurs in Clause 3. If hon. Members at their leisure will peruse Section 3, they will find very important provision in the statute with reference to the subject of places where children are housed. Hitherto, this business of baby farming has been carried on with insufficient attention from the State, but there is provision under Section 3 applicable to the case of children being housed under dangerous or insanitary conditions, where there is overcrowding, or where the person in charge of the child has been declared by the local authority to be unfit. I am bound to say that upon this head the Bill makes a much-needed advance, because those persons are disqualified for ever from, being charged with the duty of carrying on the business of child farming under Head 2 of the Bill. The provisions as to the conviction for offences are so strong that in future if a baby farmer has been convicted of cruel

1253
treatment that baby-farmer is disqualified for ever from the possibility of carrying on a business of that kind. Then there are provisions dealing with the very serious cases of children who are burned or injured through being left in rooms with open fireplaces and the cases where children have lost their lives through overlying by the parent or the guardian. In those cases where it is established that any person in charge of a child so farmed has been guilty of any of these offences such person shall be disqualified from carrying on the business of child-farming. I think that the House will agree that in the interest of the State itself an emphatic provision of that kind in this Bill is certainly well warranted by the facts of the case. There is a provision in Section 5 which says that if these persons have been found guilty of negligence, cruelty, or drunkenness, or if they have been found in a condition of inebriety in such a way as to be marked down in their reports, it will have the further effect of disqualifying these people from carrying on the business of the bringing up of children. That is so far as regards the protection
There are a series of provisions, from 13 to 15, which are, I admit, somewhat novel, and those have reference to the prevention of cruelty. It is right that we should call attention to these, because undoubtedly they are new provisions. There is one provision in Section 13, which substantially is this: If a child loses its life in consequence of being left in a room with an open grate, an offence is committed against that section, so that, although it appears at first a strong interference with the liberty of the subject, there may be a guarantee in future that all children shall have the protection of protected fires in the room in which they are left by the parent or guardians for the time being. These things seem, on the bold black type of the Bill, somewhat strong orders, but there are records in regard to these matters of the most alarming character. My colleagues from Scotland will remember that only the other day, in Edinburgh, a terrible case occurred. I will narrate to the House what the case was. In one of
1254
the large tenements in the Lawnmarket, Edinburgh, a part called Milne's Court, there was a poor woman, Mrs. Denholm, who had three children. She left them there in the attic of a six storey building. To keep company with these children a Mrs. Brown left an infant of three years of age. They went off to visit Leith. There is no record whether this was a right visit or a wrong one. No doubt there is nothing to suggest that it was anything but in the ordinary course of their life. But shortly after they left, this attic room was discovered to be on fire, and what happened was this. It was broken into and one of these little children was found dead, another was brought out from the room in a dying condition and carried to the infirmary, but it expired before it reached there. A third child, after great exertion, was discovered in the burning bed, and finally the fourth child was discovered while they were raking out the embers of the almost extinguished fire. The corpse was found among the debris of the conflagration. That is a case for which there is no provision under the ordinary law, apart from the case of manslaughter, or, as we call it in Scotland, culpable homicide. Cases like that would fall under this clause to which we hope the House will address itself with emphasis and not with undue criticism as to interference with the liberty of the subject. Here is a case in which four little children are left in a house apparently without protection and really in great danger. There was an open fire almost in their midst, they began to play, no doubt, with the embers in the grate, and the result was that in a few hours the four infants lost their lives. I think it is not too much to put on the humblest in the community the care of infants, who, as I have said, are citizens of the State, obligations such as will prevent lamentable accidents of that kind. I will only on this head say in conclusion that the statistics in regard to it are of the most overwhelming character. I understand that in one year no fewer than 1,600 infant deaths arose from this cause. I trust that I have made clear to the House that this provision is well worthy of support. There is a provision with reference to the subject of infants' overlying by the mother or the woman sleeping with them.

1255
In that case also the figures are of an appalling character. The House will hardly believe that in London alone in a single year 1,600 deaths have arisen from that cause. That is an alarming statistic and we think it well warrants Clause 14 of the Bill.
As to Clause 15 I feel bound to say that I do not think it requires argument. If any person having the custody, charge or care of a girl between the ages of seven and sixteen, allows a girl to reside in a brothel, from that moment an offence shall be held to have been committed, because it is a social moral and legal offence. It is equivalent in the legal degree to cruelty of the most hateful kind. We provide in the Bill the power of inspection, not only of homes, which is all-important, but of the institutions in which there may be a combination of the agencies working in the interest of children. That provision says that the governors of these institutions shall have a certain amount of surveillance on the question of inspection. There are in regard to the protection of the lives of children, persons who, apart from places, want supervision. Not exactly in this portion of the Bill, but later on, the responsibility for children will be continued in the case of a deserting husband. I will explain to the House how that matter stands at present. There would be great danger of any prosecution of a deserting husband failing on the ground that he personally had nothing to do with the cruelty, neglect, or wrong committed to the children in his home. Now the law, we hope, will step in and say that if a man deserts his wife and family he must consider the case of the children so left behind. In the ordinary case his desertion is for a justifiable cause, namely, on account of a drunken wife, and what we say is that the law ought emphatically to declare that if a man justifiably deserts his wife, he shall not thereby plead that as an excuse for leaving the children to her sole and unaided care. If he deserts his wife and family, it is all the more important to continue his responsibility for those little ones who were left without proper care. I think I have exhausted the personal aspect of the question so far as the children are concerned.
1256
There is a part of the Bill which may cause probably a little trouble. That is the portion beginning with Section 37, as to juvenile smoking. I confess that when I read these clauses myself I did think they were going somewhat far, and I daresay that anyone who has not gone fully into the records will come at once to that opinion. I found it to be my duty to go fully into the question, and I must say that the investigations conducted by the authority of Parliament on this subject are of rather a serious' kind. As this matter may be the subject of much discussion, will the House permit me to refer to the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration? In that Report these sentences occur, and this is really the substantial foundation for these provisions in the Bill—
"There appear to be two ways of dealing with the matter which might be of good effect and could be made the subject of a very simple Act of Parliament: (1) To prohibit the sale of tobacco and cigarettes to children below a certain age. All the witnesses were agreed in advocating this step, but there was some difference of opinion as to the age which should be selected. The Committee think that it should at least be sixteen. (2) To prohibit the sale of tobacco and cigarettes in sweet shops and other shops frequented by children."
But there was a very important Report presented by the Royal Commission on Physical Training. That is a thing which hits us all, for that Commission had in view not only the actual conditions so far as children are concerned, but the conditions from the public point of view, almost from the Imperial point of view, as to what was to be the result to the State itself of having children brought up under habits of this kind. That Royal Commission reported in these terms—
"Tobacco smoking before maturity is reached has a most prejudicial effect on physical development, and this evil and increasing practice cannot be too strongly denounced."
We have made this effort, and we commend it to the House, hoping that it will have a beneficial effect.
I now come for a moment to a very thorny branch of the question, though we are not dealing with it for the first time, namely, the reformatory and industrial schools question. That has been the subject of legislation for a period of

1257
over forty years. Since 1866 right up to the present there has been a crop of legislative effort, sometimes culminating in statutes and sometimes not, on this very complicated subject, and the House will understand that this Bill links together the whole scheme of reformatory and industrial schools in the most useful manner. I call particular attention to one point which I think, though I am not sure, is a new development, and that is the auxiliary home. At present it sometimes happens that there is no accommodation in an industrial school for children who ought to be sent there in ordinary circumstances; in such cases there is power in the Bill to add to the local or national equipment by way of auxiliary homes. These institutions are annexed, so to speak, to the general scheme of reformatory and industrial schools in the country. On all these questions of the treatment of children, whether by imprisonment, penal servitude, reformatory treatment, or industrial treatment, may I say that the keystone of the Bill is to be found in Section 96, in which it is emphatically and broadly insisted that no child under fourteen years of age shall be subject to imprisonment. That is a strong and well-warranted step, and especially the following section, which provides that no young person under sixteen years of age shall be liable to be sentenced to penal servitude. If the House would wish to see at one glance what is to be substituted for the old hard and fast cast-iron methods of treating children, they will find it a very excellent conspectus of the new system under its various heads in Section 98. In the first place, it is perfectly clear that no magistrate with Section 98 before him will ever dream of disposing of child cases in anything like the old harsh system which is to be abolished by this measure. The magistrate has placed before him a series of alternatives, the object being to treat these children not by way of punishing them—which is no remedy—but with a view to their reformation. There is suggested discharging the child under recognisance, or under the supervision of a probation officer—a most excellent new scheme—or sending
1258
the offender to an industrial school or to a reformatory school or by ordering him to be whipped. Personally I do not care about the whipping alternative, but I do care a great deal about Sub-sections (g) to (j)—by ordering the offenders to pay a fine, damages, or costs, or by ordering the parent or guardians of the offender to pay a fine, damages, or costs. We think the latter is a most commendable provision. It is well that parents or guardians should know in future that their responsibility is not ended when they send their children into the streets or leave them to follow their own devices, but that they are to be subject to punishment of a fine, damages, and costs at the order of the magistrate; or, where that would be no good whatever, there is the further provision of committing the child to a place of detention instead of to imprisonment. A wonderful change initiated by this Bill is the sending the child to a place of detention instead of imprisonment. It must be remembered that the moment a little one is brought into Court at present it is sent to prison to await its trial. Under the scheme of the Bill there are places where the child is to be detained and accommodation provided for it in all cases of remand. Therefore, the House will see that there is to be an end to that system of real cruelty—for it is real cruelty—of sending a child to gaol and making it a gaol-bird even before trial. All that is ended by this section, which we think the local authorities will work well. Children of from twelve to fourteen year of age will go to industrial schools. As a Scotsman, in opening this Bill I would like to make one remark with reference to the case of what I call tramp or wandering children. The reason I make this observation is that we have the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom, and probably in Europe, very often infested by this class of child, going about under the charge of not the regular style of gipsy, but of real wandering vagabond tramp creatures. The children are in their charge; they go from parish to parish. No local authority can get hold of them, for before a magistrate's order can be put in operation they are off to another parish, probably to another part of the

1259
country. What we have done is, we take possession of these children in this sense; we say that if the parents or guardians have no settled home or if the parents or guardians are unfit to take care of the children, then the children are to be brought before a magistrate and sent to an industrial school. We emphatically make it clear that the very fact of wandering about, not begging alone, but of not being in a condition in which they would be compelled to send their children to school if they were localised under ordinary circumstances in a particular parish—that of itself will bring them within the purview of this provision. Let there be no false sentiment about this. With every admiration for the genius of George Borrow, I think that he never did a worse service to this country than by writing "Lavengro," in which he praises the wandering gipsy life until it made well-disposed citizens come to think that there was something beautiful in it. There is nothing of the kind. There is nothing but squalor, and sometimes very little else than immorality in the life to which these children are brought up. It is high time that these children should be rescued from squalor and shame. I once discussed this point with a gillie in the Highlands who put the whole thing in a nutshell. The gillie used the illustration of the rabbit warren, and said: "If we would only seize hold of the young ones the old stock would soon die out, and so we would save these young people." The gillie agreed that the young vagrants were initiated from their earliest days into mal-practices, and that they should be sent to industrial houses, and if necessary, to reformatory schools. I would point out that the provision in regard to the supervision of young children in reformatory and industrial schools does not mean that that supervision ends with their incarceration there, but continues until they reach the age of nineteen. We think that that will be in the highest degree helpful to the children. There may be in some persons' minds a doubt as to the advisability of the State interfering with the responsibility of the parents: but that is an argument more familiar in former days than now. This Bill,
1260
however, very firmly declares certain new aspects of parental duty which must be brought home to the parents of neglected children. Firs, the parents must contribute such sum as is reasonable to maintain the children; secondly, where the child is sent to a day industrial school the parent or such person as is liable to maintain him must contribute such sum as is reasonable towards his industrial training and meals in the school; thirdly, when a child is brought before a Court the parents are convened to the Court ill order that they may see what is the result of neglect, and that personal responsibility may be brought home to them when the child falls into crime; and fourthly, if a fine is imposed, the fatuous precedent of fining the child is got rid of, and the parent is fined. These provisions show that while we have been looking after the children we have not been allowing the persons primarily responsible to escape their responsibility to the State. There is a part of the Bill which is a novelty, and that is the part which provides for the institution of separate juvenile Courts. Since 1863 this system has been established in the United States, and twenty-one States have now adopted the principle. In Canada it has been adopted since 1884, and in South Australia since 1895. In all these cases the record is unfailing that the effect of separate treatment of the children under more sympathetic conditions, apart from the ordinary grimy surroundings of a Criminal Court, has been wholly helpful, and the children being often accompanied with much watchful care on the part of Court officials the result has been a very large diminution of youthful crime. I think that that example from our dominions across the seas is worth following. Of course this Bill is just a part, though a large part, of the development of social reform in this country. The Party opposite is entitled—and I have never denied it—to the highest credit for their legislation in this matter and for the Act of 1901, which is a notable charter of the children's rights. But since then, provision has been made for the medical inspection of school children, for feeding children at school, for the establishment of probation officers and the notification of births—

1261
a subject not remote from that now under consideration. And now here is a Bill to prevent the cruelty of those children entering the ranks of crime. I therefore think that the House is entitled to be satisfied that we are making steady advance. I am quite well aware that no one who has gone through the statistics of juvenile crime, and of the resulting social misery, but must acknowledge that notwithstanding what we have done much remains that is saddening. The only consolation we can have is in the historical reflection of what has been done within the last century. Just take the description which Sydney Smith gave of one particular trade, that of the chimney sweep. His essay did more for those children than the Report of the Committee of both Houses, because he there described the awful conditions of these young children in that trade. He pointed out how they came with advertisements to the doors of people, and on the advertisement was printed "Little boys for small flues," and he gave a picture of small boys climbing up chimneys with bloody hands and knees, and sometimes sticking in the chimney and being pulled out, sometimes dead and sometimes suffering. That sort of thing existed in one particular trade, and if you take for decade after decade from 1819 up to the present time the record of your factory legislation, it would be the same most gratifying record of progress. It is only necessary to remark that well into the last century there were provisions under which it was possible for children under the age of nine to be allowed to labour in factories, and Robert Owen, that most distinguished social reformer, gave evidence before a Committee of the House of Lords or of the House of Commons, I do not know which, to the effect that it was the common practice for children of six years of age to labour for thirteen hours in the factory, and that the parishes sent all their surplus children there, and so relieved the ratepayers of the parish. All these things I state for the purpose of urging Members of the House not to be too depressed, for we are making progress. It is still within the memory of men now living that little children of very tender years went down into the mines and were chained to the hutches, and worked under
1262
conditions which are appalling in the sight of God and man. All these things have been happily abolished, and therefore I beg the House to remember that at every stage of reform in that condition of things to which I am referring there has always been the grumble, "Are you not going too far?" No, Mr. Speaker, we are not going too far. We want to say to the child that if the world, or the world's law, has not been his friend in the past it shall not be now. We say that it is the duty of this Parliament and that this Parliament is determined to lift, if possible, and rescue him, to shut the prison door and to open the door of hope. I know quite well that in all cases of social reform you must get beyond the personal question to the deeper questions of the land, and of the drink, and, unhappily, the moment you get to them you are in the region of party controversy. And, of course, there is the deeper root difficulty which rests in human character. But apart from that we are dealing with human beings whose fate is upon us unless we interpose, and it is in a spirit of helpfulness and rescue that the Government introduce this measure.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Debate arising.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: So far as this measure is one of consolidation of course we raise-no objection to the Second Reading. I recognise that the law as to children is spread over a large number of Acts of Parliament, which are difficult to follow and understand, and certainly need consolidation. But this Bill is not only a measure of consolidation; it is in many respect one of Amendment and extension, and it certainly requires, as regards these new clauses, very considerable consideration and scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Office, who gave, I cordially acknowledge, a most clear and lucid statement of the Bill on its introduction, admitted that a measure of this size and scope, containing 119 clauses, and consisting of 72 pages, could not be-expected to pass into law in a crowded session, unless it met with general consent, so that the Government had, in

1263
preparing the measure, to exclude as far as possible every subject of a controversial character. There are many subjects which many Members of this House would have desired to see included in this Bill to make the Bill a comprehensive measure of codification of the law relating to children and dealing with the time of employment in factories and workshops, street trading, and children in public-houses. But I am bound to say that all these questions would have led to considerable controversy and would have jeopardised the fate of the Bill, and probably the Government were wisely advised in excluding them from the present measure. Indeed, I am not sure as it is that the Government can hope that some of their amending clauses may not be considered controversial, or that they may not lead at all events to considerable discussion; but it was for them, of course, to settle the question whether the more extensive Amendments might be included, or whether it would have been wiser and safer to have curtailed the Bill to one of pure consolidation of the Infant Life Protection Act of 1897, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904, making only necessary amendments where those Acts have been found in practice to be ineffective. The Bill, although nominally and chiefly a consolidation Bill, contains new enactments and Amendments of the existing law, some of which are quite novel, and some very far-reaching. New offences are in some cases created, and you have for the first time the right of entry granted to private homes and institutions and your new inspectors are given novel powers. You presume that parents know exactly what their children are doing and you punish them for their errors. But, at all events, there is one principle of the Bill which I for one cordially endorse, which has been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and that is the wider enforcement of parental authority. The parent is to be brought into Court when the child transgresses and will, as far as possible, be made to pay the fine for his child, which he has neglected to train. That is rightly at variance with the socialist doctrine, with which we in this part of the House have no sympathy, that the
1264
moment a child comes into the world the State is to be responsible for it. I am delighted to think that there is that recognition of parental authority within the four corners of the Bill. It is perfectly true that nearly every hon. Member in this House agrees in the principle of the Bill, and therefore the criticisms which must be addressed to the House are chiefly or largely upon Committee points, but under the new practice which prevails in this House of sending every measure upstairs, I do not think the Government can grumble if some of the criticisms made to-day are criticisms which might have been fully as well made in Committee, because this is after all the sole opportunity which the bulk of hon. Members who take a great interest in this Bill will have of considering it. I would therefore venture to offer a few criticisms of certain clauses of the Bill in which I feel considerable interest, and I promise the right hon. Gentleman I will not detain him at any undue length. There are also other points in regard to which I wish to elicit information. There is one part or point in the Bill which I think may lead to difference of opinion; it relates to the Infant Life Protection Act, which excludes the inspection of "one nurse-child homes." As the House will remember, the Infant Life Protection Act of 1897 exempted from inspection those persons who receive one nurse-child and not more than one child in return for weekly or periodical payments and not for a lump sum payment, and this Bill proposes the same exemptions. The Under-Secretary certainly told us the other day that a Select Committee would be appointed to consider this question, and that they would consider it early in the session, and report their conclusions, so that if they found for an alteration, or rather that "one-child" homes should be inspected, such proposals could in Committee be inserted in the Bill. I have reason, to believe that that Report is nearing a conclusion, and to-day, possibly, the Chairman of the Committee, if he speaks, may be able to clear up the point as to what the Committee think, and then the Under-Secretary may say whether it is the intention of the Government to incorporate the

1265
findings of the Committee in this Bill. Although there is a great deal to be said in favour of such inspection on the one hard, yet for my own part I see considerable objections to it on the other. If any such inspection be insisted upon you always run the risk of closing some of the very best and most comfortable homes, because there are some women who make the kindest and best possible, mothers, who do not care, and I am certain their husbands do not care, that the privacy of their homes should be interrupted, and that there should be that sort of suspicion created against them which such inspection is always liable to create. I was much interested in this question some years since in connection with the question of boarding-out, and it certainly was the experience of those who worked in my part of the world that those who received one child only were more careful and considerate, and that cruelty and neglect were entirely absent from their homes. These homes are not too numerous, and I think it would be a pity if you ran any risk of closing a home where the child has the advantage of being brought up with other foster children as they are and in a respectable home which they will long remember without any taint of the poorhouse or any of the inconveniences which in after life attach, and unfairly attach, to the reputation of a child who has been brought up in the poor house. I wish to ask the question whether there is any further information on that point, but as I say, the Chairman of the Committee, who have considered their Report, may speak and furnish it possibly. Then as to the begging clause. It has an addendum in Subsection 2, which is a new enactment. It throws the onus of proof on the person in charge of the child to show that he did not allow, and did his best to prevent, the child being in the street to beg, and I should like to know whether experience has shown the Under-Secretary the necessity of this measure, as I can see cases of hardship, considering the conditions in which many of our poor are housed, and the conditions in which they live in our large towns. There may be considerable hardship in inflicting these penalties on the poorer people. It is not as if
1266
they lived under better or happier conditions. Over some of the children, reared in crowded thoroughfares where the accommodation is extremely poor, it is very hard for the parents to keep an efficient control, and I must say you are creating undue hardship for the parents in making them responsible as you do. With regard to Clause 13, which deals with the case of children exposed to the risk of burning, I wish to ask whether it has ever been considered possible to have inspectors in order to see if fires are guarded, because the penalty here is only thee effect of a warning, and is only inflicted after the unfortunate child has been burnt. So far as the parent is concerned no doubt that is quite right, but so far as the child is concerned you lock the stable door after the horse is stolen. Then with regard to overlying—Clause 14. This is a new enactment, and I think the penalty is a very heavy one to impose upon an unfortunate mother who accidentally overlies her child. This overlying is largely due to the bad accommodation these people have. An unfortunate family with other children may only have one room, and parents may not be in a position to buy bassinettes, or cots or anything for the baby. It may also be only possible in winter to keep the baby warm by taking it into bed, and if by an accident of this kind the baby's life is sacrificed, and in many cases it is mere accident, probably no person is more distressed than the mother. I think therefore the penalty is far too high. I think every care should be taken to persuade the parents to be more careful in the charge of their children, but this is too heavy a penalty to threaten them with when an unfortunate overlying takes place. I think the, right hon. and learned Gentleman said that 1,500 deaths occurred in this way. Does he mean in London?
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,): No; England and Wales.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: That is what I thought. So far as London is concerned, I fully admit the urgency

1267
of the problem of the infantile death-rate. While the death-rate has fallen greatly during the last fifty years, infantile mortality remains the same, and we find that it is greatest amongst the poorer classes and in the crowded districts. I find by the figures in 1841 and 1850 in London the infant mortality was 157 of every 1,000 born, and that in 1900 it had risen to 160, whereas the death-rate for the whole country is less than it was before. It is a matter of common notoriety that infantile mortality varies with the house accommodation, and therefore I hope it may not be necessary to press this rather heavy penalty in these cases. I have no doubt the Under-Secretary of State has made very careful inquiries into this question. I notice the opinion given by one of the best known London Coroners upon this subject. At an inquest at Battersea, the coroner, Mr. Troutbeck, in summing up, said—
"That in that district of London they had been engaged for some years in endeavouring to find genuine cases of overlying, but so far their search had been unfruitful. In many cases the children found dead in bed with their parents on careful examination had failed to show that there had been any interference with their breathing."
The coroner went on to say—
"In the course of my experience I have never come across such a case, and I doubt whether such cases ever existed."
I am certain the Home Office have carefully considered this question before they committed themselves the remedies proposed in this Bill. But it appears there are some well-known authorities in London who seem to doubt the accuracy of these figures. I do not think, although it is a new enactment, that anyone can object to Clause 15, which inflicts penalties upon anyone in charge of a girl between the ages of seven and sixteen for allowing that girl to reside in a brothel. That is a clause that everyone will agree with. Clause 22, dealing with visitation of children's homes and institutions, is a most important clause. Under the existing law there is no right of entry to such homes or institutions. I agree that it is necessary that there should be, but I hope the Home Office will consider the very delicate nature of such inspection as well as the discretion of
1268
the inspectors who are to carry it out. Many of these institutions are religious institutions and belong to various religious denominations, and I foresee very considerable difficulty in carrying out these provisions unless a very great discretion is used and the inspectors are the official inspectors of the Home Office or are people of some authority whose salaries will be placed upon the Estimates in order that the House may have some hold upon them. I have only one point I wish to raise on the 4th part of the Bill, that is with regard to Clauses 43 to 48. Those clauses deal solely with reformatory and industrial schools, and are all practically consolidation clauses. The changes made, if any, are small and chiefly administrative. I will not trouble the House with any remark upon them except to express my approval of the fact that the age of committal has not been raised. Sixteen is quite old enough, and youths or young women above that age should certainly not be mixed with boys and girls. With regard to the last part of this Bill dealing with juvenile offenders, I am sure we all agree that child offenders should be kept separate from adult offenders. Boys and girls under sixteen years of age should not be kept in prison or even mixed in the police courts with older criminals. I gathered that the right hon. Gentleman was going to establish police courts for juvenile offenders only in all parts of the country. I know they have been successfully established in Glasgow and Birmingham. In London children are still tried at the ordinary police courts but at a separate hour, and are not allowed to mix with criminals or to hear the other cases going on. I wish to know whether this system is to continue in London or whether separate police courts are to be opened in various districts. There are two objections to that being done, one, the great and unnecessary expense, and the other, that if you have only two Children's Courts for London, you will have to bring the children very great distances to the place of trial. I think it would be more satisfactory and less expensive if the present system were continued. The Under-Secretary of State said that he intended to require the police authorities

1269
all over the country to provide places of detention to which children could be committed or remanded. In many towns I believe such places already exist, but in others where they do not a great burden would be thrown on the ratepayers if they were called upon all over England to erect these places of detention. If this large expense is to take place, I should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman does not consider it would be fair that the Treasury should bear a portion of the cost, and whether the cost of the children committed to these places should not be defrayed by the Treasury as it now is when children are committed to prison. The right hon. Gentleman said also that they proposed to appoint a special children's magistrate to visit in turn a circuit of Courts. If that is only in London I have nothing to say against it, but my experience is that the greatest possible attention is given to children's cases by the present stipendiary magistrates, against whose humanity and fairness to the children nothing can be said. I should like to know whether it is the intention of the Secretary of State to deal merely with the children in London in this way; whether the magistrate is to wander from Court to Court or whether he is to sit in one or two places in the centre of London to which all the child offenders in London will be brought. With regard to the juvenile cigarette smokers, I cannot help thinking that, although you might prevent retail dealers from supplying small children with cigarettes yet at the same time there are many provisions in the Bill, arrests by the police, search for cigarettes, and others, which are in the nature of grandmotherly legislation and which would probably lead to a good many laughable scenes of constables pursuing small boys who would drop their cigarettes in running away. Such scenes would not tend to support the dignity of the law or the efficient administration of the Act. I am perfectly aware that other countries have found it desirable to pass laws in this matter, and I am perfectly aware that the Committee on Physical Deterioration recommended some legislative remedy for this child smoking. If I recollect aright, a Committee of the House of Lords too, last year specially
1270
considered this point, and came to the unanimous conclusion that legislation was desirable. I am only criticising some of the proposals which have been made; I think that the prohibition of sale to children below a certain age is certainly the right one, and it is one to which I raise no objection. I think that some of the other provisions of the clause will not tend to good administration of the law which the hon. Member desires to pass. Another point with which I am in sympathy is the entire abolition of child imprisonment, but I think that that is a provision which requires very careful consideration. I am all against the imprisonment of children, but experienced chairmen of quarter sessions will back me up when I say that there are some cases in which it is almost impossible to provide a proper deterrent to certain habitual criminals among children without resort to some sort of imprisonment or detention. So far as the proposals for the separation of the child criminal from the adult criminal is concerned, I entirely approve of it. With the exception of certain clauses which I think require careful consideration, so far as I am concerned the hon. Gentleman will have no difficulty in regard to the passage of this measure.
*MR. A. ALLENsaid he had been a Member of the London education authority and had been closely connected with industrial schools for the last ten years. Speaking with that experience, he gave the Bill a very hearty welcome indeed. The right hon. Gentleman who had spoken last had referred to the special Courts for children, and had mentioned the particular case of London, asking whether the work was to be taken from the hands of the magistrates in the Metropolis and given to a special magistrate appointed for the purpose. He yielded to no one in his admiration of the way in which the magistrates of London had done their work; nevertheless, he welcomed no part of the Under-Secretary's statement with more gratitude than that in which he spoke of the establishment of Courts at remand homes in London, and the appointment of a special magistrate to them. He welcomed that proposal not merely because

1271
it took children away from the undesirable surroundings of the Police Court, hut also because he believed that it would be a great thing to get some unity of treatment of children who had fallen into crime. He believed that it was acknowledged that the best way of diminishing crime in the country was to deal judiciously and kindly with children and young persons when they first went wrong; and for that purpose he attached the greatest possible value to the appointment of a sympathetic magistrate who would deal with all children on the same line. The Metropolitan magistrates, whatever their merits might be, and they were very great, had no certain unity of principle in dealing with the questions which affected juvenile criminals. One magistrate would be very anxious to send boys to industrial schools, and another would think it almost wicked to shut them up for years in an industrial school. Another magistrate might be very fond of using the birch. In one Court, for example, thirteen children in one week divided ninety-eight strokes of the birch between them. The birch might be an excellent thing for some of those children, but he could not believe that it was an equally good thing for the whole of the thirteen. Other magistrates thought a great deal of the ratepayers' pocket, and for that reason refused to send boys to the industrial schools. He thought, therefore, that it would be a good thing if they could get one magistrate in London who would look on all the cases alike and try to evolve the really best method in which to deal with these child offenders. If this was necessary in London it was still more necessary in the provinces, because he was glad to say that as far as London was concerned practically no children were sent to prison. He found that in Birmingham, in the year 1904, as many as 166 children were sent to gaol, whereas in 1907, after the establishment of a children's Court, the number had fallen to twenty. The returns for Newcastle, about half as big as Birmingham, in 1905–6, showed that 159 children were sent to goal, and in 1906–7 the number was still up to 120. What he wanted the House to remember was that prison left a stigma on the children, and, furthermore, short terms of imprisonment were
1272
the very worst things possible for children, because after the first term the other terms did not act as a deterrent in any way, and they familiarised a child with prison life. Therefore, he was extremely glad to hear the Under-Secretary state that they were to have a peripatetic magistrate in London who would go round the different remand homes to hear the children's cases. Another good point in the Bill was the increase of parental responsibility. His experience with regard to industrial schools in London was that in a great number of cases the parents deliberately attempted to got their children sent to industrial schools. When they got little mites of eight or nine years of age charged with being beyond parental control, it showed that undoubtedly, as the law stood, there was not sufficient parental responsibility when their children got into trouble. Of course the parent was very glad to get rid of his child, though he must say that it was for the good of the child that he should be sent to an industrial school where he was trained and had a chance afterwards of employment in some trade that was found for him. The boy of the industrial school had a better chance than the child of the ordinary elementary school. Still he was very glad that under the Bill there was provision to bring home to the parents responsibility for their children, and they would not have so many cases as they had had in the past of parents getting their children sent away and the ratepayers often being charged with whole families. There were one or two points in which the Bill, he thought, might be improved. With regard to that part of it dealing with the prevention of cruelty to children, he was very glad that the law was to be strengthened in that direction. He would like to see the parent made liable if, through neglect to give his child reasonable medical attendance, he seriously injured the child in mind or body. He believed that that was a bold proposition to make, but his experience in connection with the cripples' school, and other special schools in London, went to show that cases could be multiplied in which children had been crippled for life because the parents, though repeatedly warned, had refused to give them proper

1273
medical attendance. He could cite cases to the House in which children had become blind, because the parents, though repeatedly warned, had refused to have the simplest operation performed. He could give examples where children had been made deaf for life in the same way. With the medical inspection which had been established under the Act of last year, he could not help thinking that this Bill might be strengthened so that parents, on being warned, after medical inspection at the school, that serious bodily harm would result to their children if they did not take steps to get them attended to, should, in the event of that warning being disregarded, come within the arm of the law. A further point to which he wished to call attention was that under the Bill as it stood a child of twelve years of age, convicted of stealing, was to be sent to a reformatory school. Experience showed that the age of twelve was too young to send a child to a reformatory school, and that between the age of twelve and fourteen an industrial school was all that was necessary. It was said that managers of industrial schools would probably object to receiving children who had been convicted of stealing, but he knew that there were managers of industrial schools who were perfectly willing to receive children of that character. The superintendent of an industrial school in London had told him that the children who had been convicted of stealing were, if anything, rather better than the children sent to the school for wandering and begging, and so forth; he said that in one respect they had rather more go in them. The magistrates actually recognised that twelve was too young an age to send a child to the reformatory school. Frequently in London the magistrate varied the charge from theft to one of being beyond control; they got round the Act in that way, and sent the child to an industrial school. Seeing that that was the experience of the magistrates, he thought that the Bill might be made sufficiently elastic so as to leave it to the discretion of the magistrate to send a child of between twelve and fourteen years of age, convicted of stealing, to an industrial school, if he preferred to do so. There was another point he would be
1274
very glad to see in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the clause dealing with girls found in brothels. Under the Bill a girl of fourteen could be taken from those surroundings and sent to an industrial school. He would like to make a plea for the girl between fourteen and sixteen, perhaps the most dangerous age of all. As the law stood at present she went back to her parents when they came out of prison, and was exposed to every sort of the worst kind of temptation. He thought the Bill might provide that a girl of that age residing under those undesirable conditions should be committed to some person or institutution willing to take charge of her, or in the last resort, if she was not of good moral character, she might be sent to a reformatory school. It was a serious blot on the Bill at present that it made no provision for girls of that age. Another point to which he wished to draw attention was the provision with regard to vagrant children. He would like to be told whether these provisions referred to children who were in caravans. He knew they did not refer to children in barges. Children in caravans really got very little education indeed. There was a case the other day under the London education authority of children living in caravans at the World's Fair. There were 24 children of whom twenty over nine years of age were unable to read or write. There was, at any rate, a prima facie case for inquiry as to whether caravan children should not be brought under the Bill. He could not see, as the Bill stood at the present moment, that there was really any obligation for local education authorities either to establish industrial schools themselves or to enter into agreements with industrial schools for children to be sent to them. That was a matter which was really of the utmost importance, because the larger number of the local authorities throughout England had entirely neglected their duties in that respect. Around Loudon hardly any education authority had an industrial school of its own or an agreement with other industrial schools. Constantly they got before them on a committee on which he sat records of children who wandered in from outside districts and finally after

1275
various convictions in their old districts were convicted of something or other in London. They made inquiry as to what the local authority was doing, and they found that it had never put the Industrial Schools Act in force, that it had no schools and no agreements with schools. If they were going to deal with this matter seriously it was absolutely essential that it should be made obligatory on every local authority either to possess an industrial school of its own or at any rate to enter into an agreement with industrial schools for the reception of its children. After all, these were not very large points. He wished once more to say with what gratitude they who were engaged in industrial school work in London received this Bill and what very great good they believed would result from it.
MR. ATHERLEY - JONESsaid he had a Bill on the Paper dealing with the department that the Bill of the Government covered, especially in relation to the topic to which his hon. friend who had last spoken had drawn, attention. He entirely concurred in the general expression of congratulation which had been extended to the Government in respect of the Bill. During the long time that he had been in the House of Commons he did not think there had been any measure which was calculated to produce more general, though perhaps ultimate, good on the community. It was a subject to which he had long given attention, and although he thought the Bill was open to amendment on matters of detail, generally speaking its principle was perfectly sound, and although in some respects it travelled in novel directions from the point of view of precedent, yet on the whole it was legitimate and reasonable. He could not help referring to what had been said by the late Home Secretary. He agreed that the proposals with respect to the punishment of women guilty of causing the death of children by overlying were far too drastic. He had made some careful inquiries from medical men in the poorer districts of London and some of our large towns—men who had very large experience in respect of attendance on the poor, and considerable
1276
knowledge of these cases of overlying, and they assured him that the proportion of cases due to culpable negligence on the part of the parents was wholly infinitesimal, and that the misfortune was due almost entirely if not exclusively to the lack of proper and adequate domestic arrangement of the poor man's house. It savoured somewhat of cruelty to add to the torture of the loss of her child by bringing the mother before a police court and exposing her to a penalty for negligence. He knew that that portion of the Bill had been conceived with the most humane intentions by his right hon. friend, but he trusted he would give further consideration to that point. Another quession which savoured of the ludicrous was the power given to police officers to confiscate the tobacco of children found-smoking or about to smoke in the streets. That was a novel, and to his mind, an unreasonable proposition. The age up to which this confiscatory process was to be allowed was sixteen years, and to expose high spirited boys, as the majority of English boys happily were, to the ignominy of having themselves waylaid by police and their tobacco confiscated was to his mind most unreasonable. That was a matter which ought to receive further consideration. These were perhaps matters of detail for Committee. There were, however, two points which lay at the root of the Bill. Clause 56, singular to state, was an almost slavish reproduction of Clause 14 of the Consolidating Bill of 1866. Under that clause there were enumerated conditions of childhood which imposed upon those so inclined the duty of rescue work—if the child was a beggar or a wanderer or frequented the company of reputed thieves or was living in a house frequented by prostitutes. At present, there were in this country 30,000 children, according to the best estimates, who fell within the four descriptions which he had just read to the House. In the county of Berkshire alone, there were nearly 3,000 children found in the casual wards in the course of one year. Last year there were nearly 800 children between twelve and fifteen years of age in prison. These were the children who should be saved by being placed in industrial schools or in some other

1277
place where they could be properly brought up. But what was the power under the statute, or under this intended statute? Any person might take one of these children so found and bring it before a magistrate. What had been the result of that? It was a purely voluntary act on the part of any officer of police, who had no greater powers than any private citizen. Further, the local authorities, as had been pointed out, had entirely neglected their duties in this respect. Of eighty-four main centres of population in this country twenty-two had provided no financial assistance whatever for dealing with the case of these destitute, abandoned, and wandering children. The Education Act of 1871, which had been wholly ignored in the present Bill, contained provisions enabling the education authority to provide industrial schools. That duty had been wholly neglected. What he suggested to the right hon. Gentleman, and it was the purpose of the Bill which stood in his name, was that that should be not a merely permissive but an obligatory duty, and that instead of saying "any person may," the words should be "a police or education officer shall," if children were found in that condition bring them before a justice so that he might give directions for them to be sent to industrial schools. The right hon. Gentleman had perhaps shrunk from putting that clause into the Bill, and he sympathised to some extent with him. It was well known that industrial school accommodation in this country was inadequate, though not everywhere. He was perfectly aware that in some places there had been rather a superfluity of industrial school accommodation. But, generally speaking, the supply of industrial schools in this country was inadequate. Over and over again a child had been found in the custody of depraved and drunken parents or of parents living by the most nefarious methods by which human beings could live. The mother or father or both might have been brought before the magistrates, and yet the justices were absolutely powerless to send the children of those parents to an industrial school, because the managers of industrial schools might object and refuse to take them in. Consequently those children were sent to the workhouse whilst the parents were
1278
in prison, and to those wretched and depraved parents when they came out of prison those children were restored. What was contemplated by a great philanthropist and reformer should be enacted in this Bill, and if there was no industrial school accommodation, there should be imposed upon the local authority the duty of providing it. He cared little about the plea that such a proposal would involve much expense, because he believed that the ultimate saving to the State by the rescuing of those children would repay a thousand-fold any temporary expenditure of that kind. He wanted to ask why should an orphan under Section 66, if its guardians were in prison, be deprived of the benefit of an industrial school? The words of the Act were "not being an orphan." He thought that was a reversal of the Act of 1866. The orphan child went to the workhouse and he urged upon the Government the desirability of removing those unhappy children from the taint of pauperism. If the children of criminals were to be sent to industrial schools, why in the name of common sense should the children of criminals who laboured under the disadvantage of being orphans be denied the benefit of industrial schools and be compelled to go to the workhouse? He had put those points before the House in no spirit of hostility to the Bill. If the present Government did nothing more than introduce and carry into law this measure with some eliminations, amendments, and additions, they would earn the gratitude of the country.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid that, after the brilliant speeches which had been delivered on this subject, it was a somewhat thankless task to say one word in criticism of the Bill. The Bill contained some 119 clauses, some of them exceedingly useful, but there were a large number of new clauses which should be discussed and considered, and many opposed. He did not think any legislation of the kind proposed could permanently be of use to the country if it went beyond the range of popular opinion and sentiment. Unless they could carry the people with them upon such a measure, they would probably do more harm than good. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted the

1279
remark of the gillie: "Seize the young ones and the old stock will die out." The gillie spoke of these people as if they were a warren of rabbits. Was that not the mistake the Bill was making? They had not heard a word about the position of the mother of the children in connection with these cases. He asked the House to consider seriously the position of those mothers, who were often hard-working people and had great difficulty in bringing up their family. Many of those clauses had been framed without any sympathy at all for working women of that kind. Clause 13 was extraordinarily drafted and was contrary to most of the ordinary principles of legislation. At the present moment it was not an offence to leave a child in a room with an open fireplace without a fireguard. The Bill did not make that offence a crime, but if the child managed to pull the kettle down and cause itself serious injury it was a criminal offence and the mother could be fined. Were they right in bringing in such a clause as that, which provided that if a child under seven years of age was left in a room containing an open firegrate not sufficiently protected against the child being burnt or scalded and without reasonable precautions against that risk being taken, and the child suffered serious injury or death, that should constitute a criminal offence for which the person in charge could be punished? Was it a fair thing to make such a matter as that a criminal offence? If the unfortunate child were injured the woman was to be fined the sum of £20 or go to jail if she could not pay. The same objection held good in regard to Section 14, which made it an offence where a woman overlay her child un intentionally. At the present if a woman overlay a child intentionally it came under the criminal law. Under this section it was an offence if a woman overlay a child under three years unintentionally, and in that case she was liable to a fine of £10, or, in case of drunkenness, £25. He wished to warn the House against the danger of multiplying these offences where there was no criminal intention. They ought not to make an offence a criminal act unless the person had a criminal intention. Could there be any possible defence for
1280
making a criminal of a woman who unintentionally overlay her child after coming home from work dead tired? What defence was there for fining a woman £10 under those circumstances? Was that showing any sympathy for the class of persons who would be dealt with by the Bill? He also wished to deal with one or two other sections. He had already said that they ought not to go beyond the limits of popular opinion upon questions of this kind. Other clauses of the Bill dealt with juvenile smokers, and that was a matter which ought not to be dealt with lightly. The House had been told of the frightful effects which smoking had upon boys under the age of sixteen. He admitted that, but did the Bill really deal effectively, in a nation which had not lest its sense of humour, with that offence? The Bill was somewhat badly drawn, because not only did it make an offence of smoking in the streets, but in the event of any boy or girl being found in possession of cigarettes or tobacco, whether for their own smoking or not—even if a girl was taking back for her father a packet of cigarettes—it would be the duty of the policeman to search, and it would be an offence under the section. He was aware that the case of a girl bringing home the cigarettes was not intended to be dealt with and might be altered in Committee, but it was to be made an offence for young boys under sixteen to smoke a cigarette in the street. In such cases it would be the duty of the police to bring those boys before the nearest magistrate. What was that tribunal to do? Let them take the case of a boy caught in the act of smoking. He was to be taken, he supposed, before the magistrate, who would be the child-magistrate, to deal with children's cases only. Of course he was aware that no hon. Member of the House of Commons ever smoked a cigarette before he was sixteen, but many of them had friends at school who did. If they were taken before the children's magistrate or the schoolmaster, what would be the right way to deal with an offence of that kind under the Bill? What had the magistrate power to do? Simply to reprimand the boy; that was all he could do. It struck him that some boys would not be terrified at

1281
a reprimand by a police magistrate. The boy, if he smoked another cigarette in the presence of the police, could be arrested, and for the second time brought before a magistrate, and he might be fined as much as 5s. He believed that boys under sixteen very often had not 5d. What were they going to do then? If the boy had a parent they might get it out of him.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: That would be very effective.
MR. RAWLINSONasked what they thought the parent would do with the boy. If they meant the parent to do anything, why had that not been provided for in the Bill? If there was no parent to pay the fine the boy could not be sent to prison. He was to be sent to an industrial school.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Nothing of the kind. He is to be sent to a place of detention.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid the boy was to be sent to a place where he would be kept at the expense of the State for a term to be fixed by the magistrate. Were these clauses likely to be effective in dealing with such a matter? Whether or not they approved of juvenile smoking, were they justified in interfering in that way? He hoped he had not dealt unsympathetically with the points to which he had called attention. Referring to the provisions of the Bill as to the children of vagrants, he asked whether it was absolutely right to take away a child from its mother who was not ill-treating it and in whose society the child was perfectly happy, though probably not properly educated. He thought the House should hesitate before granting such a power to any public authority, except in the case of girls who were living in brothels. He was glad the Bill contained a clause providing that when children were committed to the care of persons or institutions the religion of the parents was to be ascertained, so that the children should have the religious teaching of the denomination to which the parents belonged. Did it not occur to the Government that a similar clause might be applied in regard to the
1282
religious education of children who wer not separated from their parents and who were not sent to institutions in respect of misdemeanours? He had not criticised the clauses of which he approved, his only desire at present being to bring to light the clauses with which he disagreed.
*MR. ELLISsaid the Home Secretary and his very efficient Under-Secretary might on the whole be congratulated on the manner in which the Bill had been received. It was a large measure and it raised a good many questions, some of which needed careful examination. He did not understand the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University to indicate disapproval of the principle of the Bill, though he disapproved of particular clauses. He had always understood that detailed criticism of the clauses of a Bill was reserved for the Committee Stage, and, therefore, he would not at present follow the line taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He accepted the statement that no Bill of this character should go far in advance of public opinion. They would make the law ridiculous if they attempted in such matters as this Bill dealt with to carry out something which the people at large would not unite in supporting. He rose to answer the question asked earlier in the evening by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Augustine's division of Kent. On the First Reading of the Bill the Under-Secretary for the Home Department in his very luminous speech pointed out that there was one aspect of the matter on which there were two currents of philanthropic opinion running very strongly, namely, whether the Act of 1897 should or should not be extended to what were known as one-child homes. That matter was referred by the Government to a Select Committee, which was appointed on 11th February, and its Report had been laid on the Table of the House that day. It would be printed in a day or two and in the hands of Members of the House before the Bill was discussed in Committee. He hoped they would think that the Committee of which he was Chairman had performed their duties in

1283
a businesslike way. They heard a great deal of evidence from people who spoke, more or less, in a representative capacity. It was not much use getting mere individual opinions on a matter of that kind. They heard a great volume of unimpeachable evidence as to the gross carelessness, neglect, bad treatment, and even cruelty, in some cases very great cruelty, to children in one-child homes. In two or three cases the severest penalty of the law had been inflicted for murder of children in these homes. The witnesses, who included members of philanthropic societies and officials, gave evidence which had not been displaced in any way, and they all strongly recommended the inclusion of the one-child homes in the operation of the Bill. Then there followed a stream of evidence from witnesses, representing other philanthropic agencies, who thought that the inclusion of the one-child home would arouse great repugnance on the part of those who kept such homes, and that it would create difficulties in regard to the finding of such homes. The Committee listened with great attention to these witnesses, having regard to their services; but they did not feel that their evidence had displaced that of those who desired the inclusion of one-child homes. Therefore, the Committee came unanimously to the conclusion that the one-child home should be included in the Bill. He himself had entered into the investigations of the Committee with a perfectly open mind, and he had unhesitatingly arrived at the conclusion to which the Committee had unanimously come. But it was felt that some of the objections raised by some of the witnesses against this inclusion deserved serious consideration. The Committee also unanimously, therefore, came to the conclusion that it would be better under the Bill to give local authorities the power of exemption of inspection of homes, as to the bona fides and character of which they were absolutely satisfied. The home should be inspected in the first place, and if the local authority was satisfied it might be placed under a philanthropic body, and the power of exemption be exercised. He was very strongly of opinion—and he would be confirmed in that by his hon. colleague
1284
the Member for Christchurch (who had, after two years silence, made such an excellent contribution to their discussion that evening)—that inspection entirely depended upon the character of the person who made it. The Committee, therefore, inserted the suggestion in their Report that the inspector should be a woman whose heart was in the matter. They had more than one lady as a witness who had filled that office and they were very much impressed with the spirit in which they evidently conducted their work. The Committee further deprecated any sort of officialism which would interfere with any woman who entered upon the work of taking children into a home, not from motives of gain, but inspired by a feeling of affection for children at large, or some particular child. The Committee deprecated any officialism which would chill or in any way impair that sentiment. They also unanimously came to the agreement that the age-limit should be raised to seven years. The Lord-Advocate at the outset of his remarks indicated very clearly the underlying sentiment on which the Bill rested. It came from that rising spirit of humanitarianism which they saw and were thankful for in the present day and generation. They had discarded the old idea that the State should not do this, that, or the other thing. He had been very much touched by some of the Lord-Advocate's remarks in regard to the horrors of woman and child labour in the old days; and he was thankful to have lived to see the day when a Bill like this had been brought forward—a Bill saturated with the rising spirit of humanitarianism. He knew among those whom he represented and he thought in the country a large there was a great volume of current opinion in favour of it, and he hoped that it would become an Act of Parliament without delay, and with the consent of all parties in the House.
*MR. HUGH LAWsaid that the Bill on its first reading met with warm approval from all quarters, not least from the Irish Members; and so far as its general scope was concerned those warm feelings had not changed since in any way. There were, however, a few matters on which the Bill proposed

1285
changes in the existing law that were not altogether consistent with the experience of Irish Members. He referred specially to Part IV. which dealt with industrial and reformatory schools. Under the existing law destitute orphan children had been committed to industrial schools, hut under Clause 56 that would in future be impossible He had no knowledge of how far that might or might not be desirable in England, but it was quite certain that such a change would be bitterly resented in Ireland where there was a great deal of feeling in regard to industrial schools. They did not in Ireland regard industrial schools as of the nature of penal settlement, and in this respect there should be no change made in the existing law. Much as they desired to see the Bill go through, he hoped that the Government would be able to meet the wishes of the Irish Members in this respect or their attitude to the measure would become more hostile than at present. In Clause 118, which applied the Bill to Ireland, there were certain exclusions which did not seem to him justified. He could see no reason for making a difference between England and Ireland in the matter of the power of sending a child to an industrial school on the ground that it was uncontrollable. That power was dealt with in Sub-sections 3, 4 and 5 of Clause 56. He also seriously objected to the exclusion of Ireland from the provisions of Sections 73 to 79 which dealt with the establishment of day industrial schools. They had more than once impressed on the present and other Governments the desirability of establishing day industrial schools in Ireland, and there was no reason that he could see for excluding Ireland from the benefit of such institutions. If they were needed in England they were no less needed in Ireland—especially in the case of children of the very poor. He was sorry to say that there were a very large number of poor people in Dublin. One-third of the population lived in tenements and a larger proportion in one-roomed dwellings than in any city in the United Kingdom, except Glasgow. That being so, it would be evident that if day industrial schools were necessary in other parts of the United
1286
Kingdom they were not less likely to be necessary in Ireland. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would be able to give the Irish Members a favourable reply on that matter. Other points in connection with the application of the Bill to Ireland would be dealt with in Committee, but he might say that he was not altogether happy as to Clause 13, which seemed to throw upon poor parents a very serious obligation. These things apart he welcomed the Bill very cordially; he was particularly glad to observe the clause which dealt with the detention of juvenile offenders, and he would like to see the Bill go further in that respect. He wished it was possible to provide not only for a separate room but for a separate building for the trial of juvenile offenders, but he knew that was a very difficult matter in many places. For the rest he thought they must all welcome the provisions of the Bill, and he thought there would be hardly any dissent to its proposals to bring the imprisonment of child offenders to an end. When the Under-Secretary introduced the Bill an hon. friend of his told him a very significant story. He said that during one of those periods of detention in one of His Majesty's gaols, which fell to the lot of Irish Members now and again, when this country had one of its recurring fits of repression, he heard a child crying continually in the prison. He made inquiries as to the cause, and he learned that it was a little lad, twelve years of age, who had been sent by the magistrates all the way from Galway to Mountjoy prison in Dublin for the heinous and horrible offence of stealing apples. He ventured to hope that by the action of the Government it would be made for ever impossible that anything so stupid and so cruel and utterly unjustifiable should henceforth take place.
*MR. H. J. TENNANTsaid he would like to associate himself at the outset with a very eloquent passage in the speech of the Lord-Advocate, in which he alluded to the genesis of this Bill being the livening and quickening sense of responsibility which had been gradually growing towards the potential citizens of

1287
this country. He would also like to congratulate his hon. friend the Under-Secretary on the reception of this most excellent Bill—the best Bill of the session. He hoped, therefore, his hon. friend would not think that if he criticised the Bill he would do anything to endanger its passage, as he would be the last person to do that. He was delighted with the fact that under Section 96 there would be no further imprisonment of children under fourteen, and he would ask his hon. friend to go a little further and extend that provision to those under sixteen. He also wished to ask his hon. friend to consider whether it was right that the managers of industrial schools should have the power of refusing children. That, to his mind, was a question of principle, and he was bound to say that, in his opinion, that was one of the few blots on the Bill. No such power ought to be given to the managers of industrial schools, which after all were paid for out of the rates and taxes. The managers had, therefore, no right to refuse children so long as their schools were not full, and if they were full some other provision should be made. He was glad that the responsibility was to be fixed upon the parent for begging children, but he would remind his hon. friend that vagrants were not particularly touched by the Bill, because they could get out of its provisions by saying that the managers of the industrial school refused to take the child. The Bill as it applied to vagrants was, he thought, particularly unfortunate. One of the most important, and to his mind almost the most important point, was that the local authority should be made to do its duty under compulsion to provide industrial schools. He would give the House one extract from the Report of the Prison Commissioners on that point. They said that of the total number of cases of juveniles in the country during the past year 61 per cent. were sentenced to seven days imprisonment or less. In the Report for 1907, the opinion was expressed that, in the case of the impressionable and imaginative young, a sentence—
"Which only familiarises them with what ought to be a great mystery and dread of the interior of a prison, and which does not admit of sufficient time for the application of any
1288
useful reformatory influence must do more harm than good."
But magistrates had no choice but to send these juvenile offenders to prison, and it was most unfortunate that there should be no industrial schools to receive them. He was sorry that the age of supervision was not to be raised in the case of industrial schools from eighteen to twenty-one, and in the case of reformatories from ninteen to twenty-one. He hoped his hon. friend would listen to him in regard to that point in Committee. As to juvenile courts, he would like to know whether there would be a separate magistrate for London. The hon. Gentleman had said that there would be, but he could see no provision in the Bill to that effect. He thought that children should not be dealt with at different times on the same day, but on different days when there were no criminals about. He was delighted to think that these new detention homes were to be modelled on the plan which had already worked well in America, and he would like to know whether the provision with regard to them applied to London. A further question he would ask was why the duty of sending children to detention homes should be given to an officer of the police instead of to the education authority, and why the clause should not come into operation before 1910. He was bound to say that he considered that these detention homes ought not to be subject to the conditions that they were in the Bill, and that it should not be impracticable to take a child in if it was unruly. He did not think that that should be a ground for preventing a child going into a detention home. He hoped that, if not this year, some time they would abolish those forcing grounds of delinquency, the half-time system and street trading. There was no provision as to street trading, which did a great deal of harm. The Chief Constable of Manchester said—
"Street trading, of all juvenile wage-earning occupations, is productive of a greater amount of evil morally and physically than any other occupation followed by children. Their earnings are spent very largely in dissipation by their dissolute parents, the boys developed into lazy, shiftless and worthless men, whilst the girls went down to the lowest depths of

1289
shame. The downward path of these boys is quickly trodden. As soon as their business success wanes, they sink lower in the social scale, and adopt less honest means of livelihood, becoming for the most part racecourse touts, often travelling thieves and loafers, and as such spend their lives in common lodging-houses, and their money, when they get any, in drinking and gambling. They dislike more and more honest work; they become mere creatures of chance, and without ambition or care sink down until they end their days either in the gaol or the workhouse."
He would welcome a Bill which dealt with street trading. He trusted he had not laid himself open to misconstruction by these criticisms. The late Home Secretary had rather pooh-poohed portions of the Bill as being grandmotherly legislation, and perhaps he was tainted with a desire for that kind of law, but it was preferable to that obtained by talking of the lone lorn widow who was to be prevented from earning her livelihood if the State stepped in. He welcomed the Bill because it translated into legislative action the hopes and ideals which ardent social reformers had held any time during the last ten or twelve years more than any other Bill which they had had before the House. As such he welcomed it with satisfaction, and wished it Godspeed.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I must thank hon. Members who have spoken for the generally favourable reception which they have accorded to this Bill. I think the House as a whole welcomes the opportunity of giving better protection and guidance to those large sections of the child population of the country who stand so much in need of it. I must specially express my gratitude to the late Home Secretary, speaking for the Opposition, for the general approval he gave to this measure. As I said on the First Reading of the Bill, the Government in introducing a long and complicated measure of this kind in a session crowded with controversial measures are largely dependent upon the goodwill of hon. Members opposite to pass it into law, and that goodwill I am happy to think the Opposition are giving in full measure. That general measure of agreement between the two sides of the House has only been arrived at by our rigid exclusion of any subject, no matter how
1290
much we may have been tempted to include it, on which there is any considerable division of opinion in this House. Some Members would have greatly desired to have dealt with the question of children in public-houses, certainly it might have been desirable in this Bill to deal with the question of street trading to which the hon. Member who has just spoken has referred, but the late Home Secretary very distinctly said in his speech this I afternoon that either of those subjects would have introduced a controversial element. And with regard to street trading I would point out that after all there are powers under the existing law to deal with the evils which arise, the Employment of Children Act having been placed upon the Statute-book only five years ago. The great majority of the large towns have made bye-laws to suppress the worst evils of street trading, and it is rather early to say that it is urgently necessary to amend the law in that particular. Although the Bill is a large one, and although we have necessarily excluded many matters which some hon. Members desire to see dealt with, there is one that has not been referred to this afternoon, and which does not find a place in the Bill, which we desire to add in the Committee stage. My right hon. friend the Home Secretary has been greatly impressed by the terrible catastrophes that occur from time to time through fires in theatres and elsewhere where entertainments are given for the benefit of children. The recent catastrophe at Barnsley, where a large number of little ones met their death, and others both in this country and abroad, have brought home to his mind the necessity for the provision of some greater security for the safety of children attending in large numbers entertainments of this character. In the Committee I shall therefore move the following clause:
"Where an entertainment for children, or any entertainment at which the majority of the persons attending are children, is provided, and the number of children who attend the entertainment exceeds 100, and access to any part of the building in which children are accommodated is by stairs, it shall be the duty of the person who provides the entertainment to station and keep stationed on the stairs a sufficient number of adult attendants, properly instructed as to their duties, to prevent more

1291
children or other persons being admitted to any such part of the building than that part can properly accommodate and to control the movement of the children and other persons admitted to any such part whilst entering and leaving, and to take all other reasonable precautions for the safety of the children."
Then there follow certain machinery provisions for securing the enforcement of that clause and making it clear as to what kind of entertainment it applies to. I would add that this clause does not apply to any entertainments given in any private dwelling house. The enactment of this clause will, we hope, go very far to prevent the possibility of the recurrence of those terrible catastrophes which have more than once shocked the feelings of the whole nation. To-day a very large variety of suggestions have been made for the amendment of this Bill, but most of them have regard to points of detail and can be dealt with in Committee. I can assure the House that in Committee the Government will most cordially welcome any suggestions made for the improvement of the Bill. I will only deal to-day with a few of the more important suggestions touching the larger questions of principle. With regard to the first portion of the Bill dealing with infant life protection, I think the House owes a debt of gratitude to my right hon. friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Notts and his colleagues on the Select Committee, for the expedition and the care with which they have considered the question submitted to them by the House. That Committee was thoroughly impartial. I took particular care before they were appointed to see that no member nominated had pre-conceived opinions upon the question, and they have come to the unanimous conclusion that those persons who undertake the care of one child, whether for a lump sum or a recurring payment shall be brought under the Act. That is the conclusion which my own investigations lead me heartily to endorse, and it will be a matter of great satisfaction to me to propose in Committee machinery for carrying into effect the recommendation of the Select Committee. Certain of the clauses of the second part of the Bill have been somewhat severely criticised by one or two hon. Members, but I should be sorry indeed to give up any of those clauses which
1292
relate to the provision of fire-guards and the death of children through overlying. I would point out that during last year a private Member's Bill was introduced into this House, and although it did not receive a Second Reading it obtained a large measure of support from both sides of the House. That Bill dealt with the deaths of children from fire and overlying. It vas the result of deliberations conducted not by fanatical enthusiasts, but by responsible authorities who had a first claim to speak on the subject—the Coroners' Society, the British Medical Society, and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, all collaborated to secure the drafting and the introduction of that Bill, and the opinion of those societies is, I submit, entitled to great weight in this House. The hon. Member for the Cambridge University said it was a wrong thing to do to make it an offence if a child was burned to death, if that child was left alone in a room with an unprotected fire, while we did not make it an offence to leave the fire unprotected. I think in our law there are many cases where a disaster occurring makes that an offence which is not an offence in itself if no disaster occurs. And the late Secretary of State has pointed out that it is impracticable to make a law that parents shall guard their fires when their children are left alone in a room, because you cannot enforce such legislation. You can only enforce this law when the injury discloses the circumstance. You cannot establish an inspectorate to go into private houses and see that the fires are guarded, but at the same time I think the facts that there are 1,600 deaths every year, and serious injuries to many more children from this cause, compel this House to take action, and the only possible form of action is that proposed by this Bill. With regard to overlying, the right hon. Gentleman opposite said the real cause of death of infants under these circumstances is to be found in the overcrowding of the poorer districts. That is undoubtedly true. Where people are not overcrowded, children are not overlaid, but is it to be contended for a moment that this holocaust of infant life is to go on till we solve the housing problem? Although we take action year by year to remedy

1293
the evil of overcrowding, and although the Government propose before long to introduce further legislation to advance that object, I think the House would be building on a slender foundation indeed if they said the housing problem would be solved at so early a date that it was not necessary to take direct action to prevent overlying. I think public opinion welcomes these clauses which deal with the death of children from fire and from overlying. Some Members have suggestions to make with regard to the penalties imposed in these cases. That is a matter for the Committee, but the purpose of the clauses I trust will commend itself to the House. I now turn to the third part of the Bill which deals with the question of juvenile smoking. Some hon. Members have commented upon what they consider the impracticable nature of some of the provisions proposed, but I would point out that this question has been examined by three separate Committees or Commissions—the Committee on Physical Deterioration, the Royal Commission on Physical Training, and a Committee of the House of Lords specially appointed to consider this particular subject—and all three came to the unanimous conclusion that this evil of juvenile smoking was not to be put aside as something unimportant, but that it was a real cause of physical deterioration in the child life of the country. I would ask the House to read the Report of the Committee of the House of Lords and the evidence before it, and if they do, I think they will find abundant proof in the evidence of medical authorities, and of social workers among the poorer classes, that this is a rapidly growing evil for which a remedy should be found. This House ought not to put aside as of no account the deliberate and unanimous verdict of three separate inquiries. With regard to the powers of the police to confiscate tobacco in the hands of children found smoking, I would like to point out that if that power was not given to them there is no power to prevent the smoking in the streets which is so rife among the little boys of the country, other than charging them before the Courts. What is the alternative: are all these children to be brought before the
1294
Police Courts? Reformed as those Courts will be by this Bill, it is most desirable to prevent these children being brought into them and charged with this trivial offence. It is considered more desirable that the little boy's tobacco should be confiscated rather than he should be made a defendant in a legal process, and this is the action recommended by the Committee of the House of Lords. I agree that no methods of legal repression in matters of this kind can be completely effective. I agree that if this Bill is placed on the Statute Book in the form in which it now is, we should find that juvenile smoking would not be completely and finally suppressed. But although the discipline of the State can never be so effective as that of the home, the State must step in where the discipline of the home is absent, and I believe that these clauses will go far to suppress juvenile smoking directly. Indirectly, it will go still further, because once the law becomes known throughout the nation; once it becomes known that after considering this matter Parliament has enacted this law, public opinion will become increasingly active and eager to suppress the practice which has been condemned. In regard to the part of the Bill relating to reformatory and industrial schools, I will deal first with what has been said by the hon. Member opposite speaking for the Irish Members. On the two chief questions to which he has referred, I think I shall be able fully to meet his wishes. In Ireland there are orphans who come under the provisions relating to industrial schools merely because they are orphans and destitute; and I cannot refrain from expressing the opinion that, as a matter of principle, they are far better dealt with by the Poor Law than by the industrial school system. Although a similar provision exists in the English law which enables orphans to be sent to the industrial schools, yet, last year, throughout the whole of the country, only six children were sent, and the year before only three children were sent. I think that it would be undesirable to use the industrial school system for Poor Law cases. But in Ireland the public hold the opposite view. The circumstances there are very different, and a very much larger number

1295
of children are sent to the Irish schools as being orphans and destitute, than are sent in this country. Over 200 were sent in Ireland as compared with a mere handful in England. That being the case, and as it is understood that no change in the law should be made by this Bill which is strongly objected to by any large body of the community, the Government will be willing to propose in Committee an Amendment to the Irish Clause, making it clear that the law in that particular shall be left in the state in which it now is. With regard to the second proposal of the hon. Member that the existing law should be extended by applying to Ireland the provisions of the law of England in regard to day industrial schools, that, I think, is a very reasonable demand. The day industrial schools in England perform a most necessary function. They do not exist at all in Ireland. There is no provision on the Statute Book enabling them to be established, and the Government will gladly seize the opportunity afforded by the introduction of this Bill to extend the English day industrial school clauses, perhaps with some modifications which may be necessitated by the different conditions of Ireland, to that country. As to the smaller points of detail to which my hon. friend referred, I will ask him to allow me to reserve them for further consideration. The hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham urged that Clause 56 of the Bill needs strengthening and extension in certain directions. He made the statement that there are 30,000 children who ought now to be committed to the industrial schools who are left neglected and unhelped. That is an estimate I cannot accept; I think that the number is by no means so large as that, and that the estimate rests on a very unsatisfactory basis. I gather it has been arrived at by generalising from the circumstances at Liverpool. They have estimated that the proportion of children committed in Liverpool ought to be committed in every little town and every village over the whole of Great Britain. That is obviously a fallacious deduction. Although it is no doubt the case that there are
1296
children who ought to be committed who have not been committed, yet the number is very greatly short of that suggested by the hon. and learned Member. The hon. and learned Member has proposed that the present Act, which is now in large degree permissive, should be made mandatory in certain respects. Under the existing law any person may bring before a Court of summary jurisdiction a child who falls within the categories which would enable it to be sent to an industrial school. But it is said that what is everybody's business is nobody's business, and, while every person might act, as a matter of fact no person does act, and children are left in their evil surroundings to grow up neglected, serving an apprenticeship, perhaps, to crime, and forming a class of child population which urgently needs the care of the State. I think that there is much to be said for strengthening the law in that particular, and I might go so far as to say that in my opinion it is desirable that it should be clearly stated in the Bill that where the education authority does not take action under its powers then it shall be the duty of the police to see that these children are not left in a state of neglect, but that they should be brought before the magistrates with a view to their committal, in proper cases, to industrial schools. I shall propose an Amendment in Committee to effect that purpose. Then, secondly it is suggested that it should be made compulsory on local authorities to provide the necessary industrial school accommodation for children who are committed. At the present time, so far from the schools being over full, there is a very large number of vacancies; they have difficulty in filling their beds; within the last two or three years several schools have been closed because they have not been able to obtain enough children. It may be the case that some local authorities are unwilling to make the necessary payments to secure that the children sent from their districts shall be sent to the industrial schools. I think in England there are cases, though very few, I am informed, where there is difficulty in inducing the local authorities to contribute to the maintenance of the

1297
children sent from their districts to the industrial schools. But I am afraid that in Scotland, in some localities, the situation is not quite so satisfactory. If there is general agreement on both sides of the House that it should be mandatory on the local authorities to provide industrial school accommodation for children just as it is mandatory on them to provide elementary school accommodation for the children of their districts, I for one should welcome such an Amendment to the Bill; but if it is found that such a proposal would arouse so much opposition from the local authorities concerned as to imperil the passage of the Bill, then the matter would wear another aspect. Perhaps before the House goes into Committee we may have a further expression of opinion on the subject, but so far as I am concerned I should be glad indeed if it were found possible to make it compulsory on the local authorities to contribute to the maintenance of the children sent from their districts to the industrial schools. It is important that these children should be sent to these industrial schools, which are institutions of the greatest possible value to the community. They stop at their source the streams which feed the reservoirs of crime, and the nation ought to be exceedingly grateful to those local authorities and to those private individuals who with great self-sacrifice and great labour have maintained the industrial schools of the Kingdom. I turn now to the fifth part of the Bill, which deals with the treatment of juvenile offenders. We have been asked by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and also by my hon. friend the Member for Berwick, what will be the provision made by the Home Office for establishing the system of juvenile Courts in London. My hon. friend the Member for Berwick says there is no provision in the Bill for the appointment of a special magistrate for the purpose. There is no provision in the Bill, because such provision is unnecessary. Under the existing law a certain number of magistrates may be appointed by the Home Secretary for London, and that number is not at present complete, and we can add a special children's magistrate without any further statutory authority. I will explain very briefly what will probably
1298
be the method of administering the juvenile Courts in London. It is impossible to bring all the children, witnesses, parents, probation officers and other persons concerned into one central Court; and, on the other hand, it is impossible to have a number of different Courts in various parts of London, each of them sitting every day. I find that on the average there are ten fresh cafes of juvenile offenders tried in the Police Courts of London every day, excluding Greenwich and Woolwich. If you include hearings on remand, there are only sixteen hearings per day of children's cases in all the Police Courts of London, excluding Greenwich and Woolwich. It is obvious you cannot split up sixteen cases over a number of Courts, and therefore it will probably be found—I do not pledge myself to the details of the scheme—that the best course will be to establish four places of detention in different parts of London, each of which will be used for children on arrest and remand, for children committed for trial, and under a proper system of classification, for children committed to places of detention instead of to prison. There are now three Remand Homes. I hope it will be practicable in these places to provide rooms, without any additional cost or very small additional cost, which can be used as Court-houses. The children's magistrate could visit in turn these four places of detention and could make the circuit in two days, visiting the first in the morning and the second in the afternoon of the first day, and the third in the morning and the fourth in the afternoon of the second day. The result would be that a certain number of children would be kept overnight sometimes, when they could not be released on bail; but all those that I have consulted—and I have consulted several persons keenly interested in this matter who are fully entitled to speak with authority—are agreed it is better to keep, if necessary, a small number of children in detention for one night than to forego the great benefit of having a special magistrate to deal with these cases. If the House approves, that probably will be the plan which my right hon. friend will adopt. The late Home Secretary said he was somewhat doubtful whether it was practicable to abolish the imprisonment of children

1299
altogether, and that there might be some cases in which it would be essential to retain that power. We have tried to think of such cases but cannot think of any which could not be dealt with by sending the children to a reformatory, or in the course of very young children, to an industrial school, and since we retain the power to commit the children to these reformatory and industrial schools I am inclined to adhere to the view that it is unnecessary in any case to subject the children to the rigours of imprisonment, and to familiarise them with the penalties, in the ordinary gaols. I come lastly to the sixth part of the Bill. The only clause in that which has been criticised is the clause dealing with vagrant children. I can assure the hon. Member for Christchurch, whose maiden speech we all listened to with pleasure and interest, that this clause includes the caravan children, whom he has in mind. But I would point out further that the object of that clause is not to sweep the whole body of children, who are now wandering the roads of the country with showmen, or tinkers, or vagrants, into industrial schools. As the Lord Advocate said, in some cases it may be necessary that they should be sent to these institutions, but I agree with the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge that we should not lightly contemplate the necessity of separating the parent from the child. It should only be in the last resort that they should be separated and the child taken to one of these institutions. The purpose of this clause is to penalise the parent who takes a child about the roads of the country and thereby deprives it of efficient elementary education, and the effect of that clause will be not so much to send all these children to industrial schools as to keep them off the roads altogether. A large proportion of these people have permanent homes to which they go in the winter-months, and once they know that they will be harassed by the law if they take their children with them and deprive them of education, I think in almost all cases they will do what very large numbers of them do already, that is, arrange for the children to be kept in some specified place. I must once more thank the House for the
1300
generally favourable reception which it has given to this Bill. This Parliament already has achieved much useful social legislation of a non-controversial kind and I hope it will achieve much more. Perhaps we may venture to think that when this Parliament comes to an end and a successor comes to sit in these seats we may be able to feel that not the least satisfactory among its achievements has been the enactment of the measure which we now ask the House to read a second time.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Guinness,)—put, and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (FOREIGN PRESS).
*MR. SMEATONin moving—"That this House is of opinion that accommodation should be provided in the House of Commons for representatives of the foreign and colonial Press, and that such extension of the Reporters' Gallery or such increase of room elsewhere should be made as will suffice for this purpose," said that his Motion was a novel one, and he understood that the question of the admission of the foreign and colonial Press to the House of Commons had never been made the subject of a formal Motion before. He had been informed that there were some difficulties in the way because the authority of Mr. Speaker was limited and so was the authority of the First Commissioner of Works, and the Government had never vested in any Committee the plenary powers contemplated in this Motion. Therefore, he was compelled to appeal to the only remaining authority, and that was the House of Commons itself. Some of his hon. friends had twitted him with having wasted the opportunity afforded him in the ballot by submitting a Motion upon a subject which they considered was of

1301
comparatively trivial importance, and they had advised him to withdraw the Motion and submit another dealing with a more pressing matter. From that view he entirely dissented, because he thought the question he was raising was one of very great importance indeed. If his Motion were carried it would be at least a step towards the great goal at which they were all aiming, namely, international peace and amity. The representatives of the Foreign Press Association in London—an influential body of gentlemen presided over by the veteran correspondent of the Novoe Vremya, and a loyal well-wisher of this country—had pressed upon him this consideration that undoubtedly the free entry of the representatives of the foreign Press into the House of Commons would tend to allay international friction and misunderstanding and secure international goodwill. They had all anxiously watched the deliberations of the Hague Conference in the hope that they would result in a substantial advance towards that end, but the results were not such as to satisfy the earnest advocates of peace, and it struck him that a concession of the kind contemplated in this Motion would, at least in a quiet way, supplement the efforts of our representative at the Conference by winning the foreign Press to a fair and kindly attitude towards us in regard to our foreign relations. It was surely a truism that the foreign and our own Press were very potent instruments for good or for ill, for peace or for war, and there were on record many notable instances of the influence of both the British and foreign Press in inflaming national jealousies where none need have existed, and which were only the outcome of misunderstandings. Surely it went without saying that, isolated as we were in many ways, with vital interests in every quarter of the globe—interests which might—indeed, sometimes must—be in conflict with those of other countries—surely it was to-day the least good policy—to put it on no higher ground—to win the Foreign Press to a fair-minded, just attitude towards our country. He wished to point out to those hon. Members who thought this subject was not of great importance, that it might have a direct result in the direction of a
1302
limitation of armaments, and surely that was an ideal which they all were desirous of attaining. He would quote to the House a resolution passed by the great International Congress of the Press upon this subject—
"(1) The Congress considers that the representatives of foreign newspapers in any country should, in order to effectually carry out their professional duties, enjoy the same privileges and facilities as are accorded to the Press representatives of that particular country abroad."
In the published report of the Congress proceedings, the following passage occurred—
"In the debate on these resolutions it was stated that while in almost every Parliamentary country the foreign correspondents have free access to the reporters' gallery in the Chamber as well as in the Senate, such facilities are denied to foreign correspondents in London, who are not admitted to the reporters' gallery of either House. The resolutions were warmly supported by the English and American delegates and carried unanimously."
What were the facts? In every Parliament in Europe British representatives had not only free access to the lobby and gallery, but had, as a rule, the best seats. Surely we should reciprocate this kindly consideration as a simple act of international courtesy. In the Russian Duma—the youngest Parliament in the world and for whose vigorous growth they all fervently hoped—at the instigation of the British Press representatives, a large proportion of seats were granted to them, as well as other facilities of a very liberal kind. He need hardly say how both in domestic and foreign affairs courtesy was a great instrument for peace. They knew this from experience in their own country in the House of Commons and in their domestic affairs, and when there was a conflict of interests and disagreeable things had to be said and done, courtesy often smoothed the way and somehow got over the difficulty. Consideration given to the Press was regarded as given to the people. Why should this country refuse to reciprocate the kindly consideration so freely bestowed upon them by their foreign neighbours? Why should this country act the dog-in-the-manger, and, because our I Parliament existed before there was any Press, why should they not in this matter adapt themselves to the times? Other Parliaments had made

1303
structural alterations to meet the needs of Press representatives, and he did not see why some accommodation should not be provided for those who had treated British representatives so kindly abroad. Moreover, it was most important for the peace of the world and our relations with foreign countries that the representatives of the foreign Press should have direct, first hand knowledge of the expression of the opinions of the British people as voiced in Parliament. The representatives of the foreign Press at present were obliged to depend upon the statements and reports in the British Press, which were not infrequently of an exceedingly partisan colour and conveyed to foreign countries misleading opinions as to what Was actually the real voice of Parliament. This was a danger which in the past had brought about some unfortunate results. He would give two recent instances. The House would remember that a leading journal recently made some extraordinary and unguarded statements with regard to our relations with a certain great Power—statements which, after a short day of reflection, the country universally repudiated. He had no doubt that the authors of those statements were actuated by the highest patriotic motives, but the statements turned out to be utterly and entirely false. They were for a short time believed, however, and the state of tension created was during that time exceedingly grave and might have become positively dangerous. In another case a review for which he had the highest respect had for months past—he was not sure that it had not been for years past—been belabouring a friendly Power, insinuating that it had the most sinister designs against us and stirring up strife and bad blood. That review was apt to be taken as embodying the opinion of a large section of people in this country. Hon. Members knew that that was not so, but that opinion had permeated the body politic in the country to which he referred. The corrective of that state of things was to permit the representatives of the foreign Press to hear the debates, the Questions and Answers, and to see the people who voiced the views of the people of this country. He would read an extract from a letter
1304
written by the President of the Foreign Press Association in London, which would show the House what was the feeling among the representatives of the foreign Press. He said—
"No country has now a greater interest to have the debates of her Parliament truly reported in foreign papers than Great Britain. Nowhere is the political life of the country so well mirrored in her Parliament as here, and nowhere are its debates so thorough, earnest, and dignified. Their truthful and adequate reports in foreign journals would be at once the best propaganda in favour of this country, and would have an educational influence greatly profitable to civilisation and international harmony. Some special reasons are furnished by the international situation of to-day. Great Britain has definitively left her former 'splendid isolation' and concluded with several other nations treaties and conventions for the maintenance of peace. Both those who are already thus linked to her, as well as those who are not, certainly look for the explanation of her policy to the British Parliament, and seek their cue in its debates. A wrong or inaccurate report of them tells at once on public opinion of the country concerned, and on its attitude towards Great Britain. There could be quoted many instances of late international misunderstandings chiefly, if not exclusively, arising from the way in which Parliamentary debates had been reported. But the excuse of these papers which sinned most has always been that they had reports only of second hand, their own representatives not being admitted."
The Foreign Press Association in London on one occasion did great service to this country, and he would quote some words which were worthy of the consideration of the House. In the winter of 1899 at the outset of the South African War, the polemics between the English and the Continental Press had assumed an acuteness considered at that time most dangerous to the peace of Europe. Violent and indiscriminate accusations were levelled at one another from both sides, and in this conflict nobody, not even the most illustrious and august personages, were spared. A conference of British and foreign journalists was held in December, 1899, and a resolution was carried unanimously, declaring as offences against the honour and dignity of the Press—
"(1) All libellous attacks against persons who are outside politics, and who, from their position, are precluded from replying. (2) All libellous attacks against nations and against the Press of different countries."
The action of the conference proved of incalculable value in restraining the violent spirit of the Press which desired

1305
to show hostility to this country, and helped to relieve a tension which was becoming intolerable. What was wanted was recognition in that House of the fair claim of the foreign and Colonial Press to admission. He and his friends had no desire to force the hand of the responsible Minister, but he suggested that steps should be taken to give effect to this Resolution when time and opportunity offered. He begged to move.
MR. MADDISON, in seconding the Motion, said the mover had given good reasons why it should be accepted. He was quite sure that the fact that the foreign and Colonial Press were not admitted was not due to any antipathy towards them. He thought that should be made plain at once. They were not trying to convert the House to a more friendly feeling to the Press of foreign nations. As the mover of the Resolution had said, there were solid historical reasons why they had been slow to move in the desired direction. The British Parliament existed before there was any Press at all, and they knew well that the reporting of speeches was looked upon with a jealous eye, and for a long time was prohibited altogether. Their treatment of the foreign Press might be taken as evidence of the great antiquity of the House. Had not the time now come when they should discontinue that policy? This was the day of internationalism in art and science, in labour and capital, and in almost every form of human activity. There was a tendency nowadays to get the opinion of others as well as our own, and he thought that was a very healthy movement. The time had gone by when the average man entertained the savage opinion that in order to love his own country he must hit all other countries. He and his friends claimed that the admission of the representatives of the foreign Press would be a modest contribution to international fraternity. It might be said that the reports which appeared could be copied or translated. He thought hon. Members would agree with him when he said that no man could really understand the composition and methods of that House unless he was present to hear the speeches and witness how
1306
the speeches were received. The skilled journalist—and it would be only the skilled journalist who would come—could interpret the feeling of the House in a way that no mere report of a speech could convey. He hoped hon. Members would not belittle this contribution to international fraternity. We had need in these days of every factor which made for good will, and we could not afford to be isolated from the great currents of humanity along which progress ultimately was to be found. He could conceive of no objection, except on the ground of lack of space, to providing accommodation for the foreign and Colonial Press. It might be said that if they could not find room for all the representatives of the provincial Press, why should they try to make room for the foreign and Colonial Press? He thought that that was a very insular idea. As had been said by the mover of the Resolution, British journalists obtained not only ample but some of the best accommodation in all the great Parliaments of Europe. The representatives of the British Press had the run of the lobbies, and were able to speak to Ministers and Members, and by so doing they received explanations which they would not otherwise obtain to save this country and others from disaster. Therefore, he maintained that it was not valid to argue that because they could not accommodate all our own Press they should not find room for the foreign and Colonial Press. Fortunately, the Minister on the front bench who was charged with the duty of supervising the arrangements of the House was one who had got nearest to the performance of the miraculous, and, therefore, hon. Members looked to him with a good deal of confidence in this matter. He would not venture to make even a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, but he had thought that the requisite space for the accommodation of the foreign journalists, and with which he understood they would be satisfied, who would be selected by the Syndicate of the International Press, might be found with comparative case in the galleries on each side of the House which were very seldom occupied by hon. Members. In conclusion, he could not think that the British Parliament wished to remain the one great Assembly

1307
in Europe which kept out of its Chamber the representatives of the foreign Press, and he was quite sure that they might rely upon the First Commissioner of Works to find a solution of the accommodation difficulty.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House is of opinion that accommodation should be provided in the House of Commons for representatives of the foreign and Colonial Press, and that such extension of the Reporters' Gallery or such increase of room elsewhere should be made as will suffice for this purpose."—Mr. Smeaton.)
*THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): The Resolution which has been so ably and so reasonably presented to the House by my two hon. friends is not one which necessarily or directly involves the Government in any action, though it is quite true that if carried it might impose upon me the necessity of considering some structural alterations hereafter. But though the Government is not involved, I think it is only courteous to the House that I should intervene as soon as possible, not to venture to advise hon. Members, but to lay before them such facts as are within my own knowledge, because I have been compelled to study the question both from its architectural and structural points of view. The allocation of the seats in the Press Gallery rests entirely with the authorities of the House, not with me or the Government. If this Resolution were carried to-night they might order it to be carried into effect, and I would obey that order subject, of course, to the control of the Treasury, which, I am sure to our ultimate advantage, has a finger in every pie. I could have wished that this Resolution should have been moved in Committee of the House, because Mr. Speaker might there have followed precedents set by his predecessors, and have addressed the House himself from that side gallery which this Motion would apparently and necessarily entrench upon. Such a precedent was set by Speaker Addington when he spoke from the side gall by on a question of assessed taxes. But this illumination of the debate is out of the
1308
question and I do not assume to represent the opinion of Mr. Speaker or of the authorities of the House in this matter. I merely state what is within my own knowledge, that unfortunately the accommodation for the British Press is wholly insufficient as it is at present. I believe I shall be very much understating the case when I say that there are more than fifty newspapers anxious and waiting for accommodation in the Press Gallery which they are now quite unable to obtain. During the last year I have been able to improve the accommodation for the Press, not in the Gallery itself, but behind the Gallery, and have, at all events, provided a place of retreat in which descriptions of Parliamentary proceedings may be written free from the bustle and disturbance of actual debate, and with some degree of comfort. But I do think that on this question charity in seats must begin with the home Press. No one would more warmly welcome than I should the presence of the representatives of the foreign Press in our Gallery. I think it would be an enormous advantage that they should acquire intimate knowledge of our Parliamentary habits, and that they should be able to transmit to their readers abroad some vivid pictures of our attitude of mind towards foreign nations, and that they should be permitted to mirror, as our own Press does, the natural desire we have of strengthening the bonds of friendly relations, and our constant desire to destroy those causes which most unnecessarily, as they generally seem to me, lead to those irritations which occasionally occur between ourselves and other nations. I should have been glad if we could have reciprocated some of that consideration shown to, and that accommodation placed at the disposal of, our Press in other countries. But I do not see that it is possible under present conditions, because in order to do so I should have to deprive hon. Members of part, probably a considerable part, of their accommodation in the side galleries.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What about the empty Peers' Gallery?
*MR. HARCOURT: I have observed the Amendment of my hon. friend on

1309
the Paper; but even if I were to take part of these side galleries there are structural difficulties in the removal of the door. Hon. Members may not know that the whole of the wall there is a mass of flues for the ventilation of the House and the removal of the smoke. These are, however, only some of the difficulties. If the representatives of the foreign Press were put in the side galleries they would probably be there only when the House was occupied with subjects of high importance and great public interest, and these are the occasions when the galleries are most required by Members of the House themselves. It must not be forgotten that these galleries are an integral part of the House, and that from thence hon. Members can ask questions and make speeches.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Would they catch the Speaker's eye there?
*MR. HARCOURT: If Mr. Speaker's eye is fixed on things above, no doubt hon. Members would be able to catch it. From inquiries I have made, I have come to the conclusion that, generous as are their sentiments towards the Press of all nations, even to the Press of their own hon. Members are not prepared at present to part with the limited seating accommodation they have in this Chamber. I have had before now to resist proposals Which I venture to call proposals of the "hardy septennial species," to provide a new Chamber. The demand is made at the beginning of every new Parliament that we should set to work to construct a new Chamber; but in the second session it becomes less urgent; and, as a rule, it wholly disappears in the third. I know all the plans which have been made for the enlargement and for the alteration of the shape of this Chamber, and the advantages of the horse-shoe form which would enable Members to drift from one side of the House to the other more easily. I know how the Chamber may be made to accommodate double the number of Members who represent constituencies. I do not deny that it can be done at great expense, and at considerable inconvenience, but when completed you would have acquired
1310
a Chamber which would be quite intolerable for the transaction of ordinary business, such as we are to-night engaged upon. I would not venture to count the Members present, but at all events for the transaction of the ordinary House of Commons business, I believe that the present Chamber is well suited to its purpose. Even with a larger Chamber no one can say what the acoustic properties would be. By accident, and after many alterations, the acoustic properties of the present Chamber leave little to be desired, and could not have been got by design. I cannot discover a solvent by which its Gothic stones could be made of a more elastic material so as to provide the accommodation desired by private Members with imagination. After all, I am tied by the inexorable limits of Sir Francis Barry's original design. Unfortunately the House was built in the days when Parliamentary reporting was in its childhood, in the days when any private Member could espy reporters and have them excluded as strangers—as I have myself seen done. There was no room then in this building for the comity of nations being recognised by the presence of representatives of the foreign Press. There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of my hon. and learned friend, the Member for Donegal. I do not propose to deal with it now; in fact if I did so, I would be out of order. I will only in passing say that it is dangerous to introduce foreign matter into the wheels of a delicate machine; it is likely to lead to friction, and possibly heat, and in the relations between this floor and that Gallery there is enough of that commodity to-day. At all events, I cannot regard the hon. Member's prescription in the nature either of a prophylactic or an antiseptic. While I deeply sympathise with the objects of the hon. Members who have moved and seconded this Resolution to-night, I feel bound honestly to tell the House that I do not see at present the methods by which they can be carried out, but if circumstances were to alter, and I can see some machinery by which we can create accommodation for our foreign friends I shall be the first, not only to carry it out, but to suggest it to the House myself. Under these

1311
circumstances I hope the hon. Gentleman will think it possible to withdraw his Motion, because if he presses it to a division I shall feel bound to vote against it and advise my friends to do so, but I am sure that by the discussion of his Motion he has enabled us to give a warn expression of our sympathy with those representatives of the foreign Press whom we should like to see here, and I am sure the rejection of the Motion would give an-impression abroad to those friends for whom we entertain warm feelings of friendship which is wholly foreign to the tone and temper of this House.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he joined with his right hon. friend in asking his friend who moved this Resolution not to go to a division. He did not know what the result might be, but if they were to divide he agreed with his right hon. friend that it would be giving an entirely false impression. He was not surprised at the speech of the First Commissioner of Works; he never was surprised at the speech of an official. He started upon any political enterprise upon which he might be tempted to enter with strong conviction that anything a private Member proposed was sure at first to meet with every obstacle from the official hierarchy. That was sure to be the case, however democratic and genial the Minister might be, and they could not have one more democratic and genial than they had in this case. It was part of the obstinacy and unwillingness to accept any proposal which had been in the race of rulers since the days of the Old Testament. His right hon. friend had made exactly the same speech in substance that had been made with less grace by every man in his place to any proposal to increase the accommodation for the Press in the House. As a matter of fact, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the admission of the Press was an innovation in this House, but his universally informed friend, or his encyclopædic friend on his left told him that the Press Gallery dated from 1835. He knew, however, that his friend Mr. Justin McCarthy, when he reported for a Liverpool paper, was only able to report a speech of
1312
Mr. Gladstone from a spot behind the Strangers' Gallery. He and some other reporters got that privilege, and he believed the only reason they obtained it was that Mr. Cardwell happened to be a Cabinet Minister and sat for a Liverpool constituency. There was a time not long since when no representatives of the provincial Press were admitted, and the First Commissioner of Works got up from time to time and made the same explanation that it would require structural alterations to admit them, and that there were pipes and flues to be considered. If a Minister could not give any other explanation he fell back upon pipes and flues. But they all knew that if his right hon. friend made up his mind that it was possible to make this change it could be done, and in his opinion a decent journeyman carpenter could make all the changes necessary and take half-a-dozen seats from the side galleries. Pipes and flues were the embroidery by which bureaucracy was enabled—if he might mix the metaphor—to eke out the nakedness of its argument. It was quite true that the home Press was not sufficiently accommodated already, and his hon. friend reminded him that the Hansard arrangements were also inconvenient. He sometimes thought it was more important that they should have the Press there than the Members of the House. He knew he never found the House of Commons half so interesting as when he was about fifty or a hundred miles away from it, because on taking up the reporting columns or the still more interesting descriptive reports of the papers he found thrills and excitement and representations of a tumultuous House of Commons, whereas when he was present it was often the case that one Gentleman was addressing his constituents with three or four other Gentlemen in the House, who were not listening to him, but waiting for him to sit down in order that they might speak. What did it matter if 12 or 13 feet were taken off the side gallery? He had never seen that gallery filled except when Mr. Gladstone introduced his Home Rule Bill, and so exceptional was that occasion that even the floor of the House was occupied by chairs for hon. Members who could not otherwise get a seat, and some of

1313
them were there as early as the midnight before the right hon. Gentleman proposed his Bill. Except on an occasion like that he had never seen more than two or three Members in that gallery, and therefore, so far as the accommodation of Members of the House was concerned, that gallery was absolutely useless. There was a good deal behind this Motion. As a matter of fact it would tend to good relations between this country and countries on the Continent of Europe if their proceedings were adequately and properly reported. He thought that ignorance was the beginning of misunderstanding, and misunderstanding was the beginning of anything. Half the great conflicts in the world, even the most devastating, had been the result of ignorance and misunderstanding, and when the conflict was over, as in the case of Russia and Japan, the calm historian had to find out the facts of the dispute. In his own time newspapers had made war, and he sometimes wondered whether newspapers did not make more wars than they made peace. He did not say that they made war except in this sense, that a match did not make a conflagration until it was applied to a magazine of powder, but sometimes the publication in newspapers of news that was true or false was as a match thrown into a magazine of passion between the nations and produced a conflagration and terrible effects. For instance, was it not the publication of the despatch describing the interview between the late Emperor William the First and Count Benedetti at Ems which made inevitable the great war between France and Germany? He dared say that when the Dogger Bank incident took place it was not the fault of the newspapers in this country that there was not war between us and Russia. What happened at the present moment? The proceedings of the House of Commons were practically unknown in all their vital reality to the countries on the Continent of Europe. There was undoubtedly an excellent agency—Reuter's—which sent what must necessarily be a brief account of their proceedings, but everybody knew that a mere dry record of speeches and answers gave no idea of the inner realities and history of that House. The manner in which the speeches were received, the tone in
1314
which the House listened to them, the temper in which the speaker spoke, were all part of the real life of that Assembly, which could only be described to the Continent of Europe by eye-witnesses. He thought that it would tend to bring about a better understanding between this and other countries if the proceedings of that Assembly, which was the great centre of light and heat, were to radiate throughout the countries of Europe. He should think his right hon. friend would blush with shame when he contrasted our action in this matter with the hospitality given to British journalists in Paris, Berlin and Vienna.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid the First Commissioner of Works had based his argument upon the difficulty of the structural alterations of the House, but he fancied that the right hon. Gentleman did not want to see foreign representatives of the Press present and only advanced structural alterations as a way of getting out of the difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman had appealed to the mover to withdraw his Motion entirely on the ground of the cost which would be entailed in the necessary alterations. He himself appealed to the hon. Member to withdraw the Motion on the ground that it was undesirable to have members of the foreign. Press present at the proceedings of the British Parliament. In the opinion of the last speaker a great deal of the misunderstanding between nations would be smoothed over if reports were sent by representatives of the foreign Press direct from the Gallery, reflecting the exact tone of the speeches and the reception of those speeches. But if that argument were carried to its logical conclusion, what a peaceful and happy country Ireland would have been for the last century, represented as she was so well in the Gallery by Irish Pressmen and having every possible remark and attitude of every Irish speaker in the House sent across with perfect accuracy to their constituents. The argument of the hon. Member was not a strong argument to advance when tested in that way, and the same would apply to the admission of the Press of foreign countries. We were at peace with all the foreign nations of the world at the present time. [An

1315
HON. MEMBER: Except your own]. It was most remarkable when the House considered the attention Irish Unionists gave to the speeches of hon. Members below the gangway that they should not have some reciprocity from them.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: We are absolutely spellbound.
CAPTAIN CRAIGthought that if foreign countries were represented by their own Press in the Gallery the argument which had been used by the hon. Member opposite in favour of universal peace might be used with equal effect to stir up trouble between this and other countries. Therefore, in his opinion, that argument was not well founded. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion had suggested that not only should the foreign Press be allowed in the Gallery, but that they should also be allowed in the lobby with the same freedom as the Press of this country. That was a proposition which he should vote against because, in his opinion, it would not be to the advantage of this country to have the foreign Press representatives crowding the lobby of the House. Everybody who had travelled abroad must have been struck by the ability with which foreign newspapers reflected what was said in the British Parliament. He had often been struck with the remarkably true manner in which the utterances of Parliament were summarised and reflected in foreign newspapers by the present agencies, the Central News and Reuter's; no foreign Press representative in the Gallery could get a clearer view of the case than was presented by the two agencies he had named. He submitted that this question ought only to be dealt with after full accommodation had been made in the Press Gallery for the British and Colonial Press. He could not himself conceive why such an outcry should be made with regard to having the foreign Press in the Gallery after the outcry made by the German Press. At the present moment Count von Bulow himself had to postpone indefinitely an important statement he desired to make, owing to the action of the German Press. If the speeches made in this House were to be reported fully in
1316
foreign countries it was better that they should be reported by a Press which was absolutely free from the bias of the political parties of those countries. It had always been held that the news sent to foreign countries by the British Press had been a fair comment upon what occurred in the House and the summaries of the speeches made had been accurate summaries. The mover of the Resolution in the course of his speech had suggested that the Colonial Press should also be admitted, but unfortunately he had not incorporated "Colonial Press" in his Resolution and it would be out of order to amend his Resolution by moving to insert "Colonial Press"; therefore if the Resolution was carried it would not help the Colonial Press, but simply open the Gallery to foreign journalists. If the Motion went to a division he should vote against it.
*MR. REESsaid the mover of the Resolution had expressed the opinion that if foreign reporters were admitted to the Press Gallery and reported directly what took place in the House, it would lead to the reduction of armaments and be in the interests of peace. He was, however, afraid that the throwing open of the Press Gallery would not altogether have the same effect which the hon. Gentleman anticipated, although he certainly believed that if the reporters of foreign newspapers were present in the Press Gallery it would impose a useful check upon the references made in this House to foreign powers which were too often arrogant and ill-informed. His hon. friend in his speech slipped in this respect, when he referred to the Russians as "suffering under an autocratic regime." If there were reporters from Russia in the gallery, he was not sure it would altogether tend to international amity to have speeches of that kind reported. If his hon. friend had lived in Russia as he had done, he would doubt whether it was in any way a correct description of what happened in Russia, or of the feelings of the people towards their governors. They had, at any rate in parts of Russia, he knew, profound regard for the Imperial family, and the villages enjoyed communal democratic government. Then the hon. Member

1317
for Leicester had expressed his opinion that such was the condition of Russia, that it did not become this country to enter into any diplomatic relations with her until she had altered her constitution and adopted that form which he happened to approve, and prescribed for the round world. He believed that the presence of reporters of foreign papers would be a useful check upon his hon. friend when next he adopted that attitude. When the question of the Congo was before the House the other night, hon. Member after hon. Member said that Belgium would behave well if she only knew what she was about, and understood the circumstances of the case. Belgium was, therefore, represented as being wanting in intelligence and knowledge of its own business, though not apparently in humanity. But when Macedonia came before the House, the Turk was at once credited with cruelty. That was an entirely false conception of the Turk, as he thought every hon. Member who had been in Turkey would agree. Nothing was said about the Greeks and Bulgarians there, who cut one another's throats and made most of the mischief, but the Turks, because they were Mahomedans, were said to be cruel. Cruelty was apparently a characteristic of Mahomedans in the eyes of hon. Members who knew nothing of Islam and its followers. Was it desirable that such speeches should be published more fully for the benefit of other nations? Then another hon. Member was so impressed by the kind treatment he had received in Russia that he was prepared on the spot to give Russia a port in the Persian Gulf. He did not think that was a desirable thing to be reported in Russia where they might imagine that the hon. Member's opinion carried weight. The hon. Member for Salford to-day wanted the Foreign Minister to interfere with the internal arrangements of Japan, because he imagined they were ill-treating the inhabitants of Formosa, apparently he did not know of Japan's unparalled success in civilising the worst of savages, but in any case, it was no business of ours. That was another thing which it was highly undesirable should be reported at greater length for the benefit of foreign nations than it was likely to be
1318
under the existing system. This was his objection to the Motion; otherwise, it had his general support. When the right hon. Gentleman said that he could not provide room for foreign reporters, he thought he did himself an injustice, for he had always regarded him as a kind of benevolent wizard who could do anything for hon. Members. He believed, if the First Commissioner wished to provide the accommodation, he could do it, though he did not think it was fair to describe the right hon. Gentleman as having in despair "fallen back upon pipes and flues." Nor could he commiserate with the First Commissioner if he had to fall back on a pipe, though if he fell back on a flue he hoped the flue would not prove as overheated, as he (Mr. Rees) regarded the House to be. He was quite aware the House wanted to get on to something else, some new and original subject like tariff reform; and he would not keep it away from its choice; but he did say that hon. Members had very much underestimated the information which under existing circumstances was supplied to foreign nations. He could say that in St. Petersburg, where the Press censorship was the most rigorous in Europe, folks were well informed every morning of what went on in the British House of Commons if they cared to be so informed; and, if little attention was paid to speeches such as he had referred to, and if they were veiled in a decent obscurity, it was a very fortunate circumstance, and he hoped it would continue to prevail.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid it was very comforting to know that, if the oration to which they had just listened were published and printed in all parts of the world, it would be strictly innocuous. They had heard the pronouncement from a great leader of the party which represented all the wealth, intellect, and intelligence of Ireland that that wealth, intellect, and intelligence must be kept and confined to a limited circle—themselves, of course—and that foreigners must be excluded from the benefit of it. He must congratulate the hon. Member on his oration. For the first time he had made a speech without dragging in the Union Jack or

1319
the Union on which all their happiness was supposed to depend. He now came with all kindness to the speech of his right hon. friend, who had the one saving gift of humour. He was able to say with a conscience which would have done credit to an Anglican curate that there was no room and that he was compelled by considerations of space not to entertain, beyond the expression of a pious opinion—a kind of doxology—the question of providing accommodation for the reporters of the foreign Press. His right hon. friend had really a genius for architecture, and he would have done extremely well as a twentieth century Wren. Fe believed, however, that if the reporters of the foreign Press were given accommodation in the side galleries by the extension of the Reporters' Gallery three or four seats no one would be in the slightest degree embarrassed. Although the right hon. Gentleman had the advantage of being younger than he (Mr. MacNeill) he had had considerable Parliamentary experience, and could recall the days—he must have been under the gallery in short-coats—when any hon. Member could espy strangers and have the reporters excluded. There was, however, one quarter of the House in which twenty-five seats were kept separate and distinct for gentlemen who did not use them, except upon very rare occasions. He could not for the life of him see why the Peers' Gallery should rot be open to the reporters. They would make use of it, and the Peers did not seem to want it. He would take instances within the recollection of all. Yesterday, there was what, in the Tory mind, was a full dress debate. The late Colonial Secretary got up and with enormous power delivered an oration on the vexed question of South Africa, supra Peckham. Every seat in the House was full. Some came from interest; he came for amusement. The Peers' Gallery, however, was empty, except for one solitary Peer, whilst many people would have liked to have got in and many Press representatives would have been delighted to have occupied the seats there. To-day, one of the most delightful and eloquent tributes ever passed by one statesman on another, was delivered to the memory of the Duke of Devonshire,
1320
a Peer of Peers. The House was filled and the galleries were filled, but in the Peers' Gallery there were six in a place which would have accommodated twenty-five. He was not a tremendous admirer of Peers, and he would not keep a portion of the people's House unoccupied for them, especially when they did not use it. It was absurd, and he really asked right hon. Gentlemen to think of the absurdity of it. He would be very sorry indeed if even one British or Irish reporter was excluded by accommodation being provided for the foreign Press. He regarded the presence of reporters of foreign newspapers who could catch the tone of the House, realise the proportions, and see things in their true light, to be of essential benefit to the peace and amity of the world. There was no doubt whatever about that. He would give them one slight instance to show what he meant. He would take care not to mention any name. Some eighteen months ago a gentleman, who got, he did not know by what preliminary methods, an Urder-Secretaryship, made a fierce attack in regard to an important question, and, because there were not German, French, and other foreign reporters in the House who could have measured his intellectual and political stature, it was greatly magnified, He believed in Germany for months afterwards nurses used to hush children to sleep by saying: "The great Englishman is coming." They had been able to take the measure of that eminent statesman. The hon. Gentleman who had just come in and to whom he had referred as a budding statesman had, during the last six weeks, frequently interrogated the Government about the possibility of foreign invasion and had given en entirely false idea. If what occurred in that House was seen by foreign journalists and reporters, the whole thing would be quite different and the proper intellectual measure of the hon. Gentleman would be taken. But it was notorious to everyone who had been on the Continent, that foreign countries largely took their cue of the politics of this country and of what went on in that House from the mendacious columns of The Times. He believed that if there were foreign representatives present the malignant influence of

1321
that paper, which everyone in this country knew, or ought to know, was a public liar, would be curtailed. Reports of the debates in that House furnished in the columns of The Times, he was bound to say were, on the whole, fair reports and fair summaries. But with these reports which were fair there came malignant comments which were taken in many places, even by well-informed Continental journalists, as gospel truths. If three or four seats were given to representatives of foreign journals the greatest benefit would be secured.
MR. BYLESsaid he would not have risen but that he desired to make a practical suggestion. He hoped in anything he might say that he would be able to avoid the party references and the somewhat quarrelsome tone which had been introduced in some of the later speeches. It would be impossible for him to oppose the Motion which his hon. friend had made. It would be unfriendly to the profession to which he had belonged all his life, and it would be unfriendly to foreign people, with whom he desired this country should always be on terms of the greatest cordiality. He agreed with the mover of the Resolution that its acceptance would tend towards peace and make for friendship between the nations of Europe. One had to look at the matter, however, not only from the point of view of the foreign newspapers, but from the point of view of the British and Irish newspapers. The right hon. Gentleman had told them there were physical difficulties in the way of finding room for representatives of the foreign Press. He was against any encroachment on the space that was found to be necessary for our own newspapers, but he was also against any encroachment upon the space which Members of that House enjoyed whether on the floor or in the gallery. Any further limitation of their room would only tend to revive those septennial demands for a new horseshoe-shaped House of Commons to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. He, for his part, had no desire whatever to see the House either enlarged or diminished. The suggestion he had to make was that if they could not take space from their own gallery or
1322
invent space in some other part of the House, they should at least find out how the space already allotted to the Press was allocated. The First Commissioner had told them that the matter was not in his Department, and that it was a matter for the authorities of the House. He had the greatest possible respect for the authorities of the House, but he did not know how to get at them. They were the one power regulating their affairs which appeared to him to be inaccessible to members. But perhaps the First Commissioner himself would be able to bring his great influence to bear to obtain from them some statement of the manner in which the fifty or so seats in the Press Gallery were at present allocated. He believed at one time a map was drawn of the Gallery with the names of the newspapers entitled to seats there, just as one sometimes saw a dinner plan on those occasions when one was invited to a great banquet. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would find out, and make the information available to the whore House, the newspapers which were represented in the Gallery and the number of places which they enjoyed, so that they might find out whether the right newspapers were admitted. He suspected that the allocation of seats there was of some considerable standing, and that it was not frequently revised. The suggestions he would make was that the allocation of seats should be revised from time to time, and that at pretty frequent periods, so that there might not be seats occupied by what he might call deadheads, without disrespect, he hoped, to his Press friends above—by those who were not really reporting the proceedings of the House, but were looking on for dillettante or artistic or some other purposes. He would yield to none in his admiration of the skill of the professional gentlemen who attended their debates or in his estimate of the importance to every Member of the House and to the constituencies which they represented of the services which those patient gentlemen rendered to them. He was sure one must pity them, for many a time Members felt impelled to escape from the chamber, but the professional gentleman upstairs had

1323
to sit it out. He hoped right hon. Gentlemen might even yet say something in the direction of meeting this point, as the very fact that the seats were so few and necessarily so restricted by physical limitations should make them extremely careful that they were allotted in the best and most effectual way possible.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he did not wish to prolong the discussion. He wished to call the First Commissioner's attention to one fact alone. He would find if he referred to the Report of the Committee on the Parliamentary Debates very valuable evidence to guide him in this matter, and amongst other things he would find it proved beyond all doubt that the official reporting staff in the Gallery were entirely inadequately accommodated. Whatever might be said of the newspapers generally, metropolitan and provincial, everybody must agree that those who were engaged in reporting the official records of Parliament ought to have the very best places and every facility given them. He quite agreed with his hon. friend opposite that if it were possible it would be very good to have representatives from every part of the world. There was nothing to be objected to in that, but before any step was taken the Report of that Select Committee ought to be acted upon, and proper arrangements made to give the Official Parliamentary reporting staff proper accommodation which they had not at present. However the newspapers might be accommodated it was a fact that those who were engaged in compiling the records of Parliament were not properly accommodated. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bear that in mind and get the recommendation of the Committee acted upon.
*SIR J. JARDINEsaid he did not wish to give a silent vote on this question. He would like to associate himself with the mover and seconder of the Resolution, and to instance the case of India, which had not been alluded to. Probably the hon. Member who moved the Resolution meant to include that great dependency in the term "Colonies."
1324
It would, he thought, considerably improve our relations with the people of India if they had reports of the proceedings of that House coming to them at first hand from any representative that their newspapers chose to send to Westminster. Considering the great number of questions which were being constantly put to the Secretary for India, India evidently loomed largely in their discussions. He had been very much impressed with the great interest which some of the Colonies, e.g. Canada, took in the debates of the House. He thought the great newspapers of Canada should have facilities for being directly represented in the House, and if the could not be done for lack of accommodation in the Press Gallery, surely the representatives of those newspapers might be allowed to penetrate if not into the Chamber itself, at least into the inner Lobby. At present their position was as ignominious and unhappy as that of the wives of hon. Members, who had to wait at a distance, until the Members whom they sought had been hunted up all over the building. If the correspondents could not hear the speeches, then they might be able to catch some of the echoes, and that arrangement might prevent some of those misunderstandings with European nations which they all deplored.
*MR. SMEATONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had met him in a friendly tone and had given conditional promises of which he had taken note—to the effect that if circumstances were to alter, the difficulties might be overcome with time, money, and good intentions, He regarded those words as conveying a desire to make the concession when opportunity occurred—and that need not be far off. Under these circumstances he would not divide the House, and he asked leave to withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
MR. GOULDINGsaid that he did not know whether, having regard to the hour, hon. Members would desire him to proceed. [Cries of "Go

1325
on."] Very well; in that case he would move: "That this House, regarding with anxiety the increase of unemployment among the working classes, is of opinion that with a view to its diminution such a reform of our fiscal system should be adopted as would check unfair competition, lead to a reduction in the hostile tariffs of foreign countries, provide a basis for mutual preference between the Mother country and the Colonies, and increase the demand for labour at home." He thought that no apology was necessary for bringing this subject before the House again, because in a time of record exports and imports the problem of unemployment was acute and the gravity of the question could not be ignored. A Liberal morning paper, the Daily News, had made the following statement—
"Men who never walk in unemployed processions, men who would scorn to register at the town hall, men who would rather die than accept the hospitality of the guardians of the poor, are to-day to the number of hundreds of thousands seeking employment."
In support of this view lot them consider the statistics with regard to emigration. Ten years ago our emigration was 60,000; in 1906 it had risen to 195,000; and lest year it was 240,000. In Germany, with a population 50 per cent. greater, emigration was but a fraction of what it was here. Yet formerly the emigration in both countries was about the same. In Germany, with an altered fiscal system, and a population increasing at a greater rate than here, the emigration was stationary, and ranged from 25,000 to 30,000 a year. In this country last year four out of every hundred in skilled trades were unemployed, against one per hundred in Germany. At the present time our average had risen to six, compared with two or two and a half in Germany. We had a far larger proportion out of work in the unskilled trades, but if only the same proportion were taken there could not be less than 600,000. The future held out a prospect of an increase of the number of people engaged in casual work—the most unsatisfactory of all. Mr. Sadler said that British parents were less inclined than ever to apprentice their boys because trades changed so frequently that there was no permanency of em-
1326
ployment. [A Voice: "Machinery."] No, it was not machinery, but unfair competition. A few years ago they were told that this country had fallen behind in commercial enterprise because the people lacked technical education. Now, however, large sums had been expended to make our technical schools efficient, but what was the use of that if, when the pupils had learned their crafts, there was no work for them? They were in the position of the owner of the horse who received a bill from the veterinary surgeon: "To curing your horse until he died, £2 10s." The evil of unemployment existed; it was pressing, chronic, and increasing. The Labour Socialist Party had put forward their cure in two Bills this session, the "Right-to-Work" Bill, now known as the "Will-not-Work" Bill, and the Bill to limit employment in any trade to eight hours—a proposal so riddled by objections in the discussion that the Leader of the Party last Wednesday desired to withdraw the Bill, and dare not face the ordeal of a division. But what had the Government done? They had been two years in office with a Labour Member at the head of the Local Government Board. [MINISTERIAL Cheers.] Yes, hon. Members opposite cheered him now.
EARL WINTERTON: They do not cheer him in Battersea.
MR. GOULDINGsaid that the Government had not even sketched out the general lines of a policy to deal with the problem. Not having a policy of their own, this Government of Royal Commissions might doubtless have appointed a further Commission, but in their mental destitution they postponed all action. They waited in the hope that a Commission appointed by the late Government to inquire into the Poor Law system, and to report on the treatment of the aged poor, the infirm, the unworkables, and tramps, might suggest how work was to be found for willing, able workmen seeking work to-day. What a mockery it all was! The Secretary to the Local Government Board came forward with the proposal that women should be turned out of the industrial life of the country, without any regard to the number of homes

1327
that would be deprived of the breadwinner if such a cruel policy were carried out. It would be interesting to note how the Under-Secretary for the Colonies treated this proposal of his colleague when he returned to Lancashire, if prophecy was true, for re-election in the near future. The President of the Board of Trade admitted that we were sick, or going to be sick, so he would summon all the captains of industry to confer on the condition of the nation, but they must leave their fiscal notions on the door-mat. In other words, the surgeons were to be summoned, but they must leave their operating instruments outside. Yet in his Patents Act the right hon. Gentleman had prohibited all competition from outside in certain trades, and made possible monopolies, while all that tariff reformers desired was the imposition of a tariff to safeguard national industries from unfair competition. What was the lesson that had been taught in recent times? If in a period of booming trade there was this unemployment, what would be the position when we witnessed bad trade, and the lean years were on us? If work would not go round for the people seeking employment in time of boom, what would be the case in time of trade depression? Was there no remedy possible but the enforced and increased emigration of some of the most promising of our working people? He believed that there was. When we adopted free trade we had no rivals to fear. To-day the matter was different, and we could no longer continue with impunity to give our competitors the immense advantage of free access to our markets, and at the same time endure every restriction they chose to impose against our goods desiring to enter their markets. Tariff reformers did not say that all unemployment was due to unfair competition and hostile tariffs, but they did say that on the evidence of employers and workmen a great part was due to these causes, and they proposed by tariffs to remedy what was possible.
MR. VIVIAN: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what unfair competition there is in the building trade, which employs 1,000,000 hands?
MR. GOULDINGsaid that if the hon. Member would wait he would come to the trades in a moment. Did the hon. Member know the amount of goods produced for the building trade under sweated conditions? Last year we imported into this country £150,000,000 worth of manufactured goods, and some £80,000,000 must have been spent on labour. It was considered that a portion of those goods could be equally well made in this country, and that reasonable security would attract capital here which was now invested in foreign lands by our own people. Let them take the case of iron and steel. Did anyone suggest that that trade had not been injured? Fifteen years ago we were first in the production of steel and and iron, five years ago we had fallen to second place, and to-day we held a bad third. The United States and Germany had both passed us. We were under no disadvantage in regard to supply of material, the skill of our workmen, or the efficiency of our methods. We had only one advantage. We had the advantage of having the best coal produced anywhere at our very door. We started the competition at the top of the world; the position had been wrested from us by a deliberate policy of securing the large market at home first, and then dumping their surplus here in our open markets. To-day ship plates were offered in our markets at a price at which we could not produce them, and we were threatened with further disaster. Then with regard to the silk trade, in almost every branch of that industry there was less employment. Mills were closed at Macclesfield, Nottingham, Derby, Manchester, and London, Firms who formerly weaved silk goods now simply were makers up of German, Swiss, and Italian manufactures. The trades that had been killed or crippled were known to all. [An HON. MEMBER: What trades? How many?] The hon. Member knew well enough. He was not going to be drawn aside by side issues. If he wanted more information he could get it in the Budget debates—at any rate Members on the Unionist side of the House would raise these matters on all possible occasions. He heard last week of the case of a manufacturer in the Midlands who until recently employed several

1329
hundred hands in his factory. He had ceased to manufacture, and he was now simply a buyer and seller, and the men had been dismissed. What were the facts? That man had as a manufacturer to face the keenest competition, and ultimately similar goods were sold in the markets he supplied at actually cost price. On inquiry he found that they were made in Germany. On communicating with this German rival, he found that the price was to be still further reduced, but that if he cared to do so the German would let him have what he wanted for sale at present price. He consulted his trade-unionist workmen to learn if they would be prepared, by taking reduced wages, to join him in fighting against the German. They rightly declined, seeing no limit to what this might entail, as security against unfair competition did not exist. The manufacturer, as a consequence, came to terms with the German and converted himself into a buyer and seller, and thus made his profit while he was relieved of his responsibility as an employer. But if he was going on with his trade it was the intention of the German firm to sell the goods which he manufactured below cost price. [MINISTERIAL Cries of "What goods?" "What trade?"] Hon. Members opposite would like to indulge in inquisitorial business, but he was not going to submit to it. Had hon. Gentlemen opposite such a high opinion of the Members of this House as to believe that a Member would get up and state a thing which to his own knowledge was untrue? [Renewed cries of "Name," and "What goods?"] In spite of the interruption he would continue the argument. This manufacturer came to his workmen and told them what was the deal proposed by the German manufacturer, and asked his workmen if they and their trade union would stand in with him in the competition with the German manufacturer by taking reduced wages. [Renewed interruption and cries of "Where," and "Name."] The workmen rightly declined to do so, because they had no security whatever as regarded their future liabilities, and there would be no safeguard for their trade, and their wages would be permanently reduced. What happened? The manufacturer as a consequence came to terms with the
1330
German. [An HON. MEMBER: He never did; and renewed cries of "Name," and "What goods?" "hat trade?"] He declined to give the information, and dismissed the observation of the hon. Gentleman opposite as a specimen of good manners of the party which contained a great number of Gentlemen who were not English five years ago. [Renewed interruption, and MINISTERIAL ironical cries of "Manners."] This gentleman had ceased to be a manufacturer. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Of what?"] had turned his factory into a warehouse, had become a buyer and a seller, and was making his profit while his employees were scattered abroad. [Renewed cries of "What goods?" "What trade?"]
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I would not interrupt, but of course, at this hour there will be no opportunity for reply. I therefore think we are entitled to ask the hon. Member, not with a view to identification, but of testing the effect on the whole trade, what was the particular class of goods? There may be special reasons why this gentleman gave up his factory.
MR. GOULDINGsaid that the gentleman was a manufacturer of lamp-holders. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] He dared say that hon. Gentlemen who laughed would much prefer that those lamp-holders should be manufactured in Germany. At any rate, 400 hands who were getting a living in manufacturing those goods were now dispersed abroad. [Cries of "Where?"] What he was asking the Party opposite, who were champions of Free Trade, was, what was to happen to the workmen who were thrown out of employment? They knew that Germany and the United States were largely increasing their productive capacity, and they were casting on these shores their surplus goods which they could not get rid of at home. The position was entirely different from what it was sixty years ago. They wanted to meet these altered conditions with a complete change in our fiscal system—broadening the basis of taxation—safeguarding national industries against unfair competition, giving us the means to

1331
negotiate with, foreign countries, and providing the basis for mutual trade advantages within the Empire, and supporting our best customers. He desired to deal with one point alone. All parties were alarmed at the naval policy which had been promulgated by Germany, whose strength lay in this condition of unemployment of our people. If the German naval policy was persisted in a vast expenditure would be imposed on this country, for both parties in the State were agreed on the maintenance of the two-Power standard. We had at present no effective means of getting Germany to re-consider her policy. But supposing we had a tariff? Did hon. Members think for one moment that Germany, sending the greatest portion of her exports to this country, would not hesitate if we had the power by levying a tax on her goods entering this country to raise the money for the extra ships which her mad policy forced upon us. The Member for Glasgow in his Amendment rightly stated that the greatest obstacle that could be erected against the policy of the Labour Socialist Party was the policy of tariff reform linked with Imperialism, and he readily understood their position. How were the Government meeting the Socialists? The Bills they had proposed this session if passed must increase the number of the unemployed, and were mainly concerned with party politics. The President of the Local Government Board might raise laughter in the House about expeditions to soup kitchens, but wretched men and women outside seeking employment in order that they might buy bread would take a different view. The writing was on the wall, and whenever opportunity was afforded them the electors would in his opinion declare for a policy of tariff reform as alone likely to give more employment, and at the same time, defeat the dangerous policy of Socialists. He begged to move.
*MR. FLETCHERin seconding the Resolution, saw that wherever he went, he found there was a feeling amongst the artizan classes of the intense unpopularity of the Government. He had said to them "Where are your leaders? Why do you not tell them what you have been
1332
telling me, so that they might put pressure on the Government?" When Cardinal Manning, before he was a teetotaler, explained to an audience that owing to the weakness of his digestion he was obliged to take a little stimulant, somebody said "Change your doctor." Cardinal Manning did so with success. To the artizan classes of this country who wanted work he gave the same advice "Change your leaders," and there would be fewer men out of work. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech spoke for more than two-and-a half hours without mentioning the unemployed, and in the King's Speech there was not a word about unemployment. What the Government had done had been to increase unemployment. Although when in Opposition they had denounced doles, they now relied upon doles. They denounced the Agricultural Rates Act with bitterness as a dole, but they had not been in office two or three months before they commenced doles. They had given a dole of £25,000 to necessitous school areas and a dole of £200,000 to the unemployed, which was to be repeated this year. They were also feeding their small holders with doles. Their Small Holdings Act would be an absolute failure. What the Government should do was to put a small duty on hops. If they did not put a duty on imported foreign hops there was not a county in England interested in hop growing who would not discard the Liberal candidates at the next general election. Small duties such as he advocated were the only means of enabling men without capital to make a living upon the small holdings which had been provided by the Government. There would be no real danger in these duties and there would be no real increase of cost or very little to the consumer, because production would be stimulated by them and many thousands of young men would be able to put money in their pockets if the duties were imposed. Surely it was better to pay a little more for their goods and provide employment for thousands of their fellow countrymen than to pay a little less and be obliged to devote the difference to the relief of pauperism. He begged to second.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, regarding with

1333
anxiety the increase of unemployment among the working classes, is of opinion that with a view to its diminution such a reform of our fiscal system should be adopted as would check unfair competition, lead to a reduction in the hostile tariffs of foreign countries, provide a basis for mutual preference between the Mother Country and the Colonies, and increase the demand for labour at home."—(Mr. Goulding.)
*MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have only a few minutes in which to reply on this subject and, therefore, I cannot hope to follow the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Amendment in their observations, but there are just one or two things I should like to say. After listening to their speeches any one who knew nothing at all about the condition either here or in foreign countries would come to the conclusion that this was the only country where there was any unemployment. In this country we have 100,000 men out of work according to the hon. Member. [Cries of "Six hundred thousand."]
MR. GOULDINGwas understood to say that he took the figure 600,000, proportionately, from the Returns of the skilled trades.
*MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That shows the loose way in which tariff reform statistics are prepared. Of course, nothing of the kind can be done. We have the statistics of the building trade and the shipbuilding trade and both are subject to fluctuations in every country, and nothing we do can prevent violent fluctuations in those trades. But, to take such trades as agricultural labourers and those engaged in transport, the fluctuations are very small. Therefore, when the hon. Member takes such a case as the building trade and tries to draw a general inference from it, he shows that he has not studied the elements of the problem he proposes to treat in this sweeping fashion. Let us take what happens in Germany. If the hon. Member will look at the Report issued by his own Government five years ago, he will find that in Berlin alone there were 93,000 people practically out of
1334
work in 1901. In London, if one takes the proportion to population, what should we have? We should have 240,000 persons practically in the same position. Will any one tell me that in 1901 or in the present year there are 240,000 people in London out of work who are capable of working? No answer. In Berlin at the present moment there are 45,000 men out of work. That is the result of investigation.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley: Whose investigation.
*MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: An investigation by the officials of the Board of Trade, which I will lay on the Table in a very short time. Let us take what is happening in America, a tariff country. This is the result of the investigation of The Times—surely not very partial to the free trade case—
"In New York there are 34 per cent. of workmen unemployed. There are some hopeful signs in other industrial centres, but on a conservative estimate, taking the country throughout, from one-quarter to one-third of those usually employed in all trades and industries are at the present moment paid off."
Why does not the hon. Member say that? To tell the workmen out of work in this country that they are out of work because we have no tariff, knowing at the same time that in one of the highest tariff countries one-third or one-quarter are out of work—wilfully, deliberately—I will not say with knowledge, but it ought to be knowledge—withholding these relevant and important facts from people who must always be trembling in any country from fear of losing their employment, is unfair, dishonest. The hon. Member of all things in the world chose shipbuilding. His speech is the speech he has delivered on fifty tariff reform platforms where there was no one to reply. Did he ever inform his audience what the shipbuilding proportions are? Take last year. [The right hon. Gentleman, was interrupted at this point by loud Opposition cries of "Peckham," "Resign," "This is an answer to your figures," "You will be unemployed directly," and "Free trade is dead," accompanied by loud Opposition cheers.]
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order.
*MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not disposed to complain of the interruption. I have been through that stage myself. I am afraid I have taken part in similar demonstrations. [MINISTERIALIST cries: Not on beer.] If hon. Members will allow roe to proceed, I was dealing with shipbuilding, when a result apparently came in which, I think, has reference to another trade, and a much less beneficial one, certainly having nothing to do with water. Let us look at the figures of last year. ["Let us look at the figures of to-night."] I have only three or four minutes, and I do not care how bye-elections are decided if we are allowed to state the whole facts. What are the facts? Last year we built 1,600,000 tons in our yards—in this broken-down country that cannot provide employment. Take all the shipbuilding yards in the world, including the yards where they build for the lakes of America, where we cannot get a ship in. All the rest of the world's shipbuilding put together comes only to 1,170,000 tons. Let the hon. Member tell his audiences that we are maintaining our supremacy. The hon. Member quoted building. Why is the building trade bad? Because money is dearer. Why is money dearer? Because hon. and right hon. Gentlemen spent £220,000,000 on the South African War—[Renewed interruption.] I have a suggestion to make to hon. Members. They have made their speeches. There has been no opportunity of reply. This is a first-class matter. On Tuesday night a second Motion is to be moved from our side. I suggest that the debate shall be renewed then. In the meantime I will not prevent the House from coming to a division.
MR. WYNDHAM: I hope the House will allow me to say a word. I understand the right hon. Gentleman, who has just spoken, has made an offer——
And it being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday next.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT, 1901, (LAUNDRIES).
*MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDin rising to move "That the Special Order of the Secretary of State, dated the 26th day of December, 1907, allowing as regards laundries that separate departments of work may be treated as separate factories or workshops, be annulled," asked the House to give him their indulgence for a few minutes. On the 17th February, the Home Secretary laid on the Table of the House a statutory rule or Order numbered 1010, in which he made some exceptions under the Factory and Workshops Act, 1901 (Laundries). The object of the statutory Order was to make certain conditions, not ordinarily provided for by law, regarding the hours and conditions of employment in laundries, and the effect of it he would, if the House would permit him, try to show in as few sentences as possible was to create absolute chaos in the administration of the Factory Law so far as it related to hours in laundries. Under the present system the proprietor of a laundry might choose three absolutely different provisions as regarded hours. He might work the usual factory or workshop hours with a special variation of the Saturday half-holiday; he might work eleven and a half hours per day in one of three schemes beginning at 6, 7, or 8 a.m., and ending at 7, 8 or 9 p.m. respectively, with a set of complicated conditions attached; or if he gave up his right to overtime after sixty hours per week, he can work upon another scheme of hours. That was the law as it stood, but the right hon. Gentleman, not apparently satisfied with a law so complex that his own inspectors had reported time after time that it could not be put into operation, first simplified the law last year, but had now sanctioned another variation. The right hon. Gentleman he saw shook his head, but if he would turn to the annual report of the chief inspector for the year 1906 he would see that Miss Sadler reported—
"This juggling with forms and hours has rendered evasion of the Act extremely easy. I took, with the help of a colleague, quite four hours one day inquiring into the hours on a large laundry where there were five different sets or departments."

1337
Might he also refer him to the statement of another lady inspector. Miss Tracy in the same year reports—
"In the matter of hours the same old difficult in adequately checking still arises, although the tendency is towards shorter and earlier hours. …. The proposed alteration in the law affecting laundries is hailed with gladness by almost every manager, for they suffer almost equally with the workers in the present state of the law."
So that the right hon. Gentleman's own inspectors had reported that it was practically impossible to administer a law so generous in its elasticity. The right hon. Gentleman had, moreover, had deputation after deputation from societies such as women's trade unions and the women's industrial council, begging him to cease that elasticity of administration so that some accurate system might take its place; but now the effect of this Statutory Order, for the annulment of which he asked the House to vote, would be to make the law more elastic. In a large laundry, according to some of the factory inspectors, there would be as many as five or six departments, and if this Statutory Order was permitted to become operative, each one of these five or six departments might constitute itself a separate laundry, and women might work in one one day and in another the next, and it would be absolutely impossible to keep the nominal check upon the extension of the hours of work. By shifting employees from one department to another each day, the regulations as to the hours of work might be evaded. The safeguards against this were altogether inadequate. He was engaged last year after the Laundries Bill went through in drafting a leaflet which was to be sent among laundry workers stating what the law actually was. He had associated with him three or four lawyers and traders and men who were accustomed to the administration of the Factory Law, and in consultation they found it impossible to draft a statement which was so simple and plain that they could hand it to laundry employees, so that they might be able to protect their own interests by knowing what the law was.
1338
There was another point to which he would like to refer. He would like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the grand result of this Statutory Order would be to increase the number of hours of married women's work in factories. There was no industry in the country in which married women were employed in such large numbers as in laundries, and the latest figure showed that in London alone there were 27,204 married women employed as against 20,158 unmarried women, and women could work in London on Saturday up to nine o'clock. There was an agitation just now in regard to the sacredness of the family, and some of them were told that they had lifted their hands against the sacredness of the British family, and yet a Liberal Home Secretary came down to the House and asked it to sanction a Statutory Order which might have the effect of employing 27,204 married women on Saturday nights up to nine o'clock. It was idle to pretend that under any such system there could be proper factory inspection; it was preposterous in the extreme. They found the right hon. Gentleman the other day informing them in reply to a question he put, that he had actually granted 230 certificates under this Statutory Order already. It therefore appeared that 230 laundries had applied to be divided up in this preposterous manner, and the right hon. Gentleman had also said that three districts were not included in these figures. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to inform the House that in the case of every one of these requests personal inspection was resorted to before the certificates were issued, because it was a most extraordinary thing that the Factory Inspectors' Department could do so much work in regard to these laundries when they could leave so many thousand factories uninspected every year? And yet the Order implies that the inspectors should know from personal knowledge something about the laundry to which they were issuing their certificate. He ventured to say that these certificates which had been granted

1339
had been granted without investigation as to whether the circumstances of the laundry warranted the issue of a certificate or not. The right hon. Gentleman would remember that when his predecessor in office introduced a Factory Bill in 1900, the outstanding feature of that was what had long been known as the relay system, but this Statutory Order was a re-introduction of the relay system into the laundry. At that time the whole Labour Party and kindred organisations issued memoranda and suggested Amendments to the Conservative proposals of 1900, and all these atta ked the relay system which was re-established by the Bill, and that was why they heard no more of that measure, and yet by a Statutory Order, this abominable and objectionable relay system was being re-enacted under most unnecessary circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman would remember that in 1844 when that system existed an influential deputation of factory inspectors visited the Home Office and laid their views before it, and owing to the impossibility of inspecting under the relay system it was ultimately knocked on the head. This Statutory Order made it absolutely impossible for them to inspect accurately; it put a premium upon the illegal employment of women; it made it easier for employers illegally to extend the period beyond which women could be employed, and he hoped the House would support him in moving that it be annulled. He begged to move.
MR. JAMES PARKERformally seconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Special Order of the Secretary of State, dated the 26th day of December, 1907, allowing as regards laundries that separate departments of work may be treated as separate factories or workshops, be annulled."—(Mr. Ramsay Macdonald.)
*MR. GLADSTONEhoped that the House would not annul the Order The hon Member had attacked him as if he had been guilty of some political enormity, and he had never heard anyone attacked by an hon. Member in this House under such circumstances in a more menacing aspect or greater strength of language and with a weaker case. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that an Order of this sort did require careful consideration, as it made exceptions under a particular clause in the Factory Act in regard to inspection, and he thought Parliament was entitled to understand why the exception had been made. The hon. Gentleman rose at that very late hour as if he had got the whole of the country at his back in condemning the Order, but he would tell the House what actually occurred in regard to it. As a matter of fact, this Order was published in the Gazette and had laid on the Table for the statutory time of forty days. It was sent to trade union headquarters according to the usual custom of the Home Office, so that the trade unions were fully apprised of its contents. The hon. Member himself knew about it, at all events he could have had information about it, and, as a matter of fact, only one communication against the Order reached the Home Office. That was from the Chairman of the Women's Trade Union, and it was dated 10th December. In reply to that letter, which raised perfectly legitimate points of criticism, he sent an answer which apparently was perfectly satisfactory, because no rejoinder was received, and he heard nothing more of opposition to the Order until he saw the hon. Member's notice on the Paper. Then the hon. Member came down and for a quarter of an hour spoke of him in a tone as if he had committed every crime under the sun. The laundry work of the country was carried out under conditions which the House would recognise as exceptional, so exceptional that Acts of Parliament had

1341
provided for special treatment. The laundry never worked to stock at all, and the work of each week had to be done in each week. It was received and sent out in each week. There were different processes as they all knew in connection with the work, one following another, and one process could not be commenced until the other was completed. It had to be done under great pressure from day to day, as hon. Members knew from the ordinary incidents of their own private lives. The washing had to go out at a certain time and come back at a certain time, and the work had to be done at high pressure. The result was that there was a fair demand for consideration in respect of the Rules which governed this matter, and it was quite reasonable to allow different periods of employment to be fixed for different departments of the work. He understood that the hon. Member made one or two objections, but first of all he brought against him the reports of two lady inspectors with regard to laundry work. But what did they refer to? They referred to the state of things which had existed under Section 103 of the Act of 1901 which was repealed by the Factory Act of last year and which undoubtedly did cause difficulty in the work of inspection.
MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong.
*MR. GLADSTONE: I have the Act of 1907 here, and it says that Section 103 is hereby repealed.
MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I was referring to the quotations I made from Miss Sadler and the other lady, in which no reference is made to that section.
*MR. GLADSTONE: That is for the very good reason that the Act of last year had not been passed.
MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: It was not repealed then.
*MR. GLADSTONE: No, but the hon. Member quotes the state of things obtaining under a section which has been repealed. I have to deal with the conditions of things as they are now, and will be in the future. He agreed that great care had to be taken that no opportunity was given for the illegal extension of hours, but it was not true that inspectors would not know how many hours a particular woman was working, or that the provisions of the Act would be rendered nugatory. That was not so at all. All the newer laundries were constructed so that all the different processes could be carried out in one room. This arrangement was more convenient and far healthier, for the women employed. The Orders under the Act had hitherto provided that there must be structural separation, and it was objected that there was no such provision in this case. Care had however been taken to keep the premises in which the different processes were carried on so distinct that the inspectors could easily find out how long a particular woman or girl had been at work at a particular process. The new Order provided that each class of work was to be limited to one department; each department must be under separate and distinct management, and there must be somebody who was responsible for each department. Every such department must be carried on by separate and distinct persons so that no person might be employed first in one department and then in another. Further, and this was a most important point, the Order provided that there should be affixed to the walls a complete list of the persons employed in each department. These were the conditions so that the inspectors could come in and see how long a particular woman had been employed, and if the work was

1343
going on out of hours. If there was wrong employment they could run any case to ground. He had taken very great care when this Order was under consideration, and had consulted the factory inspectors, and talked it over with them in every detail, and he said now what he said before that the Chief Inspector of Factories did not think there was any danger in regard to it. If that was so, he maintained that having regard to the general convenience of those employed as well as those who employed them, this Order was perfectly justified on its merits. He had nothing more to add at the present moment except this. The hon. Member asked if all these individual cases had been investigated. He could not say definitely, but he had no doubt that all the laundries which had received certificates had been inspected and reported upon. He had no doubt about it in his own mind. If there was anything unsatisfactory in the working of the Order, it would be open to the Home Office to revoke the certificate. The possibility of the revoking of the certificate was, he thought, almost a sufficient guarantee that the provisions of the Order would not be abused. He could only repeat that they had given effect to the Act of Parliament and no one had hitherto taken any exception. Those well qualified persons to whom he had alluded were perfectly satisfied with his answer.
MR. H. J. TENNANT: No.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he did not know what his hon. friend meant. If they were not satisfied, perhaps he would explain why no further action was taken. He thought when questions were put to him and a perfectly definite answer was given, if nothing further was said for two or three months they might assume that people were satisfied, and that there was nothing that required
1344
further answer. He put it to the House at any rate that he was cleared in the matter. He had endeavoured to invite attention and criticism; attention and criticism had been given, and there was no further opposition until the hon. Member rose that night. Under these circumstances, he asked the House to support him in refusing to accept this Motion.
MR. H. J. TENNANTsaid the reason he ventured to interpose was that the Women Trades Union League was not satisfied with the answer of the Home Secretary. This was a matter on which he and his right hon. friend Sir Charles Dilke and other Members had been agitating for the last ten or twelve years, and they were perfectly tired of trying to get the Government Department to take up the case. All these Orders issued under the sanction of Parliament were making inspection more and more difficult every day.
MR. GLADSTONE: This is the first Order I have made.
MR. H. J. TENNANTsaid that this was an Order making each separate department of a factory a separate factory. Once they acknowledged that it was advisable to make separate Orders for different departments of one factory they made factory inspection extremely difficult—it would require almost a territorial army of inspectors to enforce the law. That was really what he rose to say. The difficulty of inspection at the present moment was enormous, and instead of the right hon. Gentleman making the task more simple he was making it more difficult. Anyone who listened to the enumeration of the various departments read out to-day would see how impossible it would be to enforce the regulations embodied in the Order. The Home Secretary had said that the Member for Leicester had accused him

1345
of having committed every political enormity.
*MR. GLADSTONE: I did not say that.
MR. H. J. TENNANT: Well, he addressed him as if he had accused him of committing every political enormity. He did not think any one would accuse the
right hon. Gentleman of having committed any political enormity except the passing of the Laundry Act of last year, which was a very bad Act and had resulted in this particular Order being issued.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 26; Noes, 175. (Division List No. 50.)

AYES.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Remnant, James Farquharson

Barnes, G. N.

Grayson, Albert Victor

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

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Richardson, A.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hills, J. W.

Summerbell, T.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hudson, Walter

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Jowett, F. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Ramsay Macdonald and Mr. Parker.

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Morpeth, Viscount

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

O'Grady, J.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Crossley, William J.

Hill, Sir Clement

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cullinan, J.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Dalziel, James Henry

Holland, Sir William Henry

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Holt, Richard Durning

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Horniman, Emslie John

Armitage, R.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Armstrong, W. G Heaton

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hyde, Clarendon

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Jardine, Sir J.

Barker, John

Dobson, Thomas W.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Duckworth, James

Kekewich, Sir George

Beauchamp, E.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Kilbride, Denis

Bennett, E. N.

Elibank, Master of

Laidlaw, Robert

Berridge, T. H. D.

Essex, R. W.

Lambert, George

Black, Arthur W.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lamont, Norman

Boland, John

Findlay, Alexander

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Forster, Henry William

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Branch, James

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Levy, Sir Maurice

Brigg, John

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.

Lewis, John Herbert

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Glendinning, R. G.

Lupton, Arnold

Bryce, J. Annan

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Maclean, Donald

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Guiland, John W.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Haddock, George B.

M'Callum, John M.

Byles, William Pollard

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

M'Micking, Major G.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Maddison, Frederick

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Markham, Arthur asil

Clough, William

Hart-Davies, T.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

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

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Marnham, F. J.

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

Hayden, John Patrick

Micklem, Nathaniel

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hazleton, Richard

Middlebrook, William

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Healy, Timothy Michael

Mond, A.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hedges, A. Paget

Montagu, E. S.

Cowan, W. H.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Cox, Harold

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

Morse, L. L.

Crosfield, A. H.

Higham, John Sharp

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Murray, James

Rendall, Athelstan

Tomkinson, James

Myer, Horatio

Ridsdale, E. A.

Toulmin, George

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Verney, F. W.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wadsworth, J.

Nield, Herbert

Robinson, S.

Waring, Walter

Nolan, Joseph

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Roe, Sir Thomas

Waterlow, D. S.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Runciman, Walter

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Partington, Oswald

Russell, T. W.

Whitehead, Rowland

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wiles, Thomas

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Williamson, A.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

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

Soares, Ernest J.

Winfrey, R.

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

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Radford, G. H.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Rees, J. D.

Thomasson, Franklin

DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Objection having been taken,
MR. PIKE PEASEappealed to hon. Members not to press the objection. There was a very strong feeling in the country in favour of the Bill.
MR. HOLT: I think it is a most objectionable Bill, and I certainly cannot withdraw.
Second Reading deferred until 25th March.

PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) [EXPENSES] BILL.
On the Motion to go into Committee.
MR. CLAUDE HAYpresumed the Motion related to a Bill before the House that afternoon. If that were so, he strongly objected to its being taken that night for the simple reason that when the measure was before the House the Govern-
1348
ment refused to give any information as to the amount of money involved or the number of persons to be employed—in fact they treated the House with contempt. They knew by experience that it was a farce to suppose Parliament would have any control over expenditure of this class.
MR. WHITELEY: This is not the Committee; it is only setting up the Committee. I ask for the ruling of the Speaker.
MR. CLAUDE HAY: I object.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I cannot say that the hon. Member has not the right to object.
Question deferred.
And, it being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at ten minutes before Twelve o'clock.