MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.

HC Deb 23 February 1911 vol 21 cc2159-202

And, it being a quarter past Eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10,

Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES

moved, "That this House do now adjourn."

I wish at the outset to say that I make this Motion in no spirit of hostile criticism towards the right hon. Gentleman (the Home Secretary). I fully recognise that whatever criticism has been directed against him, has been directed because he has endeavoured to discharge in the highest spirit of humanity the duties of his very difficult office. Neither do I approach the conduct of the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend, with any like spirit. I have read with the greatest care the report which he has made to the House after long and careful investigation, and I willingly bear testimony to the zeal, care, and impartiality which he displayed in the discharge of a very difficult task. What I do allege, and the reason for my making this Motion is, that there is in the public mind a feeling of very great uneasiness as to the manner in which the Heswall Reformatory School has been administered. And I think that it will be satisfactory not merely to the House, but to the public at large, that we should have from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State and also from the Under Secretary, a little further exposition of their motives in the decision which the Home Office arrived at than what we gather from the Report. It is perfectly true that the Home Office has no immediate and direct power over reformatory schools, but under the Act of 1866, which is the governing statute for reformatory schools, there is the power vested in the Home Office which operates just as effectively as power of dismissal, discharge, or suspension over any officers of reformatory institutions. The case which I wish to present to-night is that in my humble judgment, and I say this with the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary, has failed to fully appreciate the gravity of the charges which were levelled against the superintendent of that institution. I shall tell a very plain unvarnished narrative to the House, and I may at once state that the observations which I have to make will be based entirely upon the Report and the facts contained in that Report which are accepted as true by the hon. Gentleman. I need hardly say that from divers other quarters information has been available and placed at my service, and which involved much controversial matter. I shall not touch that material. I shall merely confine myself to the findings of the right hon. Gentleman, and upon those findings I shall venture to express the opinion that a certain course ought to have been pursued that has not been pursued, and I shall hope to receive from the right hon. Gentleman a statement which will resolve, which I have no doubt that statement will resolve, a feeling of uneasiness in the country among the people of the same character which I unfortunately entertain with regard to those proceedings.

Heswall Reformatory School is a voluntary school, and is one of four schools which are under the control of the Liver- pool Reformatory Association. It is as I have already said, subject to the surveillance of the Home Office, and its officers by the indirect process which I have indicated are removable by the War Office. The school is an admirably equipped school, so far as the building is concerned and so far as the sanitary arrangements It is a building constructed at great cost, and the general routine of the school, as provided for by its regulations, is, as far as I can tell, an admirable routine. There fore, no exception can be taken to the in stitution, and my criticism is altogether levelled against the responsible chief officer of that institution. Early in 1910 various complaints were made of improper conduct in the treatment of the boys of this school by the chief officer of the school, whose name, I think, is Mr. Beuttler. At once let me concede that the task of managing a number of boys, all of whom have been convicted of some criminal offence, is a task of great magnitude and great difficulty, and undoubtedly requires that measures of a very strong character are necessary for maintaining the school in a state of efficiency. Of course, one cannot weigh in golden scales the conduct of officers of the school in their treatment of the boys. In consequence of the complaints which were made to the Home Office, and which were published in many of the newspapers, my knowledge of the matter was in its inception confined to a statement in "The Times" newspaper, which purported to be a short précis of the report of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary. I was so struck with the statements that I hope the House will give me credit that, actuated by motives of humanity, I found it my duty to raise this matter in the House. That view was strongly confirmed upon reading the reports, which is, as I have said, the very careful and painstaking report of the hon. Gentleman, and which a few days ago was placed at the disposal of Members of the House.

Complaints were made early in 1910, and in July there was a preliminary investigation when a gentleman was sent down from the Home Office. I may say that very much to the right hon. Gentleman's credit he was not satisfied with the report which had been made, and he directed a further and fuller investigation to be entered upon, and he requested my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to go down himself and conduct that enquiry. He was accompanied in that investigation by two permanent officials of the Home Office and by the medical officer of one of our largest prisons, Wormwood Scrubbs. Whatever charges or complaints I have to-make are founded upon the findings of the hon. Gentleman. The discipline of the school, as indeed of all reformatory schools, is provided for by rules which receive the sanction of the Home Office. These disciplinary rules provide for limitation of food as one form of punishment, for confinement in cells as another, for birchings in the case of serious offences, and for canings in the case of less serious offences. The number of birchings is limited to eighteen strokes, and the number of canings to eight strokes. In the matter of canings, I might draw attention to what I conceive to be a grave abuse of the power vested by the Home Office rules. The medical officer of Wormwood Scrubbs, in a perfectly impartial report, states that the cane was much too heavy, that the cane which had been in use in the school for some time had been shown to him, that it had been split at the end, and was bound up by whipcord, which, he adds, made it a great deal more unsuitable for the use to which it was applied. About caning I have very little to say. Many Members here have their own school recollections of what canings were.

The doctor from Wormwood Scrubbs examined the bodies of some eighty-eight boys who had been caned during the previous twelve months, and he found that on no less than twenty-seven the canings had left injuries of a permanent character, that is to say, scars, which showed that the canings had been altogether unreasonable and excessive. It was also proved in evidence that Mr. Beuttler, in whose presence or by whom these canings were-inflicted, had on several occasions caused the cries of the boys to be stifled by covering their mouths with blankets. I do not want to press the question of canings too-hard, but I put it to hon. Members, whether they were educated at public elementary schools or at what are known as the public schools of the country, that for permanent wounds to be left on no less than 33 per cent. of the boys who had been-caned is a thing which in itself is monstrous, outrageous, and unjust. That alone, to my mind, should have caused my hon. Friend to hesitate as to whether it was desirable to leave the official responsible for those canings in charge of the boys. Mention was made of these canings-in the report for the year 1910. I attach no importance to that, except that it was in the beginning of the year 1910 that public attention and the attention of the Home Office was directed to the abuses existing in this school. I think I am right in saying that in April, 1910, or about that "time, the first letter was directed to the Home Office, and before then the matter had been discussed in the public Press. The canings which had been 160 in 1909—an enormous percentage—fell in the year 1910 to 72. I will not make any comment of my own; I will leave the facts to the judgment of the House to speak for themselves.

To my mind, by far the most serious charge in relation to the conduct of this superintendent is that which I am about to mention. Apparently there had been very great difficulties in maintaining adequate discipline in the school. There had been what are called defaults. We do not know the exact nature of the offences, some were trivial, others, doubtless, were serious. These defaults had obviously been confined to a comparatively small percentage of the whole school. At any rate, they did not cover the whole school. What was the punishment inflicted? I am bound to say it was shocking. In these reformatory schools many of the inmates are boys who, from heredity and very often from environment, are weak and sickly, of very little stamina, and—I have examined the dietary—fed barely sufficiently to maintain them in a healthy state. These boys, irrespective of age and physical condition, for an offence which was committed by some—it may have been a grievous offence; I say nothing on that—were, by the direction of the superintendent and under his immediate supervision, made to stand up, each boy by the side of the hammock in which he ought properly to have been sleeping, from ten o'clock at night until five o'clock the following morning, alternately for fifteen minutes at attention and for fifteen minutes at ease. These poor little wretches, for whose unhappy lot I am sure the House is moved with the deepest sympathy, were compelled to submit to this terrible ordeal, and on the following morning were sent off to perform their ordinary work. If I allowed myself to give way to my own feelings of indignation, I should use very strong language with regard to that treatment. All I say is that whatever from any other point of view might be urged in favour of the superintendent of the school, that one action alone would be sufficient, in my judgment, to warrant his instant and ignominious dismissal. I again acknowledge that my hon. Friend did most carefully and painfully weigh this matter; but he attached too much importance to the record of the school, and to the testimony of witnesses who were no doubt of irreproachable character, but at the same time, at any rate, in one notable case, personally interested—I refer to the manager of the school. My hon. Friend attached too much importance to that testimony, which blinded him to the, to my mind, paramount duty of at once terminating the connection of that man with the school. There is another case. A boy committed an offence—I do not care what it was, we are not told—but we may assume it was a very grave offence. This superintendent receives a large salary. He is a man of experience. He has been at the school since 1907. Of course, in all public institutions or quasi-institutions it is necessary that the rules of punishment should be strictly observed. What does he do with the boy? It is like a romance. Instead of caning him or confining him to a cell as he might have done he orders that poor little wretch to be taken out on a night in November, and directs his schoolfellows to go out into the yard and throw pails of cold water over him. Fifteen pails of cold water were thrown over the boy. That is inhuman treatment. No word can be said in extenuation. I wish to make it clear that I assure my right hon. Friend that I believe he is actuated by the best intentions, but I say that that case, standing by itself, is one which should have led to the immediate and peremptory dismissal of the superintendent. That really covers the case. I have not gone into debatable points, and those questions which involve controversy. But there is one other extremely pathetic incident which has impressed me, and I am sure it will impress everybody in this House when I recite it. Among the boys of that school there was a lad named Brooks. I am not in a position to say whether the mortality at the school, compared with the mortality at other reformatory schools, was high or low. But I want to point out to the House what a terrible risk there is in the way of sacrificing human life unless greater care is taken by those responsible than was taken in the case of this boy Brooks. Let the facts speak for themselves. They will speak far more eloquently than I could do by adding epithets. On 23rd February, 1909, the boy was ill. The doctor of the school, whom the Under-Secretary tells us receives a very moderate salary—though that cannot be urged in extenuation—was sent for. He saw the boy, and found that there was something wrong with his lungs. But in some unaccountable way he came to the conclusion that the boy was well enough to go about his work. He did not order him into the hospital. He did not order him to rest, but he sent him about his duties. On 24th February the superintendent of that school ordered that boy to be caned. Fortunately, a gentleman who has been somewhat conspicuous in bringing this matter before the country intervened and saved the boy that caning. On the morning that he was to be caned, that boy was dying. At four o'clock on the afternoon of that day he was dead. I do not want to exaggerate that, but I am profoundly impressed with the conviction that it is not the only case—I am not going to deal with others—of death rapidly supervening in the school. What I do say is this, that if so little care and attention can be given to a sick boy, that such a result as this is possible within a period something longer than twenty-four hours from the time he was examined by the doctor, there must be something radically wrong with the management and discipline of that school, and for that wrong the superintendent of the school must be held responsible. That does not by any means exhaust all the details. There is evidence that rope ends were used by another official of the school to the boys; that the boys were "clipped" on the ears by that official—who still remains there; and that he used coarse and brutal language to the boys. There are many other unsavoury details with which I need not trouble the House. I only invite my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make some explanation. I repeat that in no spirit of hostile criticism, certainly not of animosity do I raise against my right hon. Friend this Motion! It is in sheer and sole solicitude for the boys and in order to secure that these things should be impossible for the future. For my part, I cannot help thinking that it would have been more satisfactory to the public at large, whatever testimony might have been given as to the general fitness of this superintendent in other directions, that the man who had been guilty of these acts of brutality which I have described to the House should have been relieved of his duties. That is all I have got to say. I hope I have avoided the use of any acri- mony and have stated the case fairly. I assure my right hon. Friend that I look forward with confidence to an assurance from him which will make it unnecessary to prolong what must be a painful debate, and which will at the same time afford full security against a recurrence of a grievance of this kind. For mark, in the case of these poor helpless children such occurences ought to be most carefully guarded against by those who are placed in authority over them. If they fail in their duty they ought to be visited with just retribution by those Members of the Government who are responsible for the conduct of these institutions.

Mr. RADFORD

I beg to second the Motion. In doing so, I disclaim most heartily any animosity towards my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. For him and for all his works I have the greatest admiration. I have, I may add, the same kind of admiration for my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary—for his humanity and brilliant qualities. It is unnecessary for me to say more than a few words, because the ground has been so well covered by the hon. Gentleman who has preceded me. He has confined his attention to those points in the Report which have been confirmed by the Under-Secretary as facts, and corroborated by Dr. Paton, the medical officer. The Report is largely taken up with reputed newspaper stories and exaggerations, but when these fictions and stories of journalists have been disposed of there remains a residuum of fact to which I think this House ought to give serious attention. I am not sure that we are quite certain from this Report that we know the worst. I observe that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary at the Home Office says in the course of the Report that he had no power to examine witnesses on oath, but he adds, the evidence was fortunately not conflicting, except in some subordinate details. I hope that is so; but, assuming that it is so, we are still confronted with improper punishments, cases of unnecessary violence, acts of carelessness, to put no worse name on them, on the part of the Superintendent of the school, and I cannot but think my hon. Friend shows some indication of uneasiness in the course of the Report itself. I will only give one extract from the passage in which it refers to the conduct of the superintendent. My hon. Friend in that passage is speaking of keeping the whole school standing on a night from ten o'clock until five the next morning, and he says he might have added similar instances of it, not in the case of the whole school, but that sections of the school were subjected to the same punishment. My hon. Friend (Mr. Atherley-Jones) referred to the extraordinary and brutal episode of a boy, for I know not what offence, having been deluged with fifteen buckets of water, and the Under-Secretary, in his Report, says: If punishments either of standing boys all night or of throwing water over boys had been in habitual usage, I should certainly have recommended the dismissal of the present superintendent. I ask the House to consider how frequently the superintendent has authorised or allowed to be carried on these extraordinary proceedings. I venture to think that there are many Members of this House who would think that even one isolated act of that description was sufficient to convince them that the man who indulged it was unfit to occupy such a post.

Mr. GERSHOM STEWART

As this school is in my Division of Wirral, and as the matter was brought to my notice on one occasion, I wish to say a few words on the subject. I think it would have been only fair if the hon. Member who moved the Adjournment of the House had given me some indication that he was going to take that action, because I was under an engagement to speak for a brother Member, a friend of mine in Buckinghamshire; and it was only purely by good fortune that I happened to come into the House this afternoon and learned that the hon. Gentleman opposite was moving in this matter. Otherwise my Constituency would have had good cause for complaint that I was not in the House when a question of this kind concerning them was brought before the public notice. I am not concerned in any way in defending the Home Office—they can take care of themselves—but I am concerned in endeavouring as far as possible to secure fair play for everybody and for the authorities under whose rule this school is managed—the Local Reformatory Association. This school came under my notice last summer, when the Committee approached me, having heard that charges were levelled against the school; and the reason they approached me and asked me to approach the Home Office was that the first inquiry might be held with as little delay as possible.

The position was a difficult one for the superintendent. The school had been removed from the ship, which I think had been burned by the reformatory boys in the neighbourhood of this district of Hes- wall, and naturally the school was not ready to receive the boys. No doubt they had to be kept under canvas, with a good deal of discomfort; and it resulted, I am afraid, in a very considerable amount of illness. One must admit that the superintendent of a school of this nature, with the class of boys he has to deal with, is in a very difficult position. He gets boys of sixteen and sometimes seventeen years of age, who are rather hardened in iniquity, and who are likely to corrupt other boys, and who if they get the slightest encouragement will set all order at defiance, and if they have to suffer it may be in the long run for the best. We all deplore these physical chastisements, which, according to the regulations, are allowed, but we cannot shut our eyes to the occasional need for it. I was over this school, and was much impressed with it. It struck me as a most admirable place for strong boys. I admit I do not think the regime was suitable for weakly boys, and I am glad to see that in the Under-Secretary's Report he notes that, and I am sure if the weaker boys could be handed over to more gentle treatment we should be all very grateful. One thing that struck me about the school was that the boy who had done wrong had placed at his disposal a better training than the law-abiding boy. If you eradicate the evil from such a boy he will have, when he reaches twenty-one years of age, a better training than a boy who led a good life. That is a sort of injustice which it is difficult to remedy unless we can obtain some better mode of training for all boys than we have at present. The regulation on page 5 of the Report in regard to corporal punishment is about the same as I myself and other Members of this House had to undergo when we were boys at school. It is distinctly unpleasant, but it is not entirely without some good. The case of punishments outside the regulations referred to on page 9 seemed to me to be the crux of the whole matter. The night punishment was undoubtedly a severe one, but when you bear in mind that the school was getting out of hand, and that the superintendent in his Report says he was absolutely tired of repeated flogging, and when you remember that the officers stood by with the boys, and that it was a summer night in July, perhaps the hardship was not so great as when stated without mentioning these facts. I have no doubt that the superintendent being a sailor looked back to some days in his recollection when the mutineers had to stand by their guns when the drum beat to quarters. I do not defend the thing at all, but we may be running away with exaggerated notions of hardship which in the real circumstances were not so great as they seem. I have nothing to do with that. I do not know what the penalties are for offences outside the regulations, but the Committee have considered this matter fully; they have exonerated their superintendent and their action has been backed up by the Home Secretary. There is no doubt a mistake was made by the superintendent, and it is a question whether punishment should be in the form of retribution, and perhaps that would be a useful lesson to him. It is possible if you carry this Motion, you may have the whole Committee, whose action will be condemned, resigning in a body, the superintendent dismissed, and the boys will be probably left in a position less favourable than they are at the present moment. The hon. Member rather over-stated Dr. Paton's Report. He said Dr. Paton stated that caning was unsatisfactory, but he does not say that he inflicted a much severer punishment than was intended. If there be severity on the one hand, no doubt the charges have been very much exaggerated on the other. Mr. Adam, who brought these charges in his letter, says he considers the rule could not possibly be improved. After reading the Report most carefully myself, I have concluded that the Committee faced openly a very disagreeable question, and their Report has let in the light of the day. There is nothing hidden about it. I think after the matter has been discussed in the way it has been to-day, substantial justice will be met if the Motion is withdrawn.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. PICKERSGILL

I desire to call attention to one aspect of this question which has not yet been mentioned, and it is that the Home Office was involved in these complaints. During the whole of the time whilst these occurrences was happening, the school was visited by Home Office Inspectors, and all the punishments were entered in the punishment book, which was signed by those inspectors. The case does not rest there. The complaints included a direct and very unpleasant reflection upon Mr. Robertson, the Chief Inspector of Reformatories. That being so, I think it is very much to be regretted that the Home Secretary associated Mr. Blackwell with this inquiry. He is a distinguished public servant and a high official at the Home Office, but he is also a member of the Bar, and I am informed that in this inquiry Mr. Blackwell did, in fact, act as counsel for the superintendent of the school. I have no objection to the superintendent of the school having counsel, but if he has counsel then there ought to have been counsel for Mr. and Mrs. Adam to watch their interest and the interests of the boys, and to watch over the paramount interest of the public. The Home Office is rather accustomed to act in this way. Recently, a case arose at the London Sessions, in which a complaint was made that the police had been acting as agent provocateur. The Chairman of the London Sessions was so impressed with the case that he requested that an inquiry should be made. Inquiries were made, conducted by a police inspector. One of the most serious charges which can possibly be brought against the police is advanced, and yet a police inspector is brought in to make the inquiry. With regard to the report, I have read many such reports, and I have often taken a part in discussing them in this House, but I do not think I am doing any injustice to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Ham, when I say that I do not remember a report in the whole of my experience which better deserved to be described as a white-washing report. There is one sentence to which I should desire especially to call the attention of the Home Secretary. It says: If the punishment cither of standing boys all night or of throwing water over boys had been in habitual usage, I should have recommended the dismissal of the present superintendent. Having regard to similar cases in the past, I respectfully submit that the hon. Gentleman misconceived what his duty was. In all previous inquiries the duty of the gentleman who makes the inquiry is to find the facts, and not to make any recommendation as to what is to be done to the person against whom the complaint is made. Really, my hon. Friend has placed the Home Secretary in a position of considerable embarrassment, because now the right hon. Gentleman's hands are somewhat tied because his judgment has been anticipated, and if now he should dismiss the superintendent he is placed in the embarrassing and painful position of throwing over his subordinate.

Mr. CHURCHILL

My hon. Friend forgets that I had an opportunity of reading the report of my hon. Friend before it was published, and I accept the fullest responsibility for everything in it.

Mr. PICKERSGILL

Upon previous occasions the gentleman who has made such an inquiry has never thought it his duty to recommend what should be done to the person against whom the complaint is made. He should only find the facts, and leave it to his chief to deal with the matter. My hon. Friend has stated the case with such admirable lucidity and brevity that I will not discuss the matter further. He has rightly placed his finger upon the two facts—namely, ordering these boys to stand for seven hours, and allowing a boy to be drenched with fifteen buckets of water by his fellow-pupils. He says those are the only two cases. I think there are some cases of such a nature that if they occur only once they show that the person who allows them is absolutely disqualified from occupying the position of superintendent of a reformatory school. We know what enormous power, within certain limits absolutely arbitrary power, a person in that position possesses, and I think when a man has been proved guilty of such acts as these he ought not to have the opportunity of repeating them. There are in this Report many cases in connection with the proceedings in the school for which the superintendent was not directly and immediately responsible. There is, for instance, the very painful case of the boy Brown, and there is also the habitual conduct of the officer under the superintendent. My hon. Friend, in defending the case of the superintendent, was strong in giving him credit for what was good in the school, and quite rightly; but then for the same reason we ought to put down to his discredit these incidents which seem to indicate that, although the school was in some respect well conducted, it was also very loosely and badly conducted in others. For these reasons I venture respectfully to think the Home Secretary would be well advised, and would be carrying out and acting in accordance with the general opinion of this House, if he took the necessary steps to secure the dismissal of the superintendent of this school.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

I think no one can read through this Report that has been made in such a painstaking manner by the Under-Secretary (Mr. Masterman) without seeing that he has not only devoted a very large amount of time to the case, but has also studied out a number of very serious questions that are evidently involved. Those of us who are practically acquainted in many districts of this country with institutions of this kind—whether we are on committees, or are visitors, or governors—know the great difficulties there are in dealing with institutions of this particular description, and I do not suppose the difficulties of any approach the difficulties in this particular case. When we consider the class of boys who are sent up after some criminal offence to a school of this description, where there are a large number of other boys, and the habits which he probably takes with him into that school, and when we consider the necessity of preventing the other boys being further contaminated, not only in the interests of the other boys but also in the interests of the boy himself, we must realise the necessity for something in the nature of extreme discipline. All these things joined together show the gravity of the position and make us sympathise—we are bound to sympathise—with the committee of the institution in their serious task, and also with anyone entrusted for the time being with the management as superintendent.

Admitting all that, I am bound to say there are things in this report which no-one could possibly justify. The fact that out of some eighty boys punished with birching of the cane twenty-seven have been admittedly found to bear permanent marks, marks which they will bear as long as they live, shows that, as a rule, the corporal punishment administered in the school was excessive and inhuman. I do not think anybody can possibly justify punishment of that description. It does not matter what the offence was. I think we are all agreed that no possible circumstance whatever could justify having inflicted general punishment upon boys that were innocent as well as upon those that were guilty, upon those that were weak as well as upon those that were in good health, and having made them all stand up from ten at night to five in the morning, sometimes with their heels together at attention, and sometimes for a quarter of an hour with one foot out a little bit, which is supposed to be at ease. When you read this report, it is a very sad thing to look at the deaths of some of these boys. The Mover of this resolution has been, I think, exceedingly and carefully fair in the way in which he moved it. He did not bring to the attention of the House a single item upon which there is any dispute or difference of opinion.

When we look at the deaths that have happened, we see that every one of them have been sudden deaths. In the majority of cases the boys were only ill a day. I was very much struck, in considering the report, with the question of these deaths. There is the death of the boy Brooks, who died on 24th February, 1909. He was examined by the doctor on the previous day. The doctor did not find that there was anything the matter with him, apparently dismissed him to his ordinary avocations in the school, and the boy died the following day. The doctor, as I understand it, did not see him in the meantime, and yet, in some astounding way, he is able to give a perfectly satisfactory certificate as to the cause of death. I do not understand that. I confess it strikes me as being a very difficult and awkward thing to attempt to justify the giving of the certificate under those circumstances. There is the case of the boy, Mills, who died 21st April, 1909. He was a boy who never ought to have been sent to the school at all, because of his physical condition. He entered the school with a slight skin disease; a couple of months afterwards he collapsed from debility and heart weakness, and he was kept in bed, and then he died. He is about the only boy on this list of deaths who had never received any punishment. The reason seems to have been that he only lived for about three or four months after he got into the school. Yeadon died 15th December, 1909. Here again you have the case of a weakly boy—probably a boy of degenerate type, utterly unfit for sea-life or ordinary industrial training. Why did that boy die at school? The reason is given in the Under-Secretary's report. The Home Office authorities were in correspondence at the time about moving him to some other institution. I do not know how long that correspondence had been going on, but, at all events when the attention of the Home Office was called to the matter, the correspondence was allowed to go on sufficiently long to permit the boy to die, and thus the case became disposed of in a way which relieved the Home Office of the need for further intereference.

There is the case of the boy, Brown. Brown, poor little fellow, saw his comrades going off for an excursion. He asked for permission to go with them on the very day he died. There cannot have been very much the matter with him—at all events, in his own estimation—when he asked to be allowed to go with his comrades on an excursion. It was refused. Something happened to the poor lad, and the officer left in charge ordered two of his comrades to take him into some room, where they proceeded to drench him with water. In consequence of this he died in twenty minutes. I will not continue these harrowing details. I think it will be admitted by everybody that a state of affairs has been disclosed in this school—it does not matter who the Visiting Committee were, what the character of the superindent is, or whether the regulations were approved by the Home Office, I believe at this stage in the history of civilisation and the advanced state of public opinion in regard to matters of that sort—a state of affairs has been disclosed which every Member of this House will say ought to be put an end to. Representing as I do one of the Divisions of Liverpool associated with this school and in close proximity to it, and however anxious I might be to exculpate the committee from blame, I feel bound, when the attention of the House of Commons is called to a matter of this kind, to join with those who say it is time these things should be stopped. We should have been all the more satisfied if the Under-Secretary, in the conclusions of his report had so far given way to public opinion in this matter as to make somewhat more drastic recommendations.

The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman)

I do not make any complaint, certainly? should be the last to do so, because the hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham has raised this subject. So long as there is any suspicion of any cruelty or injustice being continued in connection, with any institution for which the State is responsible in any way, so long it is the duty of the House of Commons to ventilate the subject and see that any wrong is redressed. I should like to thank the hon. and learned Member for the moderate tone he adopted in his criticism, and for the kindly references he made to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself, and I should also desire to thank hon. Members who have spoken, and who have been kind enough to realise that the report I compiled was an honest report, and' that the verdict I gave was animated by a sense of justice. The hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. Rutherford) commented on the desirability of satisfying public opinion. I do not undervalue public opinion, but the object of my report was to give a true account to my right hon. Friend, and through him to the House of Commons, and if possible to do justice first to the boys and then to the management. I think the House should be clear as to what the position of the Home Office is with regard to this particular type of schools. They are private schools, privately owned and privately managed by groups of philanthropic persons, who not only make no profit out of them, but contribute largely when any deficit is created. Unless they receive the certificate of the Secretary of State cases which may be sent to them by the magistrates cannot be sent, and the Secretary of State at six months' notice may withdraw his certificate. On the other hand, the Secretary of State has no concern, and the Home Office has no concern, in the administration of the schools, and he cannot technically demand the dismissal of any official in a school. If he thinks the school is carried on under conditions which are harmful to the boys or to the public he can withdraw his certificate, and the directors might in that case, of course, close the school altogether. He could stop boys being sent to it by magistrates, but he could not stop boys being sent otherwise. I want the House to be quite clear as to the possibility of the direct dismissal of the superintendent by the Secretary of State.

A statement has been made to-night, founded on the Report of this Committee, and I would ask anyone in judging my conduct in making that Report to remember that they should not be convinced by certain statements selected from a great mass of evidence, but that they should read the report as a whole. If they do that they will find that certain things are definitely censured, and that there are certain other things as to which there is a conflict of evidence. Here I would like to repudiate the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) that I took anyone down to help me in sifting the evidence who was counsel on the side of the superintendent. If the hon. Gentleman had been present when the superintendent was under cross-examination he would have been under no such delusion on that score. The first charge is in connection with corporal punishment. I dislike corporal punishment in public schools, and I dislike it still more in reformatory and industrial schools, and I have said I would almost be prepared to judge of the efficiency of the superintendent of one of the latter class of schools by the degree or number of cases of corporal punishment. I find that in regard to this matter the present superintendent has made a remarkable change, a change brought about not from the time when public attention was called to these specific charges. In the year 1907—in the last six months of that year, which was before the school was under its present management, the number of corporal punishments administered was 119, whereas in the last six months of 1909 the number fell to fifty-six, and six months later it came down to thirty-five. That is a very considerable diminution, and it seems to redeem the superintendent from the charge of having some unnatural delight in the administration of corporal punishment for the boys. The difficulties of the situation were pointed out to me when I came to consider the thirty-five cases of punishment. Seven of the thirty-five, which I think was the number administered in the first six months of the year, were administered upon boys in consequence of a most disastrous revelation of organised immorality in which a large number of small boys were involved, and which was a corrupting influence to the whole school. Under the ordinary method such corruption, if it ever occurs, is removed from a public school, but that is altogether impossible here. Such things occur in a public school, and certain boys vanish, and are heard of no more, but in a school like that of Heswall, a boy cannot be expelled, and in consequence the manager in all these cases has to consider the very difficult question how far he has to temper the punishment which he gives in order to eliminate not merely the crime which is committed by the individual boy, but crimes which run, like a corrupting fever, throughout the whole school. I only explain that as an example which has to be kept in mind by hon. Members when they consider these matters. As to the punishments inflicted, I went very carefully into the condition of the punishment book, and carefully examined all the boys to find if any punishments had been administered which were not entered, and I found that there were not any such punishments, nor was it alleged. The punishments were legal, except one, which I found had occured a good many times in other institutions, under a similar idea, and that is the substitution of the cane for the birch under the idea that it is a more humane kind of punishment. When I was Secretary of the Local Government Board I had to reply to similar allegations made about schools under that Department. Certainly it was given under the idea that it was a less severe sentence, and that it was a humane change, and not a brutal or cruel one. In the particular cases but for which my hon. Friend says he would not have brought forward his rather strong indictment tonight, he is concerned with two instances of punishment outside the regulations, and, as anyone who has read my report will acknowledge, I have to offer no kind of justification for those punishments. The first was a comparatively trivial matter, not entirely accurately described by the hon. Member—a trivial matter in itself, although very serious if it had been an habitual occurrence. The boys were playing in the yard, and a boy was reported for filthy language. The superintendent told the other boys to throw water over him, and they did so until they were told to stop. The boy was then sent to dry himself. I am not defending this; I severely censured the superintendent. I saw the boy myself, and he had received no harm, and this was a year and a half ago.

Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES

That is a year before the investigation.

Mr. MASTERMAN

There was no opportunity of any investigation before, and the superintendent himself acknowledged the extreme folly of it, and regretted it. He had never done it before, and he has never done it since, and the gentleman who was leading the case for the prosecution said that it had not been done before or since. But I agree that it was a reprehensible thing, deserving of censure, though, as I say, it may not have been more cruel to the boy himself than if he had been summarily summoned the next morning and given sixteen or eighteen strokes with the birch. The second instance was that which has been mentioned again and again, where the school was kept standing one summer night till five o'clock in the morning as a disciplinary measure under circumstances which were described to me as of great difficulty. And here once more I do not want to offer a justification. I only want in fairness to the man impeached to give his explanation. The school had been under very difficult and serious conditions in camp, where there was no kind of proper accommodation, and it had got into a serious condition. Here I may mention that the Inspector of H.M. Reformatories in the division stated that Mr. Beuttler's conduct of the school was by far the most wonderful thing that he had ever seen in a re- formatory. On this occasion there were many defaulters, until there had been 140 in a week. Mr. Beuttler said he was sick of reporting these boys for corporal punishment, and said that he had heard of some general scheme of keeping boys standing to assert authority. The boys and masters alike were submitted to this scheme, but it was never done again, and it had the effect which it was intended to have. It was reported in the log book for the management to see and criticise.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

It was not in the punishment book.

Mr. MASTERMAN

In the punishment book only punishments of individuals were chronicled, but the log book is kept as to the discipline of the school. I am not defending this. I am only doing my best to put the case before the House, and there was no defence at all. Gentlemen behind me asked me how many times did I expect this punishment should be repeated before I recommended my right hon. Friend to take action, and I think I may say that if either of these punishments had been repeated once I should have recommended him to take action; but when it came to be a question of a particular action on two isolated occasions which referred to a year and a half ago, then it became necessary for me to weigh up other considerations and other lines of evidence before I gave the verdict which was embodied in that report. What were those other lines of evidence? First of all, I found in Mr. Beuttler a man who had made the immense reduction of nearly a quarter in the corporal punishments which he found to exist in the school to begin with. That alone seemed to be one point of evidence on his side. Secondly, I found universal testimony to the immense transformation in the school under his influence and guidance. Before he came the school was in an utterly rotten condition. By all the testimony he dragged it out of the slough and redeemed its name, and at the same time brought it up to a condition now which I must confess amazed me—I spent many days there—as a possibility, considering the boys from among which the school was recruited. Thirdly, I found universal praise for the boys of the school among residents who had formerly opposed the idea of a reformatory school coming into the neighbourhood. Many of these had an opportunity of seeing the boys as they went to the village, and of talking with them, and they expressed the pleasure which they found in the improvement and the happiness of the boys; and the testimony even of those who disapproved of the conduct of the school was that whatever Mr. Beuttler had done, he had put down two evils which were the most common in these segregated masses of boys—bullying and immorality. Again, I found that the system which he had created in this school was one which has transformed, or is transforming, all the reformatory schools in this country. By installations of wireless telegraphy and the latest developments of signalling he has enabled these boys to go from that school, although sent there for a particular crime, and earn immediately 30s. or £2 a week, and have prospects before them for life. I talked to the boys themselves. I found there were complaints, but not the complaints advanced by the hon. Member. I found them happy in the school, proud of the school, not in the least anxious to be removed from the school, with more of that esprit de corps and public spirit and loyalty which exists in public schools than I ever expected to find in any institution to which boys are committed by the State for a period of years which is practically a period of imprisonment. Of many evidences I have been given of the truth of these statements I may perhaps be allowed to read one, and that was from the chaplain, who has only been there a few weeks, a University man, who is not interested in denying the truth:— When I first came the thing that struck me most was the happiness and general content of the hoys. My friends had seen things about the school, and they said to me: 'You had better keep your eyes open to see if anything is wrong.' Since I came here I wrote to various friends saying that the thing that struck me so much was the general happiness of the boys, and that there cannot be anything wrong with the conduct of the place. If hon. Members are inclined to say this after all is merely the testimony of terrorised boys who are afraid to speak, because of their fear of the superintendent, I procured a very large number of letters from old boys to the superintendent. I find there expressions of affection, respect and gratitude, pride in the school, pride in the knowledge which they obtained in the school, and thanks for the education which they had received there. I think the man who could produce such results is a man whom we should pause to some extent before dismissing from the school, who, with a very meagre salary and the no prospects which are attached to such schools, has taken up the work where it is very difficult to obtain men, and has put enthusiasm and self-sacrifice into it. I realised at the first that the question was not condonation of these irregular punishments, the question was expiation of them; the question was whether it was just to the boys in the school, whose interests I put first, that the work which had been initiated and carried on by this man should be still carried on, and whether, in the attempt to inflict punishment and penalties for what happened a good time ago I should not be doing a fundamental injustice to a man who is doing good service to the State. I acknowledge the great difficulty of the decision. I think the House will give me credit for believing that no one hates cruelty more than I do. I weighed carefully the evidence submitted to me; I made myself assured that such irregularities should never occur again; I issued, as the House will also, I believe, agree with me, apart from the criticism behind, no whitewashing report, but a plain statement of facts of the case I believe, after hearing nearly 100 witnesses, occupying many weeks in this investigation, I am right in saying that if any other Member of the House had done the same as I did, he would have come to the same conclusion, and I ask that the House may approve of my conduct.

One other point I wish to make. Certainly my investigations showed me that in spite of the large ground covered by the Committee on this subject fifteen years ago there was very considerable reason to justify a further investigation into the whole conduct of reformatory and industrial schools, whether or not the punishment inflicted against the regulations and whether the punishment permitted by the regulations is not too severe in view of modern conditions and modern ideas, whether there should not be more consistent medical examination, whether there should not be more consistent Home Office examination, for at present the Home Office is hopelessly understaffed in its inspectorate department, and whether above all some system cannot be devised which would, I believe, solve these difficulties, that is a system whereby there should be some kind of automatic separation of these boys into institutions which may be more suitable to them than reformatory schools. In this particular school where cruelty and horrors are charged considerably more than half the boys have never had any corporal punish- ment at all, and considerably more than three-quarters have only had one administration, and that a light one, of corporal punishment, and that seems to show that for the great majority as I saw them at their work and their play this is doing an exceeding amount of good in creating really the atmosphere of the best type of public schools. Locked up with these boys and with no power of getting away from them, there are a number of hoys who are obviously feeble-minded or of vacant mind, there are a large number who are not in the least degree suited for the public life of a kind of public school, and who ought to be segregated in a kind of modified Borstal prison, and there are boys of specially delicate physique who are un-suited to the bracing air round Liverpool, and might be better and more healthily committed to institutions in other parts of the country. It is in the hope especially of finding some way of relieving what must be a good deal of unknown unhappiness, and also of relieving these great institutions from those who necessarily make the discipline in them more rigorous than it might otherwise be that my right hon. Friend has been, I think, inspired in recommending, as he has already done, that as speedily as possible a strong Departmental Committee shall go into the whole question. The more the House can assist us in that matter the more public attention is called to these schools, and the more, through public attention being called to them, the work of voluntary visiting and assistance can be stimulated in the country, the better for the reform that we all have at heart.

Sir HENRY CRAIK

To defend the action of the right hon. Gentleman and his Department is no great pleasure for me. It is certainly not a part of my habitual practice, and I do not think even the right hon. Gentleman would think it the bounded duty of my party. But I am bound, knowing what I do of these schools, to disassociate myself in the most emphatic terms from the condemnation which has been passed upon their management. It is all very well to say the hon. Member (Mr. Atherley-Jones) introduced this in moderate terms. In introducing it he drew a picture which was reminiscent of Dothe-boys Hall under the management of Mr. Squeers. What are the real facts as to the origin of the whole of this long trail of gossip and lying which has arisen about this school, because I shall use no mild words in regard to it. Who is the source of the difficulty in relation to the school? A teacher who left on his own account, whose wife afterwards left, and who no later than March last declared that the school was all that could be desired, and that he parted from it with the greatest regret. But a personal quarrel arose, and the man began to find out all sorts of stories against the man who had been the chief teacher of the boys. What does he say when he is asked to point out the flagrant inconsistency between his story of March last and the information he supplied to the gossiping Press of London—that sort of Press which is represented by a paper which, I believe, bears the name of "John Bull," a paper which reproduces it according to its own scrupulous and carefully truthful method. The man tells us in his evidence that when he wrote this flattering report he thought he was doing well for all round. But at the investigation before the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) he brought forward a certain number of purely fictitious instruments of punishment which were proved not to have been used. That is so. This is the man who is the source of the information, and who is compelled to adopt those methods in order to bolster up evidence against this beneficial and carefully worked school of which we have had such a lurid picture presented by the hon. Member for Durham. This is the man who invented false instruments in order to damage the character of the school and those responsible for the management. He went further. Either he or his truthful emissary in the Press, represented that many deaths had been caused by the treatment the boys received in the school. The hon. Member for the West Derby Division (Mr. W. Rutherford) was not ashamed to renew this charge against the school, though he had not read the report. Had he read the report he would have found the refutation which was given by the witnesses who were brought forward. Referring to the charge that deaths had been caused, the report says:— I could find no attempt at justification. … Mr. Adam himself repudiated this charge, saying: 'I don't say that everything in that article in 'John Bull' is correct. That is a bit of journalism. I suppose. I have not done that; I have too much sense to put down a thing like that. As far as I know it is not true.' Yet this is the charge the hon. Member for West Derby repeats.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

I did nothing of the sort.

Sir H. CRAIK

The hon. Member adduced these charges as if they lay against the superintendent of the school, though the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Master-man) has reported that there is not a vestige of ground for them, giving detailed reasons for saying so, and showing the loose way in which they were concocted between this man and the newspaper. I do not know whether this is the sort of thing that is likely to encourage those who give time, money, trouble, thought, and anxiety in managing these schools. It is an ill-paid and thankless work that is discharged by those who are placed in the position of superintendent of the schools. It has been my lot during many years to read hundreds of reports on schools. I know the difficulty of dealing with the class of children you have to deal with there. I know the ingenuity for mischief, and the proneness to neglect which make discipline anything but easy. I know—and it has moved my admiration over and over again—how self-sacrificing, cheerful, hearty, and courageous is the work carried on by these men. I wish the House to know that I know nothing of this school myself except what I have read. I know none of the managers or members of the staff. I ask the House whether, after such stories had been invented, and such charges as have been easily and recklessly brought—the foundation for which was not for a moment examined—a man can carry on as heartily and with as much courage and goodwill as you would wish a work which to many seems almost hopeless. It is the dreariest of work you can possibly conceive. Those engaged in it have a hard task. They require trust and confidence. Two instances have been mentioned in the lurid picture which was drawn by the hon. Member. He stated that in one case fifteen buckets of water were thrown over a boy. Was he any the worse for it? He was carefully dried, I understand. In another case, it was stated that a certain number of boys, where order had been absolutely set at defiance, were kept for some hours standing on their legs. It was an unwise and imprudent method of punishment, but it is not averred that a single boy was hurt by the actual discipline inflicted in the school. The deaths which occurred took place from natural causes, in spite of all care. The hon. Member for Durham showed some animus He spoke of a boy of the name of Brooks having been ordered by the superintendent for punishment in the morning. What are the real facts? When the superintendent came down to the school Brooks apparently was under sentence. The superintendent had not been in the school when sentence was passed. It was never carried out. I am glad that the hon. Member has stood by his report. If you are constantly making investigations into a man's conduct, sooner or later you spread an evil report, and in that way you hinder his work and raise difficulties between him and the pupils, and in the long run ruin his school and drive him out of it. I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman and his superior have stood by the report and refused to sacrifice to what I believe to be an unreasonable cry a man who is eminently fitted, so far as I know, for the position he occupies. He has done good work, and he is supported by a good committee in carrying out what is one of the most irksome and responsible duties that can be laid upon any man in this country.

Mr. BYLES

I am very glad my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Atherley-Jones) has thought fit to bring this matter before the House of Commons and that the House has had the opportunity of looking into the affairs of this nautical school. I cannot take the view which the hon. Member who has just sat down has presented to us. I think there is quite enough in the Report of my hon. Friend (Mr. Masterman) below me to show that the school is not, or has not been, at all in a healthy condition, that discipline has been far too harsh, that the vigilance of the officers, in regard to health especially, has been far too lax, and I think we may congratulate ourselves that this matter has been brought to the notice of the Home Office and that the inquiry has taken place. I was extremely in sympathy with the very wise sentences which fell from my hon. Friend below me at the close of his address just now. I am very glad that the attitude of the Home Office towards these reformatories, as indeed it is towards other punitive establishments, should be so humane and so progressive and should show such a growing and strong desire to mitigate the sufferings of those whom we have to withdraw from society. I will not associate myself with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Durham and others who have spoken in demanding that Mr. Beuttler should be dismissed, or in expressing the opinion that he ought to be dismissed. I will not pretend to judge my hon. Friend who has made this inquiry. He has had much better opportunities than any of us have had of forming an opinion. I have faith in his judgment and wisdom, and certainly in his fairness in the inquiry which he has made. He may, perhaps, have been a little too generous, but for that I would forgive him more readily. But there are some small points which he has not satisfied me about in the explanation which he has given to the House. My hon. Friend beside me mentioned, I thought very properly, that the Inspector of the Home Office had been, or ought to have been, a regular visitor at this school and ought to have become acquainted with and reported the evils which obviously were going on there. No explanation of why these things were not brought to the notice of the Home Office by their own inspector has been offered. It seems to me that if the inspector had been doing his duty all the time such an inquiry as has been held would have been quite unnecessary. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) mentioned that the Home Office were represented by counsel in the examination of witnesses. The Under Secretary (Mr. Masterman) told us that that was not the fact. But Mr. Adam alleges most plainly that he was denied the opportunity of having anyone to assist him by legal advice. I have here his letter to the Home Secretary, in which he says:— This inquiry, like the previous Home Office one, was a secret inquiry. I was not allowed to have access to the school hooks which ought to have been open to the inspection of both sides. I was not allowed to examine any of my witnesses. I was not allowed counsel or any assistance; but Mr. Masterman allowed Mr. Blackwell of your legal department to badger my witnesses, passing over the main charges as rapidly as possible. 10.0 P.M.

That, I know, is only what Mr. Adam said. It is in a letter to the Secretary of State, and I think that it is applied to Mr. Blackwell. In the Report itself I notice, on page 13, that it speaks of one of those poor boys who died, the boy Severn. He had only once been caned, and that was nine months before his death, for planning to abscond. There has been a great deal in what has been said about this affair which shows that the boys are only too ready to abscond. Why do they want to abscond? Boys do not want to abscond from Rugby or Harrow. [Laughter.] I do not know exactly why that should be a cause of laughter. This is a Reformatory School. If you put boys there you ought to have the conditions of the schools such as would make them love their school and willing to stay there.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

Does the hon. Member suggest any similarity between Rugby and Harrow and a reformatory.

Mr. BYLES

I do not know what hon. Members who laugh may have been subjected to in their schools, but I do say when the State undertakes to take boys into a school and to reform them the influences around them ought to be such as would make the place attractive to them. There is one other observation which made me a little nervous. On page 18 of the hon. Member's Report he says that:— A small section of these boys are either unsuited to the life of such a school, or have got into such hopeless disfavour with the officers, as to have become sullen, depressed, and hostile to any efforts made to reform them. It is not a good thing for a schoolmaster to have favourites, and to make some boys so happy as to justify the evidence which has been read by my hon. Friend below me about the happiness they enjoy, their excursions and so forth, while another set are sullen and depressed, and out of love, and out of favour with the officers. I am very glad that an inquiry has been held; I am glad that the whole system of reformatory treatment has been brought before the House, and that the eyes, not only of the Home Office, but of the country, should be directed to the way in which they are treating these boys. The House will remember that the boys in these schools come from the very poorest classes of the community. Their environment, their heredity, and their chances in life have been such that it is almost impossible that they should display the same qualities which we look for in our boys. They ought to be treated with tenderness, with consideration, with scrupulous care, and it is because I believe that in consequence of this Motion that has been made to-night, and in consequence of this inquiry which has been held, their lot will be looked at with more favour by the general public and those who are responsible for them, that I am very glad that this Debate has occurred.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

I wish hon. Gentlemen to understand distinctly that in what I am about to say I make no personal attack on the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman who are directly concerned with this matter. I think hon. Members will certainly welcome what the Under-Secretary of State said in regard to looking into the question of reformatories. I think, however, that what we have read in this Report today gives us a great deal of room for reflection. I do not in the least wish to pose as a humaritarian. I am one who has certainly gone through the mill of school discipline, and I do not think I am any the worse for it. The real point is this: The hon. Member for Durham, when he moved the Adjournment, was naturally almost boiling over with indignation in regard to the punishments of which he had read in this Report; but the real reason of his moving the Adjournment was not so much because of the punishments as because the Home Secretary refused to give him a clear answer to the question he had put to the right hon. Gentleman. That is the real reason why the hon. and learned Gentleman moved the Adjournment to-day. It was really rather curious that a night or two ago hon. Gentlemen opposite laughted at an extremely good joke from the Home Secretary when he was speaking of the boys at Pentonville, one of whom was punished for using obscene language. The other night the right hon. Gentleman was posing as the official protector of boys who used bad language. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] Why did you laugh at it then? To-night it is apparently a case of Satan reproving sin, and he seemingly thinks that fifteen pails of water is a most excellent deterrent of bad language. In a certain sense I agree with him, but I think it is quite possible that there are other means which would be equally deterrent of bad language, and also cause the boys to respect the man giving the punishment more than probably was the case in this instance. The right hon. Gentleman tried to avoid the subject. He said it was "merely a matter for censure," which satisfied a great many of us until we had time to read the report. I think the right hon. Gentleman evidently did not wish to face a discussion, because he tried to get out of it on a quibble of order. As I have said, however, I do not wish to make any personal attack in the matter, but I think the Debate will have done good from the point of view of ventilating the whole question of reformatories in this country. If it is possible for this sort of thing to go on in schools which are under private management the sooner it is done away with and they are placed under State control the better. Certainly the treatment which has been meted out to these boys is more severe than that of the criminals in whom the right hon. Gentleman takes such great interest in the prisons of this country.

As to the report itself, I think the Under-Secretary has taken a very lenient view of the circumstances, probably rightly; at the same time, I do think that the superintendent of this school has been extremely fortunate to have a gentleman of so much self-restraint to look into the question. We find first of all on page 8 of the report that he said he could find no evidence of deliberate cruelty on the part of Mr. Beuttler, and that Mr. Adam himself had confessed that he would term him "callous" and not cruel. But it is not really a question of deliberate cruelty, it is a question of whether there has been cruelty at all, and whether the man so accused of cruelty, be it little or not, is fit to be in charge of these boys. On page 11, the question of filthy language is brought up, and it says:— On the whole, I am inclined to think that he has been roughish in his treatment of the boys. I want to ask if he thinks it simply roughish treatment——

Mr. MASTERMAN

If the Noble Lord will examine my report he will see I made a distinct recommendation in regard to the management of this school on that point.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

The Under-Secretary says in his report that he— recommends the committee should attempt to find a fresh man. Other hon. Members, no doubt, know more about the subject than I do; but, fortunately, I do not happen to have any political connection with this particular charge, and, therefore, I think I am perfectly entitled to speak my own mind on the subject. The hon. Gentleman stated that he thought the question of punishment had been rather overdone, and that there were cases where there were boys had been caned instead of being birched. I should like to put this proposition to him—I speak from experience, not departmental experience, but experience of a different kind—that it is not so much whether it is a cane or whether it is a birch which is used, as the kind of cane or the kind of birch which is employed. I maintain that it is absolutely downright cruelty to use a cane which is split at the end and tied up with string and made of too large dimensions. I should like to draw the attention of Members of the House to the description of birch used on these boys. There are birch-rods and birch-rods; but I think it is going a little bit too far when the birch rod used is of green willow twigs and hawthorn branches of the kind mentioned. The system of torture the right hon. Gentleman has recommended for use in reformatories, if that were the sort of discipline that was used in our prisons, I do not think we should have the right hon. Gentleman speaking as he does of all the reforms that are going on in prison life. I have no wish to make any personal attack on the right hon. Gentleman, but I do think he might have shown a little more sympathy in the question before he is brought to book on a Motion for Adjournment, and appears to show sympathy simply because an hon. Gentleman below the Gangway moved. I will also say that the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway said that it was not an attack on the Home Office, and tried to get out of his vote of censure on the Home Office as mildly as he possibly could. I hope hon. Gentlemen will put their humanity before their party feeling.

Mr. LEES SMITH

I desire to ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) two questions concerning the very important statement with which he concluded his speech. He told us during the earlier part of his remarks that these reformatory schools are under the management of private committees. The point I wish to make clear to the House is that, while they are under the management of private committees, far the greater part of their funds come from public sources. A school with which I am acquainted, and which I believe is typical, has an income of some thousands, of which £80 alone comes from private subscriptions. The remainder comes from the Treasury grant and from grants from the Borough Council and County Council of the district near which it is situate. In spite of the fact of the proportion that comes from public sources, those schools are managed without, I may say, the assistance of any local public authority. The first question I wish to ask is whether the Departmental Committee which he is going to appoint will inquire into the question as to whether there should not be more adequate representation of the local authorities on the committees of management of reformatory schools——

Mr. SPEAKER

That question hardly seems to be relevant to the Motion now before the House. The hon. Member is entering upon a much wider field than the terms of the Motion which has been proposed.

Mr. LEES SMITH

I am sorry I trespassed outside the proper limits of the subject, but as the hon. Gentleman made an important pronouncement I thought I might avail of what he said to mention the question. There is only one other suggestion I wish to put before the hon. Gentle man. We have had an inquiry and De bate with regard to reformatory schools. There is no difference between reformatory schools and industrial schools. There is a difference mainly in age rather than in the type of boy, and I wish to suggest that the Committee of inquiry should in quire——

Mr. SPEAKER

Again the hon. Member is getting outside the proper area. When there is a Motion for Adjournment upon a particular subject, the Debate must be limited to that particular subject. I do not say for one moment that the inquiries which the hon. Member wishes to make are not proper inquiries, but they are not proper at this particular moment.

Mr. LEES SMITH

I am sorry I have again trespassed beyond the confines of the subject. I hope I have made clear to the hon. Gentleman what I intended to convey, and that he will give me an answer.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member had better put his questions on the Paper.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY

The Under-Secretary alluded to the report made by the last chaplain, but he did not give the report made by the first chaplain. This is how the hon. Gentleman, in his report, describes Mr. Kittermaster:— Mr. Kittermaster, ex-chaplain of the school, was at: Buenos Ayres, but in response to a telegram, he sent me a very full and interesting report concerning his experience of Heswall. Mr. Kittermaster had been responsible for the revelation of the abuses in the old 'Akbar' ship, was highly spoken of by all parties, and I attached great importance to the evidence which he furnished me. What is the evidence which this gentleman, gave? Mr. Kittermaster recognised that 'something was wrong with the school,' and 'he felt it so much that he lost all heart,' that the boys were 'smarting under a sense of being unfairly treated,' and that, although no officer of the school was purposely cruel, and though he could not say that any of the punishments given were undeserved and actually unfair, or tell me of any instance of actual bullyings, yet 'in spite of all superficial smartness and paper returns, we were turning out heartless and hardened boys.' I commend this to the Home Secretary, especially in view of the instructions he has been kind enough to send to magistrates during the last six weeks:— .. 'heartless and hardened boys, in essentials unreformed.' There is also a statement that Mr. Adam asserted that the superintendent had "stamped the life out of the whole gang," and made them "quite indifferent—a trembling, cowering mob." The point, to my mind, is this: No doubt, in a school of this sort, very strong discipline must be used if the boys are to be kept in order. The Under-Secretary says that, in his opinion, corporal punishment is wrong.

Mr. MASTERMAN

I said that I disliked it.

Sir F. BANBURY

I presume the hon. Gentleman dislikes a thing that is wrong; he does not dislike a thing that is right. I hope hon. Members opposite have not descended so far that they dislike a thing, therefore it is wrong. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Do you like it?"] No; but I do not think corporal punishment is wrong. I think corporal punishment is a necessity in a school of this sort, provided that it is administered in a proper manner. I think it is far and away-better than drenching boys with fifteen buckets of water, because they have used obscene language, or shutting them up in a room, and instructing other boys to wash them and do other things to them, from which room they come out and in a few short moments die.

Mr. MASTERMAN

That was never done as a punishment at Heswall School.

Sir F. BANBURY

It is in the report.

Mr. MASTERMAN

Not as a punishment.

Sir F. BANBURY

What was it done for?

Mr. MASTERMAN

Bead the report.

Sir F. BANBURY

Was it done as a reward?

Mr. MASTERMAN

I did not want to go into the disgusting details of the report.

Sir F. BANBURY

These details have been discussed. The fact remains that the boy had used certain language and was reported to the office for having done so. The officer ordered two other boys to take him into a room. That officer remained outside the room for a certain number of moments and then went away. The boy came out of the room, and within twenty minutes died, and so on. You cannot get out of that by saying that the details are disgusting. But the point I want to make is this: it would be very much better if this sort of punishment were done away with and for corporal punishment—which hon. Members opposite object to—in mode ration to be substituted under proper safe guards. I cannot understand the action of the hon. and learned Gentleman who brought this question before us. I hope I do not do him an injustice, but he is an old Parliamentary hand, and his actions recently mean, I think, that he is going to withdraw. He brought this case before the House, having obtained a certain amount of support; and I do not wish to say anything unpleasant, but no doubt the conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman will be noticed in the local papers. Having brought this matter forward, the fear of injuring the Government—however wrong they may have been —is uppermost in his mind. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to say that the explanation of the Government is satisfactory, because no explanation has been given at all except that this gentleman, Mr. Beuttler, is to be retained in the school. I do not know whether he considers that satisfactory? If not, I am at a loss to know why he is going to withdraw. We had last night an example of what the Government does in the cause of humanity —when they think they can get something out of it. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had remitted a sentence of a month's imprisonment imposed for a worse offence than obscene language without asking the magistrates their opinion? He was asked if there had been previous convictions, and he replied that he did not know. Then he looked at his despatch box and could not find the despatch because it was not there. Then he said I was discourteous——

Mr. CHURCHILL

No, no. I absolutely deny that I have suggested that of the hon. Baronet.

Sir F. BANBURY

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman thinks so now. He certainly said it yesterday. On reflection he withdraws, and I accept his withdrawal. [HON. MEMBER: "Oh, oh."] Nobody can object to that. What does all this mean? It means that a little public advertisement can be got out of the matter. The "Daily News" and the "Daily Chronicle" will be filled with the "beneficent activities" of the Home Secretary! He goes about like an Eastern Sultan at night investigating the sentences of the wicked rich magistracy upon the deserving poor! Thus the right hon. Gentleman is full of humanity! But when he comes to a matter like this and he does not think there will be very much publicity attaching to it the right hon. Gentleman sees no case. Twenty-eight boys have been permanently marked, a doctor certifies that they are marked for life; one boy is punished in a most extraordinary manner and there was the punishment of the boys by being kept up all night, yet the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary backs up the Under-Secretary, who says it is not a course to be approved of, but at the same time he is not going to do anything, and he is going to leave the superintendent of the school in his position. I am very glad the case has been brought forward, because if it did not do anything else it demonstrates the hollowness of all those humanitarian pretences on the part of the Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Dr. HILLIER

I think the Mover of this Motion for the Adjournment of the House is to be congratulated upon having had adduced in the course of this Debate ample evidence in support of his contention that this is a matter of great importance and urgency. I confess there are moments when the solid, united phalanx which is said to repose upon the benches opposite does not appear to great advantage, and I begin to fear this is one of these moments. The phalanx appears to be periodically seized with what I may describe as internal convulsions. Several of them have already occurred in this Parliament, and I have no doubt they will become more frequent and acute as time goes on. On this occasion on a question which, as far as I can see, is the last question to be made a party question, I think that we who sympathise with the Mover of the Motion are entitled to ask him whether he is going to press for a Division. If he is not what really fair and reasonable ground can he offer for not doing so. There are certain things in this report which are extremely interesting to all those who, like the Home Secretary, take, and I believe genuinely take, an interest in the lot of prisoners and those in our re- formatory schools and other institutions of that sort. I find, according to one witness, that in certain conditions a happier lot of boys could not be found in the United Kingdom than in this school. That must be a matter of great congratulation to the right hon. Gentleman. But I turn to another side of the picture with regard to which I confess I feel very strongly. We have in the report a statement of the various forms of punishment in vogue in this establishment, and amongst them we find provided as punishment for young boys in the course of their education and growth no less harsh a thing than confinement in a lighted room or cell, and we find that confinement may be extended to seven days. I say that is a most harsh and inhuman provision, and quite apart from the overwhelming evidence of extreme hardship in the treatment of these boys adduced and supported by the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Liverpool, who is acquainted with this institution, and not dependent for his information on sensational reports in any journals, there are provisions in the code of treatment for these boys which most seriously demand consideration. On those grounds I appeal to the hon. Member, even though he be a Member of a solid and united phalanx, to put humanity and common justice before party, and allow this matter to be carried to a Division.

Mr. ARTHUR ALLEN

I understand from the statement of the Under Secretary to the Home Office that we are to have a Departmental Committee to inquire into the general question of reformatory schools. It seems to me the superintendent of this particular school has anticipated to some extent those reforms which those of us interested in reformatory schools have-long been anxious to see carried into effect. There are three points on which we are exceedingly anxious. The first one-is the question of corporal punishment in those schools; the second is the question of education; and the third, the obtaining of decent situations for the boys when they leave the schools. On all these three points Mr. Beuttler has shewn a distinct advance on what has generally been the practice of superintendents of reformatory schools. I am not attempting to defend such conduct as making the boys stand up all night and throwing water over them, but certainly those who are genuinely interested in reform know that a keen superintendent can never hope to get through his school life without making some mistakes. I admit those are bad mistakes. When we look at his conduct with regard to corporal punishment, we find he has introduced for the first time a system of rewards which has been highly successful, and which, in this particular school, has enabled the superintendent to reduce corporal punishment to half of what it was with his predecessor.

On the side of education everyone knows that these schools have been greatly behind the standard which they ought to have reached. Every testimony all through that very able report goes to show that on this question of education Mr. Beuttler has made a real start which has raised the whole standard of education in the reformatory schools throughout the country. With regard to the disposal of the boys when they leave the schools, nothing has been more difficult in the past than to find situations for boys who have been educated m reformatory schools, because of the bad name they have, and partly because in the past their education has not been sufficiently technical. All that has been altered now, with the result that the best shipping companies are all anxious to take boys from this particular school, and now they have no difficulty in getting situations. We have also the testimony that old boys who have left the school have written in the most affectionate and proud terms of their old school. I ask the House to set against the faults of the superintendent the fact that he has been most enthusiastic in his work and has done a good deal to raise the standard of education in reformatory schools in the country. For these reasons I ask the House to allow the decision which has been come to by the Home Secretary to stand, and come to the conclusion that Mr. Beuttler has received enough punishment by the publicity which has been given to his case.

Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER

I would not have intervened in this Debate if I had not rather an important interest in it as Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Liverpool Corporation. We not only find the money for the school, but we contribute to a very large extent towards the boys' help and maintenance. There is one question we always have before us when these funds have to be provided, and that is the conduct of the school and the happiness of the boys; and I may say that during the long course of years I have been chairman of the finance committee we have never at any time had any complaint about the treatment of the boys, nor has there been any question raised that they were not treated in a way that boys ought to be treated. I am not only in that position, but I happen to have lived for many years within three miles of the school. The school originally used to be in a ship, the reformatory ship "Akbar," and I venture to think it was better managed and that the boys were better kept when they were under the regulations of that ship. After being there a certain time they were fit to undertake the duties of sailors, for which there is a great cry and want at the present time. The time came when that ship went adrift or took fire, and the boys had to be brought on shore. I had a little game preserve in the district, and I had a great deal of trouble with poaching. The boys seemed to get out of control, and my rabbits, hares, and other game suffered in consequence. There were other matters of complaint. These boys are not sent there because they are angels. They are boys with a natural, and many of them with an unnatural amount of wickedness in them, and from the district round I had frequent complaints that housemaids, nursemaids, and others were very much alarmed owing to the conduct of the boys, because they were not under that control which was desirable. Afterwards these complaints became less and less, the boys were got under better control, and the management of the school, to my mind, was exemplary. There were on the Committee who managed the school some of the best-philanthropists of Liverpool, who are as good philanthropists as you will find anywhere in the kingdom. I venture to think if there had been any of these hardships, oppressions, and maltreatment we have had mentioned, and which have been in the papers, to the disgrace of those papers who have published them, and who have listened to the tittle-tattle of servants who have been discharged, those men—there is Mr. Stolterfoht, one of the philanthropists of Liverpool—would have raised questions in the city of Liverpool, and it would never have been necessary to come to the House of Commons to bring them before Parliament. Those questions did not arise. The boys were not maltreated. The boys were boys, boys with enthusiasm—ill-directed enthusiasm which required treatment, in the way in which they were treated, I venture to think many hon. Members of my age, and many younger than myself, remembering what we had to stand when we were boys, consider the acts of oppression towards these boys nothing compared with the acts of oppression we had to put up with even in the best schools of the United Kingdom. What I venture to say is that this report is absolutely justified by the facts. I think the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary have done their duty; they have made a very close and complete inquiry; ascertained what the condition of these boys is and how they have been treated. They have made suggestions; they have shown there has been none of that oppression and maltreatment which was suspected. Municipalities do not receive very serious consideration in this House, but it is a fact that they watch most closely the interests of those committed to their charge; they see that these interests are not neglected, and, undoubtdly, those who find the money for these institutions carefully watch its expenditure. He should understand the position of these boys. They require control and strict treatment; they are not innocent boys; they need to be under some show of authority. But there is no necessity for this House to suspect that they are subject to harsher regulations than are necessary. I fear political objects have animated those who have brought forward this Motion, and under the circumstances I shall give my vote to the Home Secretary.

Mr. CHURCHILL

The Home Office has certainly no reason to complain of the treatment meted out to it this evening by the House. The Debate from beginning to end, with scarcely an exception, has been conducted with an entire absence of party feeling, and I fully recognise the propriety, and indeed the necessity, for the discussion which my hon. Friend has made himself responsible for. I have only a sentence or two to say after the statement which was made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. When complaints first reached me in official documents with regard to this school, I felt that a very searching inquiry was necessary, and I took a very unusual step. I did not send down a permanent official, although I have great confidence in the permanent officials, on whose opinion I rely at the Home Office. I thought it was a House of Commons matter, a matter on which the House would prefer to be satisfied by one of its own Members, and I asked the Under-Secretary to undertake the very laborious and unpleasant duty of making full investigation into the case. Hon. Members who were present when my hon. Friend spoke will know how full and complete the investigation was and how honest and fearless were the conclusions to which he came. And if those who were not present will spare the time to read the report—full and exhaustive as it is—they will see there was no disposition on his part to shirk or conceal the truth. Neither was there the slightest disposition on his part to allow any injustice to be inflicted upon those who were serving at the school. It would be a very easy matter for the Minister who fills my office to take such action in regard to this school as would lead to the dismissal of the superintendent. But I believe that any Member who reads the report fairly through from beginning to end will see that it would not be a proper or just thing to do when all the circumstances for and against, the irregularities which this man has undoubtedly committed, and the good work which he has done at the school. When all that has been judged and surveyed it would not be the proper thing for me to do to put pressure on the governing body of the school to take this step against him. An hon. Member said we ought to give way to public opinion, but in matters of justice one ought not to do so. You ought, perhaps, to give way to public opinion in regard to leniency, but not in the way of severity.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

I said satisfy public opinion.

Mr. CHURCHILL

You ought to satisfy public opinion, but you ought not to go beyond what meets the necessities of the case. The Adjournment of the House was moved because I had not seen my way to recommend the dismissal of Captain Beuttler, but I think after the discussion which has taken place my hon. Friend who moved it may be inclined to think that he may leave the conduct of the school and the decision of this matter safely in the hands of the governing body. They are a disinterested body; they reap no benefit from the school, they are some of the most valued and respectable citizens of Liverpool; they are as anxious as anyone can be for the rectification of anything which has taken place, and for the credit and reputation of the school. They now have placed before them on the authority of my hon. Friend an ample report from which they can judge their future course of action, and with these remarks I hope the House will allow the specific question of Captain Beuttler's position to pass from its mind. As it has been referred to, I should like to say that this case which has been brought before us ought not to end merely with the specific incident. There is no doubt whatever, to my mind, from investigation which I have been making into the subject that there is a great deal more flogging going on in these reformatory schools than is necessary or desirable. There must be corporal punishment, but the regulations under which it is administered appear to me to fall altogether short of the requirements and conditions which modern opinion imposes, and which the necessities of the case demand. I have been carefully considering for some weeks past the issue of new regulations which, I think, will have the effect of restricting the use of corporal punishment in the many reformatory schools throughout the country, and of securing, above all, that such punishment as is administered shall be strictly in accordance with regulations which are laid down by the Home Office, and with instruments which are all approved and of standard pattern, and do not take the undesirable and excessive forms revealed in this report. In addition to that, we must consider the question of the control which should be exercised by the Home Office over this great number of industrial and reformatory schools; and lastly we must consider the question of classification, which in this, as in the treatment of crime and its attendant problems, is, after all, the first necessary step to be taken. My hon. Friend's report throws a light on many of these subjects. You could not take a better text as the beginning

of a further study and a stepping-stone for further action. I have decided to appoint a strong Departmental Committee, which, should be able to go into the whole question of the present methods of maintaining discipline in reformatory and industrial schools, and which will deal with the methods by which these schools should be brought into close and suitable contact with the Home Office, which at present has a great deal more responsibility in regard to them than is really justified by the amount of direct control or power which it exerts. I hope the House will feel that it is right that when such a Debate as this has taken place it should not close without the House recognising that the managers of these bodies, who give so much voluntary service and throw so much personal enthusiasm into it, ought not to feel discouraged in any way by the censure and criticisms which have been passed, and although the methods of control must be improved, there are no grounds for reproaching these gentlemen, who have-taken, and are taking, part in this work with any want of humanity or of zeal in discharge of the duties they have so worthily assumed.

Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES

After the very-full vindication by the Under-Secretary, and after the assurance which has been given by the Secretary of State, I have no desire to make this question, which I raised on the ground of humanity, a party question, and therefore I ask leave to withdraw it.

Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided: Ayes, 67; Noes, 244.

Division No. 21.]	AYES.	[10.59 p.m.
Archer-Shee, Major M.	Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)	Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Goldsmith, Frank	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)	Grant, J. A.	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Balcarres, Lord	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	Rawson, Colonel R. H.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Hambre, Angus Valdemar	Rolleston, Sir John
Barnston, H.	Helmsley, Viscount	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Hillier, Dr. A. P.	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)	Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)	Sanderson, Lancelot
Bennett-Goldney, Francis	Horner, Andrew Long	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Bird, A.	Hume-Williams, W. E.	Spear, John Ward
Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-	Hunt, Rowland	Stanier, Beville
Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)	Ingleby, Holcombe	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)
Boyton, J.	Kebty-Fletcher, J. R	Swift, Rigby
Bridgeman, William Clive	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr	Touche, George Alexander
Castlereagh, Viscount	Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts, Mile End)	Tuillbardine, Marquess of
Compton, Lord A.	Martin, J.	Watt, Henry A.
Courthope, G. Loyd	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	Welgall, Capt. A. G.
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S)	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Winterton, Earl
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)	Younger, George
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian	Norton-Griffiths, J.
Craft, H. P.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Eyres-Monsell, B. M.	Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Col. Chaloner and Mr. Watson Rutherford.
Falle, B. G.	Peto, Basil Edward
Fell, Arthur	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	O'Shee, James John
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.	Hackett, John	O'Sullivan, Timothy
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Hall, Frederick (Normanton)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)	Hamereley, A. St. George	Pearson, Weetman H. M.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Anderson, A. M	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Pirle, Duncan V.
Armitage, R.	Harmsworth, R. L.	Pointer, Joseph
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Harvey, A. G. C (Rochdale)	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)	Power, Patrick Joseph
Baker, H. T. (Accrington)	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Haworth, Arthur A.	Radford, G. H.
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)	Hayden, John Patrick	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)	Hayward, Evan	Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)	Helme, Norval Watson	Rendall, Athelstan
Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)	Hickman, Colonel T. E.	Richards, Thomas
Barton, W.	Higham, John Sharp	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Seale, W. P.	Hill, Sir Clement L.	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Beauchamp, Edward	Hill-Wood, Samuel	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Hinds, John	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneslde)
Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Bentham, G. J.	Hohler, G. F.	Robinson, Sydney
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)	Roche, John (Galway, E.)
Boland, John Pius	Houston, Robert Paterson	Rose, Sir Charles Day
Booth, Frederick Handel	Hudson, Walter	Rowntree, Arnold
Bowerman, C. W.	Isaacs Sir Rufus Daniel	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)	Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburghshire)	Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)
Brady, P. J.	John, Edward Thomas	St. Maur, Harold
Bring, Sir John	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushclifle)	Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Brunner, J. F. L.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Jones W. S. Glyn- (T'w'r H'mts, Stepney)	Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Jowett, F. W.	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Keating, M.	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)	Kellaway, Frederick George	Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Byles, William Pollard	Kelly, Edward	Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)
Campion, W. R.	King, J. (Somerset, N.)	Soares, Ernest J.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)	Stewart, Gershom
Cassel, Felix	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)	Lansbury, George	Summers, James Woolley
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)	Sutherland, J. E.
Chancellor, Henry George	Leach, Charles	Sutton, John E.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Levy, Sir Maurice	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Clough, William	Lewis, John Herbert	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)	Tennant, Harold John
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col A. R	Thomas, James Henry (Derby)
Corbett, A. Cameron	Low, Sir F. (Norwich)	Thorne, G. R, (Wolverhampton)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Lundon, T.	Thynne, Lord Alexander
Cotton, William Francis	Lynch, A. A.	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Craig, Norman (Kent)	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Toulmin, George
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Cullinan, J.	Mackinder, Halford J.	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Davies, E. William (Eiflon)	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Verney, Sir Harry
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Wads worth, J.
Dawes, J. A.	M'Callum, John M.	Walters, John Tudor
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Devlin, Joseph	M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)	Wardle, George J.
Dewar, Sir J. A.	M'Micking, Major Gilbert	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.
Dillon, John	Markham, Arthur Basil	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Doris, W.	Marshall, Arthur Harold	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Duffy, William J.	Mason, David H. (Coventry)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Masterman, C. F. G.	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	White, Patrick (Heath, North)
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)	Menzies, Sir Walter	Whitehouse, John Howard
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of	Montagu, Hon. E S.	Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Elverstin, H.	Morpeth, Viscount	Wiles, Thomas
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, H.)	Morrell, Philip	Wilkie, Alexander
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Essex, Richard Walter	Muldoen, John	Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)
Esslemont, George Birnie	Munro, R.	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Falconer, J.	Murray, Capt Hon. A. C	Wilton, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Fitzgibbon, John	Needham, Christopher T.	Wilson, W. T. (Westheughton)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Neilson, Francis	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Gelder, Sir W. A.	Nolan, Joseph	Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)
Gill, A. H.	O'Doherty, Philip
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	O'Donnell, Thomas
Goldstone, Frank	O'Dewd, John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	Ogden, Fred
Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)	O'Malley, William