HC Deb 28 July 1913 vol 56 cc153-79

2.—(1) A person who is a defective may be dealt with under this Act by being sent to or placed in an institution for defectives or placed under guardianship—

  1. (a) at the instance of his parent or guardian, if he is an idiot or imbecile or is under the age of twenty-one; or
  2. (b) if in addition to being a defective he is a person—
    1. (i) who is found neglected, abandoned, or without visible means of support, or cruelly treated; or
    2. (ii) who is found guilty of any criminal offence, or who is ordered or liable to be ordered to be sent to a certified industrial school;
    3. (iii) who is undergoing imprisonment (except imprisonment under civil process), or penal servitude, or is undergoing detention in a place of detention by order of a Court, or in a reformatory or industrial school, or in an inebriate reformatory or who is de- 154 tained in an institution for lunatics or a criminal lunatic asylum; or
    4. (iv) who is an habitual drunkard, within the meaning of the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900; or
    5. (v) in whose case such notice has-been given by the local education authority as is hereinafter in this section mentioned; or
    6. (vi) who is in receipt of poor relief at the time of giving birth to an. illegitimate child or when pregnant of such child.

(2) Notice shall, subject to regulations, made by the Board of Education, to be laid before Parliament as hereinafter provided, be given by the local education authority to the local authority under this Act in the case of all defective children over the age of seven—

  1. (a) who have been ascertained to be incapable by reason of mental defect of receiving benefit or further benefit in special schools or classes, or who cannot be instructed in a special school or class without detriment to the interests of the other children, or for whom the Board of Education certify that no suitable special school or class is available;
  2. (b) who on or before attaining the age of sixteen are about to be withdraw or discharged from a special school or class, and in whose case the local education authority are of opinion that it would be to their benefit that they should be sent to an institution or placed under guardianship.

Mr. MARTIN

I propose to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "defectives" ["an institution for defectives"], to insert the words "or a certified house as provided in Section forty-six." This-Clause is probably the most important in the whole Bill. As it stands at present, there are two classes of institutions to which to send defectives, and there is a third class which, under Clause 48, instead of being sent to an institution, may be sent to a certified house. My point is, if you send a defective to a certified house, it must be clear that all the safeguards which are provided, and all the provisions under Clause 2, apply as well to the certified houses. It is only a drafting matter, and it seems to me it should be done.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

It is rather unusual to insert in an earlier Clause a reference to a later Clause, and if I put it to insert the words "or a certified house" it will be better.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MARTIN

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "defectives," to insert the words "or a certified house."

Mr. WEDGWOOD

I beg to second the Amendment.

I think this is the best opportunity for making clear exactly what institution these people will be sent to. There are institutions which may be certified by the county or borough councils, and institutions which may be carried on by the guardians, and then those run by the Secretary of State, and, besides that, there are certified houses to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

It would be quite out of place to discuss that point now. This is moved as a drafting Amendment, and the other point does not arise until later in the Bill.

Mr. WEDGWOOD

I think it would certainly be desirable that the various institutions to which defectives can be sent should be stated in this Clause. Certified houses will be privately managed, and you will have a number of people under the procedure provided sent to those houses. I expect the word "institutions" here is meant to cover them, and it certainly would be better to have it stated.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

Clause 2 provides that a person who is a defective may be dealt with by being sent to "an institution for defectives," and Clause 48 (l) states that— Any defective who may be ordered to be sent to, or may be placed in an institution under this Act may be ordered to be sent to or to be placed in a certified house. Do not the hon. Members think that once is quite sufficient to have the thing stated? The Amendment is quite unnecessary, and the only justification for it is if you want to say twice what is in the Bill once.

Amendment put, and negatived.

Mr. GOLDSMITH

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) (a), to leave out the words "or is under the age of twenty-one." This part of the Clause has really to be read in conjunction with Clause 3. Under Clauses 2 and 3 a person can be dealt with at the instance of the parent or guardian without any judicial order whatever, if that person is an idiot, or imbecile of any age, or if he is mentally defective. Under paragraph (b) of Clause 2 (1) there is no necessity to show that the person is found neglected, abandoned, or without visible means of support, and the person can be dealt with by the parent or guardian without the order of a judicial authority under Clause 4. It is quite clear that this procedure does not contain the same safeguards for the protection or liberty of the subject as are contained in Clause 5. Under this Bill it is proposed to repeal the Idiocy Act. So far as I know, under that Act any person can be dealt with at the instance of a parent or guardian if he is an idiot or an imbecile. This proposal goes further than that, as it deals with people who are not idiots or imbeciles, but simply defectives. I think there is an unwarranted and unnecessary infringement of the liberty of the subject. I hope in this case I shall have the support of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood). If this Clause is passed a parent will be able to take his child from a special school, without any order from a judicial authority, merely by getting two medical men to sign a certificate. All that these medical men are asked to certify is that the child comes under one of the four definitions laid down in the Bill. The parent can then remove his child from a special school and place it in an institution under the Board of Control. I want to know whether that is the intention of the Home Secretary. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to adopt this Amendment and thus place the proposals under this Bill on the same basis as the proposals under the Idiots Act.

Mr. WEDGWOOD

I desire to second the Amendment. It seems to me very important that this question should be seriously considered. If the Clause stands as at present any parents or guardians will be able to send their children or those over whom they have guardianship to these institutions under much simpler arrangements than those under which they can be sent away by the officer of the local authority. It seems to me rather serious if you are going to make it easy for certain evilly disposed guardians or parents to get rid of their children by locking them up in these feeble-minded institutions. There have been cases of evilly-disposed parents or guardians getting their children consigned to lunatic asylums. The difficulties in the way of such parents or guardians are considerable. The doctors who sign the certificates have to be satisfied that there are certain definite symptoms of insanity. The cases under subheads (c) and (d)—moral imbeciles and feeble-minded persons—are border-line cases, in which it is less the business of the medical man to decide whether the persons ought to be sent to these institutions, than that of the educators of children or those who have practical experience of children. I am against giving greater powers to evilly-disposed parents to put their offspring into these homes. Very often boys and girls during years of adolescence form attachments with members of the opposite sex which are considered undesirable by their parents. It is a little risky to give those parents such simple opportunities as they have under this Bill of getting their children put away. You have to deal with bad parents as well as with mentally defective children. You have to deal with a system whereby the lunacy laws are made much wider than at present.

Under paragraph (b) rather elaborate processes have to be gone through before persons under the age of twenty-one can be consigned to feeble-minded institutions. But under Sub-clause (a) the process is a great deal simpler. I view with some alarm this tendency to give almost absolute power to parents over children of eighteen, nineteen, or twenty years of age. The Government ought to consider very carefully whether these words might not be omitted without doing much damage to the Bill. As far as I remember, the Bill of last year did not contain this sentence, and so far was a better Bill than the present measure from the point of view of the liberty of the subject. This Bill contemplates dealing with children during the school years from seven to sixteen, and it seems to me it would be better to make the upper limit under which the parents have control sixteen instead of twenty-one years of age. After the child has left school and has passed through the sifting-out processes provided by the education authorities with their special schools and so on, it is a little dangerous to give this power to the parents. If there is any feeble-mindedness about a child it will be found out long before he reaches twenty-one. It is a primâ facie case in favour of the child if he has passed the age of sixteen without being sifted out and sent to a special school. I hope, therefore, the Government will consider whether they cannot accept some such Amendment as this in order to give an additional safeguard to children who may displease their parents or get into difficulty with their guardian over money matters.

Mr. McKENNA

I hope the hon. Member for Stowmarket (Mr. Goldsmith) will not attack me if I reply to his present Amendment by pointing out other Amendments which I propose to make. I have to ask for immunity from attack by him, because on a previous occasion he criticised my action in venturing to accept an Amendment. I do not propose to recommend the House to accept his present Amendment, but I propose to accept an Amendment standing in the name of the hen. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme to insert the words "at the instance of his parents if he," so that as regards persons under the age of twenty-one the power will be limited to parents and will not be given to guardians. That deals with half the case. With regard to parents, I propose in Clause 3, which deals with procedure relating to parents, to move to insert words requiring the certificate, "where the defective is not an idiot or imbecile," to be "countersigned by a judicial authority for the purposes of this Act." This point was discussed at considerable length in Committee, when I promised to introduce words to ensure that a judicial authority should have cognisance of the certificate, so that we might be satisfied that it was not merely a medical certificate, but that a judicial authority would know the circumstances of the case and be able to refuse to sign the certificate if all the circumstances were not fully satisfactory. I hope that with this explanation the hon. Member will be satisfied and not press his Amendment. The reason for not meeting the whole of his case is that I am informed, and I believe it to be the fact, that in many cases we should give, great offence if we insisted on parents going before a judicial authority. I quite agree that we have to safeguard the liberty of the child. I think we have done it. But, of course, I must remind the hon. Member that after the petition there is the whole procedure in Clauses 11 and 12 which apply to this case also. Clauses 11 and 12 also deal with the release of the Orders. I think, having regard to all the circumstances of the ease, we have fairly met the views expressed.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER

I may point out that it is necessary that the Amendment should be withdrawn in order to put the one that follows, the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Sir F. BANBURY

I would like a word or two upon this Amendment, before it is withdrawn. It may be necessary to withdraw it, but I should like to say a word or what the Home Secretary has just said. The Home Secretary says that it might annoy the parent if he is proceeded against by judicial authority. I cannot help that. The parent ought not to have the right to do what he likes with any of his children. He ought not to be able to lock them up, and then because it annoys him to have to appear before the judicial authority, not to have to appear. Why not? Here, again, we come back to the fatal and vicious faults of the Bill, that new proposals and new powers are to be given to certain people, and forsooth, they are not to be subjected to judicial authority for fear that we annoy—

Mr. McKENNA

I did not say that.

Sir F. BANBURY

I do not wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but I understood him to say that one of the reasons that he objected to this Amendment was that it might give offence to the parents that have to appear before the judicial authority. If he did not say that I have nothing further to say. But my belief is that the right hon. Gentleman did—

Mr. McKENNA

I said what the hon. Baronet now says.

Sir F. BANBURY

Yes. Surely then under these circumstances we are here to see that right prevails. We are not here to encourage parents who want to get rid of their children. I do not hold that parents are exceptionally bad people who cannot be trusted with this power. But unless the Amendment of my hon. Friend is accepted any parent who wants to get rid of his child of eighteen or nineteen or twenty can do so, and if he is not to go before judicial authorities for fear of the annoyance of it, well, a more extraordinary doctrine to have been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman representing the Liberal party I have not heard. We have always supposed that the Liberal party stood for the liberty of the subject. I could not have believed that I ever should have risen in this House to controvert a doctrine of that sort. It has not been put forward by the reactionary people who are opposed to the liberty of the subject. If it had been then, possibly there might have been something in it. That it should be put forward and advanced by one of the greatest living instances of the new Radical party—words fail me to describe my feelings at the present moment! We have already passed certain Acts of Parliament against cruelty to children, because we believe that some parents are not fit to be entrusted with the destinies of their children. In the case put forward, the right hon. Gentleman gives these very people the power to lock up their children—

Mr. McKENNA

Oh, no, no, the hon. Member must not misrepresent me!

Sir F. BANBUTRY

That is as I understand it.

Mr. McKENNA

It is not so.

Sir F. BANBURY

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why, then, is he going to meet my hon. Friend half way? How some of this ever got into the Bill I cannot conceive. How it ever passed Committee upstairs that a guardian should have this power, again I cannot conceive. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to alter it later on as he says to meet my hon. Friend upon the question of the guardian, and then later on going to meet him still further in the matter of the parents, may I ask him why he should not meet him now in a clear, definite manner and accept the Amendment? I should like to have some reason for this: otherwise I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division. At any rate, those of us who still have some lingering regard for freedom ought to support my hon. Friend.

Mr. HILLS

I do not think that the fears of the right hon. Baronet are quite justified. I think he has overlooked the fact that the child can only be sent away upon the certificate of two doctors, of whom one must have been approved by the local authority, and that when the child is so sent the Board of Control must at once be notified. Then there are provisions in Clause 11 for the examination at the end of the year, and subsequently—

Sir F. BANBURY

May I inform my hon. Friend that I place no reliance whatever upon the certificate of the two doctors?

Mr. HILLS

The hon. Baronet is so impressed with the fact that everybody can be got at that it will be hard to convince him. Still, so far the terms of protection go, I think they are quite adequate. I can see reasons for distinguishing between the case of the parents and the guardians. After all, a great many guardians are in loco parentis. Surely the thing that you want to do in this Bill is to see that a certain power is not abused. So long as you make sure of that I would be quite satisfied to give the guardians the same powers. My first impression as I heard my hon. Friend speak was that the taking out of these words would enlarge the scope of the Act. I am not sure that it will not, because the first few words in Section 2 will then apply to defectives. I hope for that reason the Amendment will not be pressed. Still I do not quite understand why no distinction is to be made between the powers given to the parents and the powers given to the guardians.

Mr. RAWLINSON

My hon. Friend's incurable optimism makes him a most dangerous man to follow, but why this thing has been brought up I cannot imagine. The Home Secretary, in a very able speech on the Amendment, made it clear that he thought the point should be met. As it is now, at the instance of a parent or guardian, where the child is under the age of twenty-one you can lock him up upon the certificate of two medical men countersigned by a certificate from the judicial authority. Let me put to the right hon. Gentleman, and to my hon. Friend who has just sat down a case which arises in every-day life, a case where the husband and wife are separated by a judicial separation. The wife has got the custody of the children. There is a feeble-minded child whom the mother loves just as much as any of the stronger-witted children. She is willing to look after it, and has the money to look after it, but the husband under this Bill as it stands being at enmity with his wife, to annoy or to distress her, has only got to go and insist, because the child is feeble-minded, on getting the certificate of two doctors, because the safeguard of the right, hon. Gentleman is only illusory. What is the judicial authority? The magistrate many of us are magistrates, and the magistrates, when the certificate is brought to him can only countersign it. You cannot set up your opinion against the opinions of two doctors. You have no opportunity of seeing or cross-examin- ing them. You have simply the certificate signed by two doctors, and if they are respectable men, you can only countersign their certificate. The man may have quite rightly stated that the child is feeble minded, and once that is done, the judicial authority countersigns the certificate, and although the mother had been looking after it perfectly well, the father has power, under this extraordinary Act, to take away that child and shut it up in an asylum, in which it will have to associate with people that have been removed from the lunatic asylums and from criminal lunatic asylums, and also with people who are morally imbecile, and have such strong vicious propensities that punishment has not effect on them. Therefore, the case of the husband who wishes to spite a wife—and I am taking this concrete case, because it is simpler and easier to follow a concrete case—has got full powers to take the feeble-minded child away and shut it up in an asylum of the kind I have indicated. It is true that the husband, instead of sending the child to that asylum about which I shall have a word to say when we come to this extraordinary method of management, could send it to a certified home, where it would not have to associate with people of the kind I mention, but where it would be locked up for a considerable period, and would, of course, cause endless heart searching and pain to the mother from whom it is taken away, and over whom the husband has such powers and enormous leverage of pressure, under an Act of this kind. If I differ from my hon. Friend, it is because possibly my professional practice has given me experience in cases of this kind, and when we are dealing with the liberties of the public, we are bound to see that the proper precautions are taken even if we are to sit up late, before giving powers of this kind to lock up people.

10.0. P.M.

Mr. PRINGLE

I think the concession made by the Home Secretary though not quite adequate to meet all the circumstances, deserves to have been received somewhat better. It is, of course, valuable to find the Home Seecretary offering some safeguard in circumstances such as that in this Clause. I think we are entitled to point out that this is the second safeguard that has been introduced into the Clause as a result of the action of the critics of the Bill. When the Bill was introduced, a single medical certificate was sufficient to lock up any young person up to the age of twenty-one at the instance of the parent or guardian. In the course of the discussion a concession was made, making it necessary to have two doctors. Now the Home Secretary has, I think, very wisely gone further. He has made it necessary that this certificate should be countersigned by a judicial authority. I regret that the ordinary procedure of a judicial order is not required in these cases as in other cases, but the right hon. Gentleman has brought about the intervention of the judicial authority, and I myself feel satisfied with the concession he has made.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. WEDGWOOD

I beg to move in paragraph (a), after the word "or" ["or is under the age of twenty-one; or"], to insert the words "at the instance of his parent, if he."

Mr. WEDGWOOD

I beg to move in paragraph (i), to leave out the words "or without visible means of support."

This is a very important Amendment, and I hope the Government will accept it. It is an Amendment put in by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire during the Committee stage of the Bill. Paragraph (i) of Sub-section (b), as it originally stood in the Government Bill, stated that people who are found neglected, abandoned, or cruelly treated, could be dealt with as feebleminded persons, and sent to these institutions, and then Eugenists came along and added, "Those without visible means of support," which has no real connection with the other three conditions provided. As the House knows, these are the very vaguest form of words. After all, it seems right that there should be power to send children to these institutions if they are really neglected, abandoned, or cruelly treated. I agree that children who come under these categories, or that are neglected in any other way, should be sent to institutions. Their parents have obviously failed to look after them, but to add the further words "having no visible means of support" seems to me to be cruelly unjust to many of those parents. How on earth are the feebleminded children to have half-crowns in their pockets? How are they to show visible means of support? You can test whether persons are abandoned, neglected, or cruelly treated. How can you test whether they are without visible means of support? In the case of tramps, that is sufficient if they have a half-crown in their pockets; but how are you going to apply that condition to those feeble-minded children? It seems to me to be perfectly monstrous. I dislike the whole Bill, but this addition makes it far worse. If the Government will take these words out, I do not propose to talk any longer on this Amendment, but certainly if the words are to remain in, the Bill will be far more dangerous than it was when it came before us on Second Reading. We were told on Second Reading there were two conditions to be satisfied before people could be locked up, and one was that the defectives should come under the definition in Clause 1; and the second was that they should come into contact with, the law. Can anybody suppose that being without visible means of support can be ultimately considered as coming into contact with the law. The cranks say that everyone of those children is without visible means of support, and it means if these words are left in there will be other circumstances to be considered, besides proving that the child is mentally defective and gets into trouble with the law. You simply have to prove that it is mentally defective alone, and then one of your officers has only got to find the child outside its parents' home without half-a-crown in its pocket and all is up with the child. I urge everybody who believes in the liberty of the subject and who believes that it is not the function of the State to lock up people simply because they are feeble-minded to vote for cutting out these words so that the Clause will read as it was when it first went upstairs, where these words were accepted in a light-hearted manner to burke discussion.

Mr. PRINGLE

I beg leave to second this Amendment.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

The hon. Member talks about this Clause interfering with the liberty of the subject, but the provision about a person being found "neglected, abandoned, or cruelly treated" applies to something which is done by somebody else and not the child. Supposing the child has lost its parents and it is deaf, it has not been either "neglected, abandoned, or cruelly treated." If the hon. Member looks at this provision he will find that his proposal is entirely un- necessary, because the case he has put before us comes within the third rule of this Bill. These words were introduced in Committee and accepted and there was no Division upon them, and, therefore, I cannot accept the hon. Member's Amendment.

Lord HUGH CECIL

There might be a case of a defective person who, through no fault of his own, or anyone else, was without means of support. I think those words must have been understood to refer to a definition of vagrancy, and it certainly is very undesirable to give the impression or perhaps the reality of harshly treating poor people because they are poor or defective. The case contemplated by the Under-Secretary is quite a different one, and belongs to a different classification altogether. No one expects a child to have visible means of support, and the provision is intended to refer to an adult or wandering idiot who is found by the roadside starving and unable to do anything for himself. The two cases of the adult and the child are constantly mixed up, because some phrases are intended to apply to the children and some to adults, and so far as I can understand it the phrase "without visible means of support "must be intended to refer to adults. I should have thought that "abandoned" covered nearly all cases of children. There may be the case of an orphan child or a child whose parents have been sent to prison, which ought to be dealt with.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

These words are taken from the Children's Act.

Sir F. BANBURY

I do not think it is a good argument to advance that because certain words appear in the Children's Act they should be brought into this Act. As far as I know the Children's Act it has been a dead letter, and it was an absurd Act which has resulted in nothing. The arguments which were advanced by the Under-Secretary dealt entirely with the case of children, and I agree with my Noble Friend that this does not apply to children at all. If the Under-Secretary will look at the Clause he will see that it begins:— A person who is a defective may be dealt with under this Act by being sent to or placed in an institution for defectives or placed under guardianship—

  1. (a) at the instance of his parent or guardian if he is an idiot or imbecile, or is under the age of twenty-one." 166 That does not apply to a child. The next provision is as follows:—
  2. (b) If in addition to being a defective he is a person—
    1. (i) who is found neglected abandoned, or without visible means of support, or cruelly treated."
Surely that refers to one of the class which I have just read—that is, a person who is a defective. There is nothing about a child in that provision. I feel quite certain that if this Section was passed in this way any person who may be a defective, and under the age of 21, who is certainly not a child, may be locked up because he is without visible means of support. That may be right or wrong, but if we are going to pass this proviso let us do so with a full understanding of what we are doing and do not let the House be led away by the argument that we are only dealing with children. I think we ought to have the assistance of a Law Officer of the Crown when we are dealing with legal questions of this kind. There being no Law Officer present, I express my opinion upon what anybody with common sense would understand this Clause to mean, and that is that any person who is without visible means of support may be locked up for an indefinite period. If that is so, and I cannot conceive that there can be any doubt about it, what is the meaning of these words, "without visible means of support"? The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) made a speech protesting against poor people being dealt with in a manner different from rich people, and I hope that the Labour Members will bear that in mind when they are considering this particular Bill. What does this mean? It means that a person who is more or less defective, but who is capable of earning a livelihood may be taken and locked up, because he happens to be out of work for the moment, and has no visible means of subsistence with him. He has no money in his pocket, and he cannot say he has an engagement to do a certain amount of work. Why should we lock that person up? I cannot see any reason why we should. Under these circumstances, hope that the hon. Gentleman will divide upon his Amendment, unless, of course, the Home Secretary can give any better reason in support of the words being retained in the Bill than that which was given by the Under-Secretary.

Mr. ACLAND ALLEN

As I was responsible for moving the Amendment in Committee upstairs, I should like to say that I should be extremely pleased if the Home Secretary could give us a distinct reply now. Before action can be taken with regard to a person under this Section, he must be found to be defective within the definition of Clause 1, and he has either to be an idiot, an imbecile, a feeble-minded person, or a moral imbecile. Really I do not know whether the hon. Baronet is of opinion that an idiot, an imbecile, a feeble-minded person, or a moral imbecile, who is without visible means of subsistence is not a proper person to be dealt with under this Act. It seems to me that if you take into account the definition of a feeble-minded person in Clause 1 and realise that the defective person must at the same time be in the world without any visible means of support—anybody who really cares for these people at all must see that they are proper people to be taken.

Sir F. BANBURY

Does the hon. Gentleman mean that people who are poor should be locked up and that people who are rich should not be?

Mr. RAWLINSON

The Under-Secretary defended it simply on the ground that it applied to children, but I think that he will agree with me that the words, as they stand, will apply to adults as well.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

Certainly. I said "Here is an illustration." Of course, it will apply not only to children, but to persons of all ages.

Mr. RAWLINSON

Therefore, any person above the age of twenty-one can be taken under this Act provided that he is without visible means of subsistence. I want to meet the hon. Gentleman with regard to the children. Of course, if the child is neglected, abandoned, or cruelly treated, you are quite right in taking him and locking him up in an asylum; but under the Clause as drafted you have the right to take a child away from his parents simply because they are poor and have no visible means of subsistence. I cannot believe that is what the Government mean. If the child is neither neglected, abandoned, nor ill-treated, yet you have the right to take him away because his parents are without visible means of support. There would be power to take him before the magistrate, and take him compulsorily from his parents. Even on the Under-Secretary's statement it is an injustice to the children. It is upon adults the real mistake occurs, and it is a great deal too strong a Clause to put in, that you should have power to lock up a defective person simply because he is without visible means of support. If he has got sufficient means you cannot touch him, and if he has not you can. The Amendment proposes to leave out the words, "without visible means of support."

Mr. WEDGWOOD

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire upon his candid and straightforward statement to the House. He stated exactly the object and purpose of the words. He said that anyone who is mentally defective, as defined in Clause 1, ought to be put away.

Mr. ACLAND ALLEN

If without visible means of support.

Mr. WEDGWOOD

Yes, if without visible means of support. We have been told by the Home Secretary up to now, that it was not only persons mentally defective that were to be put away, but that they had, besides, to come in contact with the law and to get into the Courts for a crime. Does the right hon. Gentleman pretend that a child without visible means of support is committing a crime. As a Radical I have always protested against sending a tramp to prison; but in that case the term is only a fortnight, whereas here it is for life. People so poor as to be without visible means of support are to be deprived of their privileges as citizens, and treated as though they were persons who had committed a crime sufficiently heavy to warrant their being taken away. Either this Bill deals with mentally defective persons who have committed no crime to bring them under the law, or those words must go out of the Clause. On Clause 1 we were told by every speaker on the Government Bench that the definitions must be wide, and that we should not make a hard and fast line; and that persons who come within the definitions and within the meshes of the law, come under Clause 2, and that, therefore, we need not bother to make the definitions more tight in Clause 1. Now we are told, forsooth, that it does not matter whether or not they come into contact with the law, and under Clause 2 those who come within Clause 1 are, in the interests of society, to be put away. You cannot have it both ways. Either those definitions must be watertight, and everyone locked up who conies within, this Clause, or else you leave them vague. You must take the greatest care that people come in contact with the law before they are brought within the meshes of this Act. I hope there will be sufficient independence among Members of this House to see the injustice of leaving these words in. It is making the Bill from a bad Bill into a monstrous Bill, and I hope the words will therefore be taken out.

Mr. LESLIE SCOTT

I rise with reluctance to intervene, as I am very anxious to see the Bill go through. But are we not a long way from the real essence of the Bill? The object is to protect people who are suffering, and suffering badly. A common case known to everyone is that of a vagrant who is a vagrant because he is feeble-minded. He is within the meshes of the law. If he is without visible means of subsistence he can be arrested. Without this provision many vagrants who are mere imbeciles or feeble-minded cannot be properly cared for. The object of this Bill is to care for them, to treat them as patients, and this small Amendment makes that impossible. I am a lawyer, and therefore speak apologetically and with all modesty on behalf of my own profession. It is not a necessary postulate that every Court of Law will interpret such a phrase in the idiotic way which has been suggested in the course of this discussion. There is no Court that would say that because I was walking along the street, having left my small change behind, that I am therefore, without visible means of subsistence. Nor would an ordinary Court say that a child who was away from home and had no purse was, therefore, without visible means of subsistence. The person aimed at is really a person who has nothing to live upon, who is feeble-minded, and who ought to be taken care of.

Mr. DICKINSON

The suggestions which have been made are a total travesty of the whole Bill, and have proceeded upon a total misconception of what is going to happen. These people are to be placed in homes if certain things happen

—if on the evidence the judicial authority thinks it desirable to do so in the interest of the person himself, but when they are in the homes the Board has to release them unless it is satisfied that their detention is in their own interest. It all depends on how far the Board will trust the authorities to act in the interests of the defective person. There is no foundation for the idea that people are to be shut up simply because they are defectives or without visible means of subsistence.

Sir W. PHIPSON BEALE

I should have thought the two last Members had said the final word on this point. The hon. Member for Cambridge University seems to think that because a person is found without half-a-crown in his pocket he will be liable to be arrested for being without visible means of subsistence. No Court would be so foolish as to come to a conclusion of that sort.

Mr. BOOTH

This is really one of the very bad blots on the Bill, and I hope that those in charge will press the Amendment to a Division so that we may show how strong is the feeling in support of it. The admissions made to-night are in entire contradiction of what the Home Secretary preached in Committee last year. He again and again asserted that the object of this scheme was not to deal with feeble-minded people, but with people who came in contact with the law. Coming in contact with the law is now reduced to being without visible means of subsistence. I say to those who are friends of this Bill—I do not regard myself as a friend of the Bill; I regard myself as a friend of the feeble-minded—that nothing more calculated to make this Bill unpopular and the authorities working it unpopular and disliked by the working-classes could be done than to put in such a hideous phrase as this. I hope those who have studied this question will record their votes in the Division.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 66.

Division No. 211.] AYES. [10.31 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Arnold, Sydney Barnston, Harry
Acland, Francis Dyke Baird, John Lawrence Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)
Adamson, William Baker, H. T. (Accrington) Barton, William
Addison, Dr. Christopher Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Beale, Sir William Phipson
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Beck, Arthur Cecil
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) Helme, Sir Norval Watson O'Malley, William
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Helmsley, Viscount O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Bird, Alfred Hemmerde, Edward George O'Shee, James John
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire) Parker, James (Halifax)
Boland, John Pius Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.) Parry, Thomas H.
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Brady, Patrick Joseph Henry, Sir Charles Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Bridgeman, William Clive Higham, John Sharp Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Brunner, John F. L. Hills, John Waller Perkins, Walter F.
Bryce, J. Annan Hill-Wood, Samuel Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Hinds, John Pointer, Joseph
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Butcher, John George Hodge, John Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Holmes, Daniel Turner Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) Holt, Richard Durning Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Byles, Sir William Pollard Hope, John Deans (Haddington) Reddy, Michael
Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) Horner, Andrew Long Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Clancy, John Joseph Hughes, Spencer Leigh Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Illingworth, Percy H. Rendall, Atheistan
Clive, Captain Percy Archer Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Clough, William Jessel, Captain H. M. Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Cowan, W. H. Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Robinson, Sidney
Crumley, Patrick Joyce, Michael Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Cullinan, John Keating, Matthew Rowlands, James
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Kelly, Edward Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Kennedy, Vincent Paul Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Kerry, Earl of Sanders, Robert Arthur
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Kilbride, Denis Scanlan, Thomas
Dawes, J. A. King, Joseph Scott, A, MacCallum (Glas.. Bridgeton)
Delany, William Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton) Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.
Devlin, Joseph Lardner, James C. R. Sheehy, David
Dickinson, W. H. Levy, Sir Maurice Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)
Dillon, John Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert
Donelan, Captain A. Lewisham, Viscount Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Doris, William Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) Stewart, Gershom
Duffy, William J. Lundon, Thomas Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Lynch, A. A. Swift, Rigby
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Lyttelton, Hon J. C. (Droitwich) Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) McGhee, Richard Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
Elverston, Sir Harold Maclean, Donald Tennant, Harold John
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) MacNeill, J, G. Swift (Donegal, South) Thomas, James Henry
Essex, Sir Richard Walter Macpherson, James Ian Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Fell, Arthur MacVeagh, Jeremiah Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles M'Callum, Sir John M. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Ffrench, Peter M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) Verney, Sir Harry
Field, William M'Micking, Major Gilbert Wardle, George J.
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward Marks, Sir George Croydon Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Fitzgibbon, John Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. Weston, Colonel J. W.
Flavin, Michael Joseph Meagher, Michael White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Gladstone, W. G. C. Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Glanville, H. J. Middlebrook, William White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Goldstone, Frank Millar, James Duncan Whitehouse, John Howard
Goulding, Edward Alfred Molloy, Michael Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Greig, Colonel J. W. Molteno, Percy Alport Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Griffith, Ellis J. Morgan, George Hay Wiles, Thomas
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Morison, Hector Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Gulland, John William Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Muldoon, John Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Munro, Robert Wilson. Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Hackett, John Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. Wing, Thomas Edward
Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Hancock, John George Nolan, Joseph Yate, Colonel C. E.
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Nuttall, Harry Young, William (Perthshire, East)
Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Younger, Sir George
Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Haydon, John Patrick O'Doherty, Philip TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Jones and Mr. Webb
Hazleton, Richard O'Dowd, John
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Barnes, George N. Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Boyton, James
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Booth, Frederick Handel Brace, William
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Bowerman, Charles W. Bull, Sir William James
Burn, Colonel C. R. Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Cassel, Felix Hamersley, Alfred St. George Ronaldshay, Earl of
Cautley, Henry Strother Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) Hogge, James Myles Salter, Arthur Clavell
Chancellor, Henry George Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)
Clynes, John R. Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) Sanderson, Lancelot
Dalrymple, Viscount John, Edward Thomas Spear, Sir John Ward
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Kellaway, Frederick George Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Denison-Pender, J. C. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) Sutherland, John E.
Falle, Bertram Godfray Martin, Joseph Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue Mount, William Arthur Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)
Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) Neilson, Francis Thynne, Lord Alexander
Gilmour, Captain John Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Goldsmith, Frank Parkes, Ebenezer Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Gordon, Hon, John Edward (Brighton) Peto, Basil Edward Worthington-Evans, L.
Greene, Walter Raymond Pollock, Ernest Murray
Gretton. John Pringle, William M. R. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood and Sir F. Banbury.
Guinness, Hon.W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Radford, G. H.
Mr. WEDGWOOD

I beg to move, in paragraph (b) (ii), to leave out the words "or liable to be ordered."

Mr. McKENNA

I will agree to insert the word "found" before the word "liable" if the hon. Member will move the Amendment in that form.

Mr. WEDGWOOD

In that case my point would be met. I move, to insert the word "found" after the word "or" ["or liable to be ordered"].

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. McKENNA rose in his place, and claimed to move, that the following "words of Clause 2— (iii.) who is undergoing imprisonment (except imprisonment under civil process), or penal servitude, or is undergoing detention in a place of detention by order of a Court, or in a reformatory or industrial school, or in an inebriate reformatory or who is detained in an institution for lunatics or a criminal lunatic asylum; or (iv.) who is an habitual drunkard within the meaning of the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900; or (v.) in whose case such notice has been given by the local education authority as is hereinafter in this Section mentioned; or (vi.) who is in receipt of poor relief at the time of giving birth to an illegitimate child or when pregnant of such child.

(2) Notice shall, subject to regulations made by the Board of Education, to be laid before Parliament as hereinafter provided, be given by the local education authority to the local authority under this Act in the case of all defective children over the age of seven—

  1. (a) who have been ascertained to be incapable by reason of mental defect of receiving benefit or further benefit in special schools or classes, or who cannot be instructed in a special school or class without detriment to the interests of the other children, or for whom the Board of Education certify that no suitable special school or class is available;
  2. (b) who on or before attaining the age of sixteen are about to be with-drawn or discharged from a special school or class, and in whose case the local education authority are opinion that it would be to their benefit that they should be sent to an institution or placed under guardianship;"
and also the following words of Clause 3:— (Power to Deal with Defectives at Instance of Parent or Guardians). (1) The parent or guardian of a defective who is an idiot or imbecile, or is under the age of twenty-one, may place him in an institution or under guardianship: Provided that he shall not be so placed in an institution or under guardianship, except upon certificates in writing. stand part of the Bill.

Question put, "that the Question 'that the words of the Bill to the word "writing" stand part of the Bill' be now put."

Mr. GOLDSMITH (seated and covered)

I wish to point out that under the Closure Motion I have been ruled out on an Amendment to Clause 2, proposing to insert words which were contained in the Bill last year.

Mr. SPEAKER

If the House accepts this Motion, and the Motion consequent upon it, we shall begin with Clause 3 after the words "except upon certificates in."

Mr. RAWLINSON (seated and covered)

May I point out that there is no Motion, dealing with Clause 3.

Mr. SPEAKER

On the Report stage we do not deal with the Bill by Clauses. We are dealing with the Bill as a whole.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 211, Noes, 82.

Division No. 212.] AYES. [10.44 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Griffith, Ellis Jones O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Acland, Francis Dyke Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Adamson, William Gulland, John William O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Addison, Dr. Christopher Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) O'Doherty, Philip
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. Hackett, John O'Dowd, John
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Hancock, John George O'Grady, James
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) O'Malley, William
Arnold, Sydney Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) O'Shee, James John
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury. E.) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Parker, James (Halifax)
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Hayden, John Patrick Parry, Thomas H.
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) Hazleton, Richard Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Barton, William Helme, Sir Norval Watson Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Beale, Sir William Phipson Hemmerde, Edward George Pointer, Joseph
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Beck, Arthur Cecil Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) Henry, Sir Charles Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Higham, John Sharp Radford, George Heynes
Boland, John Pius Hinds, John Reddy, Michael
Bowerman, Charles W. Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Hodge, John Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Brace, William Holmes, Daniel Turner Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Brady, Patrick Joseph Holt, Richard Durning Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Brunner, John F. L. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Bryce, John Annan Hughes, Spencer Leigh Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Illingworth, Percy H. Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Robinson, Sidney
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) John, Edward Thomas Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Byles, Sir William Pollard Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Rowlands, James
Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) Jones. J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Chancellor, Henry George Jones Leif Stratten (Notts Rushcliffe) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Scanlan, Thomas
Clancy, John Joseph Joyce, Michael Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Clough, William Keating, Matthew Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Clynes, John R. Kelly, Edward Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.
Condon, Thomas Joseph Kennedy, Vincent Paul Sheehy, David
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Kilbride, Denis Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Cowan, William Henry King, J. Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert
Crumley, Patrick Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton) Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Cullinan, John Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Lardner, James C. R. Sutherland. John E.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Levy, Sir Maurice Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Lundon, Thomas Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
Dawes, James Arthur Lynch, Arthur Alfred Tennant, Harold John
Delany, William Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Thomas, James Henry
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas McGhee, Richard Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Devlin, Joseph Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Dickinson, W. H. MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Dillon, John Macpherson, James Ian Verney, Sir Harry
Doris, William MacVeagh, Jeremiah Wardle, George J.
Duffy, William J. M'Callum, Sir John M. Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald White, J. Dundas (Glasgow Tradeston)
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) M'Micking, Major Gilbert White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Marks, Sir George Croydon White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Elverston, Sir Harold Meagher, Michael Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Meehan. Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Wiles, Thomas
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Essex, Sir Richard Walter Middlebrook, William Williamson, Sir Archibald
Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Millar, James Duncan Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull. W.)
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Molloy, Michael Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Ffrench, Peter Molteno, Percy Alport Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Field, William Morgan, George Hay Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward Morison, Hector Wing, Thomas Edward
Fitzgibbon, John Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Flavin, Michael Joseph Muldoon, John Young, William (Perth, East)
Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson Munro, Robert Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Gladstone, W. G. C. Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.
Glanville, Harold James Nolan, Joseph TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Jones and Mr. Webb.
Goldstone, Frank Nuttall, Harry
Greig, Colonel James William
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Fletcher, John Samuel Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. Gilmour, Captain John Perkins, Walter Frank
Baird, John Lawrence Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Peto, Basil Edward
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Goulding, Edward Alfred Pollock, Ernest Murray
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Greene, W. R. Pringle, William M. R.
Barnes, George N. Gretton, John Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Barnston, Harry Guinness, Hon.W.E, (Bury S. Edmunds) Ronaldshay, Earl of
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Hamersley, Alfred St. George Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)
Bird, Alfred Helmsley, Viscount Sanders, Robert Arthur
Booth, Frederick Handel Hills, John Waller Sanderson, Lancelot
Boyton, James Hill-Wood, Samuel Spear, Sir John Ward
Bridgeman, William Clive Hogge, James Myles Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Bull, Sir William James Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Stewart, Gershom
Burn, Colonel C. R. Horner, Andrew Long Talbot, Lord Edmund
Butcher, John George Jessel, Captain Herbert M. Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Cassel, Felix Kellaway, Frederick George Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)
Cautley, Henry Strother Kerry, Earl of Thynne, Lord Alexander
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Lewisham, Viscount White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Dalrymple, Viscount Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Worthington-Evans, L.
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Martin, Joseph Yate, Colonel C. E.
Denison-Pender, J. C. Mount, William Arthur Younger, Sir George
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. Neilson, Francis
Falle, Bertram Godfray Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Goldsmith and Mr. Rawlinson.
Fell, Arthur Parkes, Ebenezer
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Question put accordingly, "That the words of the Bill to the word 'writing' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 53.

Division No. 213.] AYES. [10.55 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Cornwall, Sir Edwin A Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)
Acland, Francis Dyke Cowan, William Henry Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)
Adamson, William Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)
Addison, Dr. Christopher Crumley, Patrick Hayden, John Patrick
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. Cullinan, John Hazleton, Richard
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Helme, Sir Norval Watson
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Hemmerde, Edward George
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Archer-Shee, Major Martin Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)
Arnold, Sydney Dawes, J. A. Henry, Sir Charles
Baird, John Lawrence Delany, William Higham, John Sharp
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Hills, John Waller
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Devlin, Joseph Hinds, John
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Dickinson, W. H. Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Dillon, John Hodge, John
Barnes, George N. Doris, William Holmes, Daniel Turner
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) Duffy, William J. Holt, Richard Durning
Barton, William Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Beale, Sir William Phipson Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan) Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Illingworth, Percy H.
Beck, Arthur Cecil Elverston, Sir Harold Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) John, Edward Thomas
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Bird, Alfred Essex, Sir Richard Walter Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)
Boland, John Pius Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)
Bowerman, Charles W. Ffrench, Peter Joyce, Michael
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Field, William Keating, Matthew
Brace, William Fiennes, Hon Eustace Edward Kelly, Edward
Brady, Patrick Joseph Fitzgibbon, John Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Brunner, John F. L. Flavin, Michael Joseph Kilbride, Denis
Bryce, John Annan Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson King, Joseph
Buckmaster, Stanely O. Gilmour, Captain John Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Burn, Colonel C. R. Gladstone, W. G. C. Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)
Butcher, John George Glanville, Harold James Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) Goldstone, Frank Lardner, James C. R.
Byles, Sir William Pollard Goulding, Edward Alfred Levy, Sir Maurice
Cawlsy, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) Greig, Colonel James William Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert
Chancellor, Henry George Griffith, Ellis Jones Lewisham, Viscount
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)
Clancy, John Joseph Gulland, John William Lundon, Thomas
Clive, Captain Percy Archer Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Lynch, Arthur Alfred
Clough, William Hackett, John Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)
Clynes, John R. Hancock, John George Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) McGhee, Richard
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Stewart, Gershom
MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Peto, Basil Edward Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Macpherson, James Ian Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Sutherland, John E.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Pointer, Joseph Taylor, John W. (Durham)
M'Callum, Sir John M. Pollock, Ernest Murray Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
M'Micking, Major Gilbert Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Tennant, Harold John
Marks, Sir George Croydon Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Thomas, James Henry
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. Radford, G. H. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Meagher, Michael Reddy, Michael Thynne, Lord Alexander
Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Middlebrook, William Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Verney, Sir Harry
Millar, James Duncan Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Wardle, G. J.
Molloy, Michael Roberts, George H. (Norwich) Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Molteno, Percy Alport Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) Weston, Colonel J. W.
Morgan, George Hay Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Morison, Hector Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Robinson, Sidney White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Mount, William Arthur Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Muldoon, John Ronaldshay, Earl of Wiles, Thomas
Munro, Robert Rowlands, James Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C. Salter, Arthur Clavell Williamson, Sir Archibald
Nolan, Joseph Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Nuttall, Harry Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Sanders, Robert Arthur Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Sanderson, Lancelot Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Scanlan, Thomas Wing, Thomas Edward
O'Doherty, Philip Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
O'Dowd, John Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) Young, William (Perth, East)
O'Grady, James Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B. Younger Sir George
O'Malley, William Sheehy, David Yoxall, Sir James Henry
O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
O'Shee, James John Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Jones and Mr. Webb.
Parker, James (Halifax) Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Parry, Thomas H. Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
NOES.
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Greene, Walter Raymond Perkins, Walter Frank
Barnston, Harry Gretton, John Pringle, William M. R.
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds) Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Bridgeman, William Clive Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Bull, Sir William James Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)
Cassel, Felix Helmsley, Viscount Spear, Sir John Ward
Cautley, Henry Strother Hill-Wood, Samuel Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.) Hogge, James Myles Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Horner, Andrew Long Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Dalrymple, Viscount Jessel, Captain H. M. White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Kellaway, Frederick George Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Denison-Pender, J. C. Kerry, Earl of Worthington-Evans, L.
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End) Yate, Colonel C. E.
Falle, Bertram Godfray Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)
Fell, Arthur Martin, Joseph TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Goldsmith and Mr. Rawlinson.
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Fletcher, John Samuel Parkes, Ebenezer
Lord HUGH CECIL

As it is now after eleven o'clock, I desire to move, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned."

Mr. SPEAKER

I cannot accept that Motion, as the House has resolved to sit after eleven o'clock.