§ Sub-section (3) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fourteen.
§ Mr. McKENNAI beg to move, in Subsection (3), Clause 71, to leave out the word "January," and to insert instead thereof the word "April."
§ Sir A. MARKHAMIs the right hon. Gentleman the father of this Amendment? Is all Home Office legislation to come in on 1st April?
§ Mr. KINGI am rather sorry that this Amendment should have been brought forward. I do suggest it is an unnecessary Amendment. It looks very much as if the salaries of the officers are to come into operation six months before the actual beneficent work of the Bill itself. I think that needs some explanation, and I invite the Home Secretary to make a statement.
§ Mr. McKENNAI will do so on the next Amendment.
§ Amendment put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. McKENNAI beg to move to add at the end of the Clause the words, "except that as respects the constitution of the Board of Control, and the appointment of the secretary, officers, and servants of the Board, it shall come into operation on the first day of November, nineteen hundred and thirteen.
In this Amendment it is proposed to take power to make the appointments 494 of the officers in the month of November. The reason for that is that the newly appointed officers have to prepare schemes under which the local authorities have to act. They will have to receive proposals from the local authorities as to how they propose to spend the money provided under the Bill. Unless we appoint the officers first there will be nobody to advise the local authorities.
§ Mr. McKENNAI beg to move "That the Bill be now read the third time.
§ Mr. BOOTHIn order to get a statement from the Government, I move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
§ Mr. WEDGWOODOn a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to take an Order which does not appear on the Order Paper of the day? The Third Reading of this Bill does not appear on the Order Paper, and I submit that it is not giving the House a fair opportunity of drafting a reasoned Amendment to the Third Reading. To the Insurance Bill, a similar Bill to this, a reasoned Amendment was drafted, and was moved. The fact that you are now allowing the House to discuss this Order which does not appear on the Order Paper, deprives us of the opportunity of moving a reasoned Amendment. I submit also that taking an Order which is not on the Order Paper deprives Members of the opportunity of obtaining information for dealing with the main subject of debate. The material 495 for giving reasoned arguments cannot be in their possession if they have no notice that the Third Reading will be taken. Therefore, on the principle that nothing that is not on the Order Paper should be taken, and also from the point of view of the convenience of Members, and their not having an opportunity of obtaining the necessary information, I submit that the Third Reading should not be taken.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is a very common practice to take the Third Reading of a Bill even though it does not appear on the Order Paper. With regard to notice, notice was given yesterday. It was practically, as I understood, part of the arrangement which was come to—that the Bill was to occupy two or three hours after Eleven o'clock. It has now taken four hours. Everybody has had ample notice: The Prime Minister to-day at Question Time said he proposed to conclude the Bill, so that I think every hon. Member has had ample notice that it was the intention of the Government to take the Third Reading.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI submit to you, Sir, that it is contrary to the rules of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."]—contrary to the practice of this House to take the Third Reading on an important Bill like this on the same day as the Report stage, and I submit that no arrangement was come to last night as to taking the Third Reading to-day, unless some arrangement was come to behind the Speaker's Chair, an arrangement which has no binding effect on the House. Unfortunately I was unable to be in the House early to-day, having been up till a late hour last night, and I did not hear the Prime Minister. If I had heard him say that the Postmaster-General was to take the Third Reading I could have got my material ready. As it is we have had no opportunity. I submit this is not the proper time to take the Third Reading.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is not contrary to the practice of the House, but a very common practice, if there is a consensus of opinion in favour of such a course. After the Divisions which have taken place to-day I think everybody would come to the conclusion that the general opinion of the House is in favour of the Bill.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI am very sorry to be so persistent, but this is rather a serious matter. We have the Report stage, on 496 which four-fifths of the Bill has been closured en bloc, and now we are asked without notice and without it appearing on the Order Paper, to take the Third Reading. I submit that this is bringing Parliamentary Debate into contempt.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member can judge whether the Report stage was conducted as a Report stage or as a Committee stage. If the Report stage had been conducted as it is ordinarily, the hon. Member would have had ample time. He chose to treat it as though it were a Committee stage.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODOn that point—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI call on the hon. Member for Pontefract.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODMr. Speaker, you charged me with conducting—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI made no charge against the hon. Member at all. He said that Parliamentary debate was being brought into contempt, and I pointed out that there had been ample discussion and that the Bill had been treated as if it were in Committee.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODYou said it had been treated by me as if it were in Committee. That is absolutely untrue.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member can hardly deny that, if he looks at the Order Paper.
§ Mr. BOOTHI think a small minority such as we are can hardly complain of the time that has been given. On the Third Reading, I now ask, does the Government really intend to press it to-night. I think we had enough controversy for to-day. If they only take non-controversial things afterwards, I think we might close the sitting down.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI beg to move the rejection of the Bill, and, if I can get a co-teller, I am going into the. Lobby against it. It seems to me that this Bill has been treated in a most extraordinary way. Its history from the beginning has been peculiar. It is the result of a report of a Royal Commission which inquired into the condition of the feeble-minded. On that Commission were a certain number of doctors and one or two Members of this House. The Report of the Commission was then taken by the Home Office and translated into a Bill which was first introduced into this House last year. The 497 Bill was then largely remodelled in Committee upstairs, and has been reintroduced this year, but owing to the fact that certain Members of this House objected to the principle of the Bill, care has been taken to see that those Members should have nothing whatever to do with its discussion. I happen to be one of those who believe that you have no right to put in prison for life a man or a woman who has committed no crime. I believe further that those who are on top in this country have no right to pass penal legislation for the lower orders which does, not apply to themselves. From both those points of view I object to this Bill from beginning to end. Care has been taken this year to see that those people who share my views, and I myself, should have no voice in the discussion of the Bill.
We were excluded from the Committee upstairs, and down here four-fifths of the Bill has been closured in a way that no other Bill has been treated before. There never before has been a Bill treated on Report stage as this Bill has been treated. We have had no discussion at all as to whether a woman who has an illegitimate child or is pregnant with an illegitimate child should be classed as feeble-minded or brought within the meshes of the law. That is a perfectly iniquitous position of things when we remember that women have no voice whatever in the government of the country. Almost the whole of the important Clause 2 was closured without a word of discussion. We have had not a word of discussion on the question of whether this Act should be administered by the Boards of Guardians or by local authorities. A great deal of discussion has arisen outside this House as to whether the Government were wise in allowing Boards of Guardians to set up and manage these institutions, and to manage them in connection with workhouses. No discussion was
§ allowed in this House on that subject, and no discussion was allowed upon a fundamental principle of the Bill which is its compulsory character.
§ Then there is further the question as to whether these orders were to be permanent and people were to be incarcerated permanently in these institutions or only temporarily. No word of discussion was allowed upon that. All these things point to a curious state of things. It is the result of an alliance between the two Front Benches, and when the two Front Benches get together any independent Member of this House stands a very poor chance of having his voice heard. This measure is supported by the hon. Member for East Birmingham, who is the chief organiser of the Conservative party, he and the Home Office officials have managed to secure control over the Liberal Cabinet and have got them to consent to the Bill. I object to a measure being forced through this House by the use of the Government Whips when it originated from the Conservative party, and I would equally object if it originated from the Socialist party. For all these reasons I object to the Bill, because it is a bad Bill, and because, owing to the collusion of the two Front Benches, it has been taken in a manner absolutely unprecedented and which can only call down ridicule upon our Debates. I do not wish to see this sham House of Commons a perpetual factor in the government of this country. For all these reasons, I beg to move that "This Bill be read the Third time upon this day three months," and I hope we shall not be sitting in this House three months hence doing the Government's behests upon a measure of this kind.
§ Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 3.
499| Division No. 234.] | AYES. | [3.15 a.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Bentham, G. J. | Chapple, Dr. William Allen |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Bigland, Alfred | Clancy, John Joseph |
| Adamson, William | Boland, John Pius | Clough, William |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Booth, Frederick Handel | Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Bowerman, Charles W. | Condon, Thomas Joseph |
| Arnold, Sydney | Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Brace, William | Cotton, William Francis |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Brady, Patrick Joseph | Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) |
| Barnes, George N. | Bridgeman, W. Clive | Crumley, Patrick |
| Barnston, Harry | Brunner, John F. L. | Cullinan, John |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Bryce, J. Annan | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) |
| Barton, William | Burn, Colonel C. R. | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, 3.) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Delany, William |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Chancellor, Henry George | Devlin, Joseph |
| Dickinson, W. H. | Keating, Mathew | O'Shee, James John |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Kelly, Edward | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Doris, William | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Duffy, William J. | Kilbride, Denis | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | King, Joseph | Parry, Thomas H. |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Lardner, James C. R. | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Leach, Charles | Pointer, Joseph |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Reddy, Michael |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Lewisham, Viscount | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Field, William | Lundon, Thomas | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Feinnes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Fitzgibbon, John | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| France, Gerald Ashburner | McGhee, Richard | Robinson, Sidney |
| Gibbs, G. A. | Maclean, Donald | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Gilmour, Captain John | Macpherson, James Ian | Rowlands, James |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Goldsmith, Frank | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs, Spalding) | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Goldstone, Frank | M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Sheehy, David |
| Griffith, Ellis Jones | Manfleld, Harry | Shortt, Edward |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Guinness, Hon.W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Meagher, Michael | Stewart, Gershom |
| Hackett, John | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Strauss, Edward A, (Southwark, West) |
| Marcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) | Sutherland, John E. |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Middlebrook, William | Sutton, John E. |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Millar, James Duncan | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Hazleton, Richard | Molloy, Michael | Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Tennant, Harold John |
| Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Morrell, Philip | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Higham, John Sharp | Muldoon, John | Webb, H. |
| Hogge, James Myles | Munro, Robert | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Hope, Harry (Bute) | Murphy, Martin J. | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Horner, A. L. | Nolan, Joseph | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Hughes, Spencer Leigh | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Whyte, Alexander F. |
| John, Edward Thomas | O'Doherty, Philip | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | O'Donnell, Thomas | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | O'Dowd, John | |
| Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | O'Malley, William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood and Sir A. Markham. |
| Dalrymple, Viscount |
Question put, and agreed to.