Commons Sitting of 27 June 1913

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Heathfield and District Water Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Broadstairs and St. Peter's Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
London and South Western Railway Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time upon Monday next.
East Ham Corporation Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday next.
London County Council (Money) Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.
Ipswich Dock Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
North-Eastern Railway Bill [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. GOLDSTONE: I understand the promoters of the Bill are prepared to accept the Instruction in my name. If that be so, I do not propose further to delay the passage of the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to inquire into the circumstances affecting the Town Moor of Sunderland and, if they think fit, to require an equivalent or other area to be substituted for the area of the said moor the reversion to which the Promoters acquire under the powers of the Bill.—[Goldstone.]
Great Eastern Railway Bill [Lords] [by Order],
Second Reading deferred till Monday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 19) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 20) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17) Bill,
As amended, considered, to be read the third time upon Monday next.
St. Andrews Burgh Extension and Links Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 22) Bill.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I beg to move "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to the county of Glamorgan."
Sir F. BANBURY: I should like some explanation of why the Standing Orders are going to be suspended.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet has the explanation every week.
Mr HERBERT LEWIS: In this particular case the County Council of Glamorgan applied for additional borrowing powers. The Local Government Board consider that they are entitled to them and hope the House will be good enough to grant them this year. Unfortunately, it is impossible to hold the necessary inquiry until 9th May, and that is the cause of the delay. The money is required for some very important extensions and improvements, and we consider that it will really prejudice the county if the matter is delayed until next year. I really trust the House will kindly allow the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns.
Ordered, That, in the case of the Local Government Provisional Order (No. 22) Bill, Standing Order 193a be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
Private Bills (Group E),
Sir WILLIAM HOWELL DAVIES reported from the Committee on Group E of Private Bills, That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 14th June, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions, Amendment) Regulations (Scotland), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 5114 Thy Command]; to lie upon the Table.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (RPOCEDURE).
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report whether any and, if so, what alterations are desirable in the practice and procedure of this House with regard to public business.—[Mr. Illingworth.]
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH (Lord of the Treasury): I beg to move, "That the Committee do consist of sixteen Members."
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: I beg to move to add, at the end, the words "chosen by ballot from the respective groups in the House in the following proportion: Liberals six, Unionists six, Irish Nationalists two, Irish Independent party one, and Labour one."
  I should like to enter my emphatic protest against the Government having put down a very strong controversial measure of this sort just in front of another controversial measure.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is too late in raising anything of that sort. The only question he can now debate is how the sixteen Members who are to form this Committee are to be appointed.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: I thank you for allowing me to make that preliminary observation. Ever since this Motion appeared on the Order Paper it was quite evident to hon. Members on this side that it gave satisfaction to nobody. The various Amendments which come after mine clearly indicate that. I am not going to criticise for a moment the names the Government have put down of colleagues and Friends of ours on both sides of the House, still I am sure most of the House will agree with me that it would be extremely undesirable to have a debate upon what is, after all, the personal element, and it is with that object that I have put down the Amendment standing in my name, which, I believe, commands certainly a very considerable amount of support on this side of the House, whatever it may do on the other. Perhaps hon. Members opposite are better pleased with the selection than hon. Members on this side. Of course it is one of those matters in which I think everyone will agree that the House ought to have a certain amount of liberty and not one on which the Government
  1372
  should put on their Whips. I may say frankly that if my Amendment is negatived, I shall vote straight through against my hon. Friends' other Amendments by which they propose to place one name against another. It is only fair to the Government to say that. I think it will save a considerable amount of time and be more consistent with the dignity of this House, if we pass the Amendment which I now move.
  Sir GODFREY BARING: I beg to second the Amendment. I have no desire to enter into any kind of criticism of the names submitted in the Motion, but I think that on these personal matters when Amendments are down on the Paper to leave out certain names and substitute others a somewhat invidious duty is imposed on hon. Members who support one name as against another. One hon. Member proposes to substitute the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) for the hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs (Mr. Robert Harcourt). I cannot conceive a more disagreeable and embarrassing situation than that the House of Commons should be called upon to decide as between these two gentlemen. I think in so important a matter as this it is essential that the House of Commons should have the fullest possible choice. Although the sixteen names in the Motion may be very excellent names, I am not at all sure that if we submitted the nominations to a ballot we might not provide a better Committee. The Amendment proposes that the vote should be in camera. That is a system which has been adopted in other Assemblies, and which might be adopted here with advantage. I shall have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am sure that my hon. Friends who have made themselves responsible for this Amendment as to the selection of this Committee by ballot would not say that the Government exercised any influence of any sort or kind over the selection of these names except as regards six of the Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Members are nominated in accordance with the undertaking which I gave when the question was originally debated. The Government have nominated six of the Members and the whole of the rest are drawn in the usual way from other quarters of the House. What I wish to observe is that

  1373
  the names have been allocated, in fact, in the proportions which my hon. Friends desire, Six belong to the regular supporters of the Government, six are Unionists, and two are Irish Nationalists, whose names were suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond), one is an Independent Nationalist, and one a Labour Member, so that we have selected the names exactly in the way my hon. Friend suggests so far as the balance of parties is concerned. It will be entirely in the discretion of the House to propose other names if it is considered those proposed do not properly represent the balance of parties. It would be a very reasonable objection to take. The House has complete control over the names, but I see no reason why the Motion should not be passed in the form now proposed.
  Mr. KING: I only express my difference from the Prime Minister with great hesitation, but I do so with some confidence on this occasion, for this reason: I believe the Prime Minister, who generally apprehends the sense and feeling of this House, does not understand how this matter is regarded in all parts of the House of Commons except on the two Front Benches. If he had heard the conversation which has been indulged in frequently in regard to this Motion, he would have gathered something which would have enlightened him.
  The PRIME MINISTER: What was the conversation?
  Mr. KING: That is a challenge which I shall not accept, though I am usually ready confidently to reply to any challenge. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because it might involve me in having to repeat un-parliamentary epithets. Seriously this point ought to be understood by the Prime Minister. There are several of these names—in fact there are more than two, more than three, more than four of these names—I will not go any further—which do represent a tendency which we do not want to have stronger than is necessary in this House. They represent officialism, and a tendency to block all proposals coming from private Members. We understood that the Committee was to be appointed in order to provide that private Members might have a chance. I say that the names proposed for the composition of the Committee indicate that the reverse would be the result. I therefore most earnestly represent to the Prime Minister
  1374
  that if he cannot give way, he should, at any rate, indicate a large alteration in the list of names when we come to consider them individually. I beg to support the Amendment most heartily, and if it is necessary to go to a Division, I shall endeavour to prevail upon other Members, to support it.
  Mr. BECK: It is with considerable reluctance that I rise to support the Amendment. We do not want to enter into recriminations as to who is or who is not fit to sit on the Committee. I suppose all of us have full confidence in the Committee which has been proposed, but it is idle to, deny that there is some dissatisfaction about the selection of the Committee. I remember an occasion on which I was personally concerned when a Committee was appointed to consider the matter of London traffic, and when there was such an outcry on the part of parties interested in the constitution of that Committee that I myself and others were asked to retire in order to make way for others more interested in and conversant with the subject. I would ask the Prime Minister to consider this question more sympathetically than he has done hitherto. There is a feeling in this House that some of our oldest and most weighty Members are not adequately represented on the Committees which are set up. The younger Members of the House can speak freely on this matter. There are Members here who have vast knowledge of the procedure and working of, this House, and we consider that they are very much passed over in the appointment of Committees. I shall, feeling quite conscious of being in the right, support the Amendment if it goes to a Division.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: May I ask the hon. Member (Mr. Cathcart Wason) what he really means by the words "chosen by ballot." Does he mean that all the names shall be put into a box and voted on secretly, and that those which are first drawn shall be taken to, constitute the Committee.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: What mean is that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House should elect by ballot those Members who seem to them most desirable to place on the Committee, while we on this side of the House, representing the Liberal party shall do the same thing with respect to the Members we desire to serve on the Committee. We

  1375
  should not vote on the names of the Committee at all, but hand to the Patronage Secretary the names of those we wish to be included in the ballot.
  Mr. SHERWELL: Although I do not feel that the suggestion made by my hon. Friend in the Amendment now before the House is the most perfect way of realising his object, I shall support him in the Lobby as the only way of entering an objection to the manner in which these Committees are from time to time appointed. In the present case where the object of the Motion put down by the Government is to allow the average Member of the House to pass in review the arrangements for the procedure of this House, and in order to test the possibility of facilitating the progress of legislation, and particularly private Members' legislation, I cannot help thinking, this being the primary intention of the Motion, that the nomination of the Committee has been too narrow in its character. No one contends that the particular names included in the nomination do not give other than an official complexion. There can be no sort of objection to the names individually.
  The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend says that the names give an official complexion to the Committee. Will he kindly indicate what names he means?
  Mr. SHERWELL: My point is this. The Committee is constituted by nomination of the Whips of the two great parties represented in this House. That is not a desirable way of selecting the members of a Committee for so practical a purpose as is the purpose of the present Committee. My hon. Friend who preceded me complained of the names selected, on the ground that the older and weightier Members of this House had their claims ignored. My objection to the Committee is of quite a different character. There is no Member of this House who has tried more assiduously to avoid nomination on any Committee than I have done, and therefore I do not share my hon. Friend's confidence that we all of us feel ourselves qualified to serve on any Committee. But looking at the names which appear in the Notice of Motion I find that eight of them, or one half of the total number, had a connection with this House prior to or as early as the year 1892. It does not need one to have a prolonged memory in this House to be perfectly conscious of the benumbing influence of the
  1376
  traditions and atmosphere of this House where rules and procedure are concerned; and I do think that a Committee of this character should present an opportunity for the service of Members who have a much more recent association with the House, and can bring to bear upon the consideration of this question a freshness of point of view which otherwise may be lacking. The Prime Minister questioned my reference as to the Committee being official in its complexion. I very strongly object personally to the Whips of the two great parties being represented on this Committee. I am perfectly well aware that the Whips have expert knowledge and experience of the rules and procedure of this House, but it does not follow that because the Whips are not personally Members of the Committee therefore no opportunity is afforded to them of presenting their views to the Committee, and I suggest that a very ready and direct way of presenting their suggestions to the Committee is by occupying a seat in the witness chair. Therefore, I should personally like to see the Whips association with the Committee ended by having them excluded and the names of others substituted. There is a perfectly natural, and, from their point of view, legitimate desire on the part of the Whips, to keep control of the arrangements of the business of the House, but the result is that the interests of private legislation, often of an urgent character, are again and again prejudiced because of the overwhelming control exercised by the Whips in the arrangement of the business of the House. For these reasons, and also because there are certain members nominated on this Committee who have what I may term a vested interest in the existing rule, and are therefore not the best qualified to suggest improvements in procedure, I shall vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. F. WHYTE: The right hon. Gentleman says that it would be a mistake to depart from the method usually employed in the appointment of Select Committees, especially to adopt the method of selection by ballot, and he says that the names are put one by one from the Chair in order that reasonable objection, if such exists, may be taken; but it would be most unpleasant if we had to divide either on this or on any other occasion as to the respective merits of different names, and therefore we come back to the original method of selection. I am quite sure that the dissatisfaction which exists in a great many

  1377
  parts of the House with the present composition of this Committee, is due not so much to any question of disagreement with the names of particular persons, though I know that the disagreement in some cases is pretty strong, as to the fact that the decision to appoint six Members from this side and six Members from that side of the House in the main emerged from secret conclaves. That is to say, the general sense of the, House—though I know that there is a difficulty in the matter—is not taken as to who should be selected. I agree that while the actual official element of the Whips from either side of the House is meagrely represented on the Committee, none the less the membership of the Committee is essentially of an official character. It is rather remarkable that the tiniest party in the House should find itself represented in full upon the Committee. I refer to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract does not take umbrage at my reference to him in that character, because he openly and proudly confesses to it.
  Mr. BOOTH: My hon. Friend comes from Scotland and therefore does not understand a humorous suggestion.
  Mr. F. WHYTE: My hon. Friend has made a perfectly legitimate thrust, but, humorous suggestions or none on his part, his actions prove that his words had some meaning in them. On that ground I say that these two hon. Gentlemen form in themselves a party which, as my hon. Friend says, have a distinct vested interest in the present rules of procedure. There is a further point. A Committee of this kind ought to be peculiarly the production of the House as a whole, because what is at stake at this moment? Not the interests of the Government with regard to the control of the House, but the interests of the private Member. After the deliberations of this Committee are completed, and after it has reported, it still rests with His Majesty's Government to decide what is to be done, and nothing but the most overwhelming pressure, not only from his own side of the House but from the other side of the House, could move them, if they were unwilling, to take action on the Report of a Committee which was as comparatively hostile to their own views. Therefore I think that the official character of this Committee is deserving
  1378
  of some public remark before we take a vote on the subject, and although, like the hon. Member for Huddersfield and the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, I do not care for the form in which the Member for Orkney has put his Motion, I shall be compelled to support the Amendment as a protest against the way in which the Committee has been appointed.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have given as good advice to the House as I can on this subject. This is not a matter in which the Government have any concern at all, and they will gladly defer to any general expression of opinion by the House. I have only two things to say. It is said that this proposed Committee is official in character. I only wish to say, first, that fourteen out of the sixteen Members proposed are private Members and non-official; and so far as regards the Whips' Department, my hon. Friend (Mr. Illingworth) is perfectly willing that his Department should not be represented. I think it is a most patriotic position he has taken up in the circumstances, with his almost unrivalled knowledge of procedure. I should have thought, also, that there could be no objection to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sanders), who represents the other side. So far as concerns the suggestion that the Government are putting on a Whip, and that the Opposition are putting on a Whip with some sinister design to control the proceedings in their own interest, there is no ground whatever for it, and I trust that the House will now come to a decision.
  Earl WINTERTON: Before we go to a Division I should like to associate myself with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) in what he said. I do not myself care for the particular Amendment which has been moved, but I shall certainly support it as a protest against the composition of the Committee. In regard to what the Prime Minister has said, I should have thought the suggestion that the two Whips might give evidence before the Committee would give it the advantage of the knowledge of precedure which they possess, and then there could be no suggestion that the Whips were in any way attempting to influence the proceedings of that body in favour of an alteration of procedure which would make their power even greater than it is at present.
  Mr. PIRIE: I are sorry that the Prime Minister asks us to come to a decision

  1379
  on this very important subject, which we have been debating only for half an hour. The Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, whatever may be thought of it, shows the general feeling of the House, which on more than one occasion has been displayed on various public matters, and my only surprise is that Members of the Government should be surprised that such an Amendment has been put down. If the older Members of the Government who were here before 1892 were in any way in touch with the pulse of the House they would see that this ebullition of feeling in one direction is only natural, and I must say that it is growing more and more, especially so within the last few months. It is felt that the Government are aloof from the feelings of private Members of this House, that they stand alone on a pedestal of their own imagination, unaware of the feeling among private Members, and that they are absolutely out of touch with the feelings of private Members, who, after all, are supposed to be the real power in the House. The Government have an unusual amount of power at the present time, and the more power they obtain the more they will require. That is the danger, and therefore this Debate is only the natural outcome of the feeling which exists. I hope that other private Members will continue voicing this feeling of general reluctance to serve as the galley slaves of the Cabinet. If the Prime Minister wishes to get the general feeling of private Members, and not the feeling of servile and obedient followers of the Government Whips—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—I withdraw the word "servile," and I withdraw the word "obedient." I merely call attention to the feeling of private Members of this House—let him take off the Government Whips when there is a Division.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I propose to do so.
  Mr. PIRIE: My request is granted before it is made, and I am very glad of it. Before a Division is taken, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland will devise a more popular Amendment [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—while maintaining the principle at stake. The appointment of this Committee should not be merely in the hands of the Whips of each party. If private Members are left free to express their
  1380
  general feeling in the Division Lobby, I believe they might possibly defeat the Government.
  Lord EDMUND TALBOT: We have no desire to press the nomination of the Whip on this side, and if there is a general opinion that the two Whips should not be on the Committee, we on this side do not wish to raise any objection.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: I quite appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's position, and I am sure the House will excuse me if I offer a few observations on the subject. The principle followed in this House is that each party shall have representation proportionate to its number, and the selection of nominees is a matter for the respective parties themselves. In reference to the party with which I am associated, in making a selection we have regard only to the fitness of the Member chosen for the duties which he will have to discharge on the Committee. If one of our party possesses intimate knowledge of the subject to be dealt with by the Committee to be appointed, he is selected. I assume that is the policy pursued by other parties in the House. In the Labour party the officials of that party, who obtain an accurate knowledge of the fitness of a particular Member of it for the duties to be performed, make a recommendation to a meeting of the Labour Members, who approve or reject the recommendation made to them. In this particular it may well happen that the composition of the Committee is not what the House would exactly desire. As the Prime Minister has stated, the House now has the opportunity of voting upon each individual name, and as the Whips are not to be put on it seems to me the desire of the House can very well be made known. As to the method proposed in the Amendment, I must say I cannot regard it as practical as far as I am concerned, and with my colleagues I propose to vote against it.
  Mr. EUGENE WASON: I am anxious not to allow the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetlands (Mr. Cathcart Wason) to pass without a word of protest. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) spoke of me as one of the older and weightier Members. When the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr. Pirie) says that the object of this Committee is to

  1381
  put more power into the hands of the Government than they have already got I desire to inform him it is nothing of the sort. It is following on the old procedure, and on the old lines. I agree entirely with the remark that the Whips in their selection of members for Select Committees do endeavour to get the best men they possibly can for those Committees, and that would be impossible if the Amendment were adopted. I have no hesitation whatever, although we are called "Servile and obedient followers of the Government," in saying that I am no more servile and obedient than the hon. Member. I have endeavoured to show why I shall support the Resolution and oppose the Amendment.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I should be very sorry to have it supposed that all of us have sympathy with what may be called the universal opinion expressed by some hon. Members. I am one of those who pressed for the appointment of this Committee, and I am grateful to the Government for having agreed to do so. I would remind the House of the purpose of the appointment of the Committee. It is appointed to inquire what alterations, if any, are desirable in the practice and procedure of the House. On a Committee of that kind I submit you must have men who are acquainted with the practice and procedure of the House. For that reason it is absolutely necessary that on that Committee you should have a certain number of men who have been in the House a very long time. In spite of the achievements of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), I submit that service for a long number of years in the House is necessary for most of us before we can acquire an acquaintance with the meaning of procedure. A Committee of new Members filled with a consciousness of the inconvenience of the present system is by no means the best Committee to inquire and report. It does seem to me what a good many of those who have spoken are asking for is ignorant criticism; and I judge so from their speeches. While I am anxious to have upon the Committee a number of the newer Members of the House to bring that fresh air from outside which they seem to think so desirable to bear on our procedure, and I so far agree with them, I do think it would be a real misfortune if we did not get also on the Committee a number of men who from their use, and even misuse, of the Rules of the House,
  1382
  know what can be done. I ask the House to look at the Committee. I scrutinised it with great care when the names were put on the Paper. I am exceedingly anxious we should have a strong Committee and a useful report. I do say that the names on the Committee are those of hon. Members who, nearly every one, can bring a real contribution to +he work of the Committee. I look at the names one by one. We have the hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) and the, hon. Member for Pontefract. They have used the rules to the utmost possible extent, and I think any Committee on Procedure without them upon it would really not be fully representative of the House and of the way in which the House uses its rules. I think both should be on the Committee, because it is desirable that you should have the inquiry from the point of view of the Government and the point of view of the Opposition. Therefore I think those two past-masters in the art of making use of the most out-of-the-way rules for their own purposes are very desirable members of the Committee. The hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) is a very old Member of this House.
  Sir G. BARING: Is it in order on this Amendment to discuss the individual names?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If this Amendment is defeated we shall then reach the discussion of the individual names, and that will be a more convenient time to do so.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: The criticism put forward was that it was not representative of the opinion of the House for this purpose, and I was endeavouring to show that, taking the Members one by one, they really do represent the many points of view, and have a great deal of varied experience. I will not, however, pursue the matter. There are newer Members on it, and you have those elements which enable the Committee to fulfil the purpose for which it is required.
  Question put, "That the Committee be chosen by ballot from the respective groups in the House in the following proportion: Liberals six, Unionists six, Irish Nationalists two, Irish Independent Party one, and Labour one."
  The House divided: Ayes, 41; Noes, 178.

  Division No. 121.]

  AYES.

  [12.53 p.m.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hinds, John

  Robinson, Sidney

  Bryce, John Annan

  Hogge, James Myles

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Sutherland, John E.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  King, Joseph

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Leach, Charles

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Martin, Joseph

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Nield, Herbert

  Winterston, Earl

  Gretton, John

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Pirle, Duncan, V.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Cathcart Wason and Sir G. Baring.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Gulland, John William

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Adamson, William

  Hackett, John

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Dowd, John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Grady, James

  Alden, Percy

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  Ainstruther-Gray, Major William

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  O'Shee, James John

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Barnes, George N.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Barrie, Hugh T.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Barton, William

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Pease, Rt. Hon, Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Pointer, Joseph

  Bird, Alfred

  Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Boland, John Pius

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Reddy, Michael

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Jones, W. S, Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Brace, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Keating, Matthew

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Kelly, Edward

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Rowlands, James

  Clough, William

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Conden, Thomas Joseph

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Sandys, G. J.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Crooks, William

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Sheehy, David

  Crumley, Patrick

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Shortt, Edward

  Cullinan, John

  McGhee, Richard

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Delany, William

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Stanley, G. F. (Preston)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Dillon, John

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)

  Sutton, John E.

  Doris, William

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Mallaby-Deely, Harry

  Tennant, Harold John

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast. North)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Falconer, James

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Millar, James Duncan

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Molloy, Michael

  Webb, H.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mooney, John J.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Morgan, George Hay

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Muldoon, John

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Ginnell, L.

  Munro, Robert

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Younger, Sir George

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Neilson, Francis

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Goldstone, Frank

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Nolan, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Eugene Wason and Mr. Leif Jones.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Sir Frederick Banbury be a member of the Committee."
  Mr. SHERWELL: I beg to oppose the inclusion of the name of Sir Frederick Banbury.
  As a matter of personal convenience, if your ruling had allowed it, I should have preferred to move my Amendment as it stands on the Paper—that is, to have moved the exclusion of two names and the substitution of two others. I may state my object in opposing these two names, in order to save repetition when the next name is taken. The hon Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has an unrivalled knowledge of the rules of procedure of this House, and even of the by-ways of those rules as well of the main roads, but, in my experience of the House during the last seven or eight years, that knowledge has been most skilfully and assiduously used for preventing this House from fulfilling its primary function as a legislative instrument. The hon. Baronet takes the view, which is held by a few other Members, that legislation is in itself an evil, and that this House best fulfils its duty to the country by preventing rather than by enacting legislation. I still think, with all respect, that the country regards this House primarily as a legislative instrument, and wants us to justify our existence by doing good business for the country. My fear is that if the hon. Baronet is elected upon this Committee, his unrivalled knowledge of the rules of procedure will be used with the object of putting forward recommendations which will leave us pretty much where we are to-day in reference to the arrangements for business; and as the real object of the appointment of this Committee is to consider such revision of our rules as will facilitate rather than retard business, I think the hon. Baronet is a most undesirable Member to appoint. In my view, his unrivalled knowledge might be placed at the service of the Committee if the hon. Baronet would take his place in the witness chair. If he gave his views as fully and plainly as he is capable of doing, he would give the Committee and the House the full advantage of his knowledge, without any of those disadvantages which. I am afraid may attend upon his knowledge if he sits as a member of the Committee. I desire as a private Member to enter a very strong protest against the times that are usually chosen by the hon. Baronet and some
  1386
  other Members for the ingenious exercise of their knowledge. We are all aware that one of the real defects in our procedure is that the existing rules allow of the stultification of the House, particularly on Fridays. The Friday for the greater part of the Session——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will be entitled to discuss that in the Committee, but it is not relevant to the present Motion.
  Mr. SHERWELL: I, of course, defer to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I thought I might probably indicate to the House the general lines of my objection to the hon. Baronet.
  Earl WINTERTON: The Motion of the hon. Gentleman does not require a seconder, but I think it is right that some one on this side of the House should state the objections to the hon. Baronet—I need hardly say in no sense personally. My objection is equally strong to the hon. Member (Mr. Booth), whose name will come up next for decision. I agree with everything that has been said by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. What is the object, according to the first part of the Motion, of setting up this Select Committee? It is "to consider and report whether any, and, if so, what alterations are desirable in the practice and procedure of this House with regard to public business." That object will be lost if the Committee contains an hon. Member whose public life in this House has been associated, honourably enough, with attempts to make the procedure more ridiculous than it is at present. I hold, very strongly, that if the procedure of this House, and that if the House of Commons itself, is to have the respect and position it formerly occupied in the opinion of the country, the procedure has got to be drastically amended—the surgeon's knife has got to be applied to the gangrene that is undoubtedly there. Although I would be the last to deny the services of my hon. Friend, and of the hon. Gentleman opposite in some directions, I do not think that they are the doctors to be called in to prescribe for the disease from which the House is suffering. There is at the commencement of the Book of Common Prayer a sentence that applies to the Church of England, which although hon. Members opposite may not agree as applying to the Church of England, yet perhaps will agree with me in applying to the procedure of this House.

  1387
  "It bath been the wisdom of the Church of England; ever since the first compiling of her Publick Liturgy, to keep the mean between the two extremes, of too much stiffness in refusing, and of too much easiness in admitting any variation from it."
  These words, as applied to debate, are what some of us who are anxious to see the procedure of the House amended, are aiming at. We wish to see the balance of power maintained between the Government—whatever Government is in power—which invariably wishes to prevent debate, and the good party men among the Opposition, who invariably wish to prolong it, we wish to see the balance evenly held. We recognise that it is not evenly held. The result is the appalling condition of affairs that has occurred in recent debates. It would not be in order to refer to the Debate in the earlier part of the week, but every private Member who cares for the honour of the House must have been impressed by the speeches on that occasion, and must have realised the need for some drastic treatment. I submit that that drastic treatment can only be carried out by appointing men on the Committee that are not known to be associated with one aspect of the work of the House, and that new aspect of which no Member who really cares for the House of Commons can be particularly proud.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to support the Amendment, but for different reasons these given, either by my hon. Friend on this side or the Noble Lord. I do not wish to make any disparaging reference to the hon. Baronet, for I agree that there is no man more fully master of the procedure of the House of Commons than he is. Nobody admires his ability on this side of the House more than I do, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Pontefract. But I would point out that the hon. Baronet is already a Member of two Committees. He is Chairman of the Estimates Committee, and a Member of the Marconi Committee, which has not yet discharged its great duties. [An HON. MEMBER: "And never will."] Under the circumstances it seems to me to be impossible for a Member of this House to discharge the duties adequately and well of another Committee, especially one with a very hard task like this. His nomination by hon. Gentlemen opposite seems to me to argue a lack of ability and talent in the ranks opposite, which we on the Government side would not have liked to attribute to them.
  Question put, "That Sir Frederick Banbury be a member of the Select Committee."
  The House divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 76.

  Division No. 122.]

  AYES.

  [1.13 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Doris, William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Leach, Charles

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Falconer, James

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Barrie, H. T.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Barton, William

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lundon, Thomas

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. George)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Boland, John Pius

  Gilmour, Captain John

  McGhee, Richard

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Goldsmith, Frank

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Burns. Rt. Hon. John

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Gretton, John

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Mildred

  Gulland, John William

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hackett, John

  Mooney, John J.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Morgan, George Hay

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Harcourt. Robert V. (Montrose)

  Muldoon, John

  Clough, William

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Munro, Robert

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nield, Herbert

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cotton, William Francis

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Crooks, William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Crumley, Patrick

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  O'Dowd, John

  Cullinan, J.

  Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  O'Malley, William

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Delany, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shee, James John

  Dillon, John

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kelly, Edward

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Sheehy, David

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Webb, H.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Reddy, Michael

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Younger, Sir George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Tennant, Harold John

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Eugene Wason and Mr. Lane-fox.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Scott, A, MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton

  Waring, Walter

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Radford, George Heynes

  Alden, Percy

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Barnes, George N.

  Jewett, Frederick William

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Bock, Arthur Cecil

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Rowlands, James

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  King, J.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Shortt, Edward

  Bryce, John Annan

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Sutton, John E.

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  M'Laren, Hon.F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes, Ince)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Martin, Joseph

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Meagher, Michael

  Wardle, George J.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Millar, James Duncan

  Whyte, Alexander F.

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Molloy, Michael

  Wiles, Thomas

  Glanville, Harold James

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Neilson, Francis

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Grady, James

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Pointer, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Sherwell and Earl Winterton.

  Hinds, John

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: Banbury saved by the Irish.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Booth be one other member of the Committee."
  Mr. SHERWELL: I beg to oppose the inclusion of the name of Mr. Booth.
  I need not detain the House with any lengthy remarks, because the same general arguments as I used in reference to the name of the hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London, apply also to the hon. Member for Pontefract. The only difference is that whereas the hon Baronet has a long association with this House, my hon. Friend has contrived by very great skill in a very short space of time to acquire an almost equal mastery of its procedure. It is because I regard that mastery as dangerous in the object, and use made of it characteristically and habitually by my hon. Friend, in concert with the hon. Baronet opposite, that I desire to move the omission of his name.
  Mr. KING: I desire to associate myself with my hon. Friend, not from any feeling
  1390
  of animosity towards the Member for Pontefract, but merely from a feeling of my great admiration, and even affection for him. I feel strongly that it can do no good to a man to put him upon a Committee which is already discredited. The hon. Member was born for better and greater things. Moreover, cannot the House see that the storm is rising. On the first Division we only took forty-one into the Lobby, but on the second Division we had very nearly eighty, and I tremble to think what will be the result if this Division takes place. Therefore let my hon. Friend seek refuge while there is yet time, and let him gracefully withdraw his candidature from this Committee. There is only one other point, because I am anxious to come to this Division in which I anticipate a great success. I want to appeal to the Whips on the opposite side, and especially the Whips of the Nationalist party, to follow the excellent example which has been set by the Whips, which I invariably follow. I enjoyed the freedom accorded to me in the two Divisions that have taken place. Let the Whips on the opposite side give a like freedom to

  1391
  their supporters and they will find that they will be all the more devoted to them when they really want them. With this appeal to the Whips of all parties to unite in giving the House an opportunity of a free decision upon this momentous issue I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. PIRIE: There are a good many reasons why Members are put upon Committees by the Whips. I make a suggestion, possibly the Whips think by putting an hon. Member on the Committee they have discharged an obligation and possibly the Whips may be animated by a desire to square a troublesome man. Let the House judge which is the case. My attitude would be to divide against every one of the names proposed. I still hold, in spite of the assurance of the Prime Minister, that the Whips are not acting so as to leave the House quite free to vote. In the last two Divisions I have heard of the Whips standing in the Lobby and giving the sign of the hand which way to vote. I would remind the Whips that a wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse. Whether the blindness has anything to do with servility or obedience I will leave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan and Kinross (Mr. E. Wason), who is such an eminent authority, and I may say that I shall not follow him in the course he is adopting on this question. There is another instance of how the House is still swayed by a nod or a wink in the Lobby, for I saw a body of men in one Lobby walk out almost like a company of Infantry who had got into the Lobby by mistake, and the Captain ordered them out.
  Mr. JOYCE: It was a sense of fair play.
  Mr. PIRIE: An hon. Member from the Nationalist Benches called out, "Banbury saved by the Irish!" but I think it is important that the public should know exactly what is going on, and for my own part I shall do my best to make known to the public exactly what is taking place in this Whip-ridden House.
  Mr. BECK: I would like to say a word or two on this Motion, which I intend to support. In this House we represent the public outside. We seem to have got into a very frivolous state of mind, but there are a good many people outside who take a very serious attitude towards the performances of the two hon. Members, one who has just been voted upon (Sir F.
  1392
  Banbury) and the other who is going to be voted upon (Mr. Booth). There are many of us who have fought Bills through Committee. We have seen these Bills sent up to the other House, and afterwards we find that they are wrecked on the rocks of these two hon. Members. There are people who have devoted years of their lives to the study of questions of great importance to the community, and their efforts are killed simply to amuse these two hon. Members. The Irish Members opposite know their own business, and they may think it wise to alienate the rank and file of the Liberal party by supporting such Motions as these. I feel very strongly on this matter, and I am entitled to speak strongly. Hon. Members below the Gangway may think it wise to alienate the support of many hon. Members who simply voted for the last Motion because they had an idea that they would rather support the Government, although otherwise they might have been inclined to support us. We do take a serious view of a Committee which is supposed to be a body constituted to safeguard our rights, and it is a very serious matter to put on that Committee two men who have wrecked Bill after Bill in this House.
  Mr. MOONEY: I rise to say that in the last Division I voted for the retention of the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). I was not approached on this matter by any Whip or anybody else, and we voted upon that Motion as individuals and as Members of the House of Commons. Personally, I intend to support the Motion that the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) shall be retained as a Member of the Committee.
  Sir JOHN JARDINE: I would like to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the Scottish Bill which is down on the Order Paper. I wish to know whether under any rules the House can sit after five o'clock in order to proceed with that measure?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that is a point of Order which I cannot deal with at the present moment.
  Earl WINTERTON: The Committee which is being proposed will have some very important duties to perform. Already a compliment has been paid to the hon. Member for Pontefract, who has succeeded in a comparatively short membership of the House in making himself fully acquainted with all the rules of procedure,

  1393
  and obtaining a certain position as a result of that knowledge. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether hon. Members think that the peculiar talents of the hon. Member for Pontefract are best suited for service on a Committee which has to discuss, above everything else, the question how freedom of debate can be restored to the House of Commons. If hon. Members think the hon. Member for Pontefract's talents are suited to such a Committee, then they ought to vote for him, and if they do not think so they should vote for the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. Hon. Members who make a practice of making themselves acquainted with the rules of procedure and
  debate are only learning how they can throw sand into the Parliamentary machine, and when you are discussing how to mend that machine it is a mistake to have the sand throwers on the Committee. For these reasons I shall support this Amendment. I do so because the hon. Member for Pontefract is already a member of an important Committee which is now sitting, and his name ought not to, be added to another important Committee.
  Question put, "That Mr. Booth be one other member of the Committee."
  The House divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 79.

  Division No. 123.]

  AYES.

  [1.35 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Malley, William

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harvey, A, G. C, (Rochdale)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Shee, James John

  Arnold, Sydney

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Barton, William

  Hazleton, Richard

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. George)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Boland, John Plus

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Reddy, Michael

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Clough, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kelly, Edward

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Crooks, William

  Leach, Charles

  Sandys, G. J.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Cullinan, John

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Sheehy, David

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Shortt, Edward

  Delany, William

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Dillon, John

  McGhee, Richard

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. D. T. J.

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Doris, William

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sutherland, John E.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Meagher, Michael

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Falconer, James

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Ffrench, Peter

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Waring, Walter

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Molloy, Michael

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Muldoon, John

  Webb, H.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Munro, Robert

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Murphy, Martin J.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Nolan, Joseph

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Greig, Colonel lames William

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Gulland, John William

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Dowd, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Eugene Wason and Mr. Mooney.

  Hackett, John

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  Barrie, H. T.

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Alden, Percy

  Brace, William

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Barnes, George N.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Stewart, Gershom

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Sutton, John E.

  Gretton, John

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Martin, Joseph

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wardle, G. J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Hinds, John

  Neilson, Francis

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Nield, Herbert

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Nile, Duncan V.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Radford, G. H.

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  King, Joseph

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Younger, Sir George

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Roche, Walter F.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Rowlands, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Earl

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Winterton and Mr. Sherwell.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Motion made, and Question proposed, That Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen be a member of the Committee."
  Mr. KING: I intend, if there are others who will go along with me to the Lobby, to divide on every one of these names. It is quite obvious that the object of this, Committee will not be attained unless the names carry the great sense and the weight of the House with them, and the last two Divisions have clearly shown that is not so. I object to the name of the hon. Member for Dudley, because he represents, as few of us do, practically the Front Bench. There is no one between him and the Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. I have nothing against him personally, but I do think that his qualifications for this Committee are not very apparent.
  Mr. WHYTE: I only desire to say, as one of the malcontents, that I have no intention whatever of continuing opposition right through to each member of the Committee. Those who have spoken against the two names which have been carried have made it perfectly clear what was their object. There was no possibility of any personalities. They were standing up for a principle, and it seems to me it would be a most ridiculous way of stultifying that
  principle to carry opposition to the length proposed by the hon. Member.
  Sir GODFREY BARING: I think it would be in some respects an abuse of the procedure of this House to divide against every name, but I shall do my utmost to object of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Gulland), because I do not think any official representative ought to be on this Committee.
  Mr. SHERWELL: I sincerely hope my hon. Friend (Mr. King) will not adhere to his resolution. Those of us who have made objection have done so in a serious spirit, and I, personally, cannot persist in an attitude which would prejudice what is intended to be a, very serious protest.
  Mr. KING: May I be allowed to withdraw, not because I am contented, but because I do not want in any way to interfere with the operations of this House or to seem unreasonable? I am not an unreasonable person.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGE: Whatever my hon. Friend may do, I shall certainly go to a Division.
  Question put, "That Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen be a member of the Committee."
  The House divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 26.

  Division No. 124.]

  AYES.

  [1.46 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets St. George)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Boland, John Pius

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Clough, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Alden, Percy

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Arnold, Sydney

  Bryce, John Annan

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Barnes, George N.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Crooks, William

  Barton, William

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Cullinan, John

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Reddy, Michael

  Delany, William

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Roberts, Charles H, (Lincoln)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Doris, William

  Leach, Charles Henry

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Robinson, Sidney

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Rowlands, James

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Falconer, J.

  McGhee, Richard

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Sandys, G. J.

  Fell, Arthur

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sheehy, David

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Shortt, Edward

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Meagher, Michael

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Guest, Hon, Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Molloy, Michael

  Stewart, Gershom

  Gulland, John William

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Sutherland, John E.

  Hackett, J.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Muldoon, John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Munro, Robert

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Nield, Herbert

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wardle, George J.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Waring, Walter

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Webb, H.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Dowd, John

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Hinds, John

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Malley, William

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  O'Shee, James John

  Whyte, Alexander F.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Winterton, Earl

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Parker, James (Haliax)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Tate, Colonel C. E.

  Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Young, William (Perth, Cast)

  Jones, J. Tewyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Younger, Sir George

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T.H'mts., Stepney)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Joyce, Michael

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norolk, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Leif Jones and Mr. Gretton.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Kelly, Edward

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Radford. George Heynes

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Brace, William

  Martin, Joseph

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Cowan, William Henry

  Millar, James Duncan

  Sutton, John E.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Mooney, John J.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  O'Grady, James

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Pointer, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hogge and Mr. King.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Question, "That Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. James Hope, Sir David Brynmor Jones, Mr. Swift MacNeill, Mr. Rawlinson, Mr. Wedgwood, and Sir Thomas Whittaker be members of the Committee," put, and agreed to.

  Mr. SHERWELL: I desire to oppose the inclusion of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Gulland).
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: On a point of Order. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries will certainly withdraw his name, as indicated by the Prime Minister, and I do not move his name.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: On a point of Order. Is it not open to another Member of the House to move that the hon. Member for Dumfries be a Member of the Committee?
  Mr. SPEAKER: This Committee is proposed by the Government, and they are responsible for the names. If they do not choose to move that name, there is no power to compel them to do so.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Could not the Government propose some other name in place

  1399
  of that of the hon. Member for Dumfries, and would it not then be open to any hon. Member to move as an Amendment that he be a member of the Committee?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member would first have to obtain his assent. That might not be so easily obtained.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: Is it not possible for anyone to object to the withdrawal of this name?
  Mr. SPEAKER:It is not moved.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Robert Harcourt be a member of the Committee."
  Mr. KING: I desire to ask an explanation from the Government. I do not wish to prolong these proceedings, but if they intend also to omit the name of the Whip upon the other side, that will facilitate the proceedings. We ought to know what they intend to do.
  Lord EDMUND TALBOT: My hon. Friend does not propose to submit his name.
  Mr. KING: On a point of Order. The Resolution has been passed stating that the Committee should consist of sixteen members, but only fourteen names have been added to it. I should like to ask the Government or you, Sir, what is the position in which we stand. How is that inconsistency to be overcome?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It can be overcome by adding two to fourteen.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report whether any and, if so, what alterations are desirable in the practice and procedure of this House with regard to public business:
  Ordered, that the Committee do consist of Sixteen Members:
  Ordered, That Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. Booth, Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, Lord Hugh Cecil, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Robert Harcourt, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. James Hope, Sir David Brynmor Jones, Mr. Swift MacNeill, Mr.
  1400
  Rawlinson, Mr. Wedgwood, and Sir Thomas Whittaker be members of the Committee:
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to report from time to time:
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum. [Mr. Illingworth.]

  MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [3rd June]," That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
  2.0 P.M.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I feel that I owe the House some sort of apology for speaking on the Scottish Mental Deficiency Bill, but I do so with a certain amount of confidence, because during the Debate upon the English Mental Deficiency Bill one of the most able pronouncements in favour of that measure was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire (Dr. Chapple), a Scottish Member, and not only did he speak on the Second Reading of that Bill, but his name was added to Standing Committee D, which is to discuss the Bill upstairs, while my own name was kept off. If Scottish Members are preferred to English Members to deal with the English Bill, it gives a certain right to English Members to debate this Scottish Bill. The speech of the hon. Member for Stirlingshire was very largely directed against myself and against the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). It dealt almost entirely with attempted refutations of my statements and those of the hon. Member for Pontefract. I think I may, therefore, fairly appeal to the House to give me, an English Member, an opportunity upon this Bill to reply to the statements made by a Scottish Member upon the English Bill. The hon. Member took up a very clear and definite position. He said that feeble-mindedness was entirely distinct from insanity, that there could be a hard and fast line drawn between the two, and that whereas insanity resulted—I think I am putting his point correctly—more or less from accident, feeblemindedness was congenital and born in the child.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: I think the hon. Member is unconsciously misrepresenting me. I did not say that insanity was due to accident; I said it was due to disease of the brain.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Quite so. The hon. Member said that there could be a perfectly clear distinction drawn. He said that no definition could be drawn up of insanity, any more than that you could define feeble-mindedness, but that a doctor knew them perfectly well. Against that position I want to take up a most determined stand. If it is impossible to define either insanity or feeble-mindedness in an Act of Parliament, and if we are to take the mere ipsi dixit of a doctor upon the question and leave it entirely to the experts to decide whether a man is insane or feeble-minded, without giving the subject an opportunity of having a hard and fast definition and a clear law to which to refer, we are surrendering too much to the doctors in this matter. The hon. Member for Stirlingshire is, I know, a person who would not hurt a fly if he could help it, but there are, and he knows there are, among doctors in this country very various ideas as to the treatment of insanity and of feeble-mindedness, and as to the comparative rights of society and the individual. That is bound to be the case. Only the other day I observed in the "Times" a long appeal to the Home Secretary, signed by a great number of very distinguished surgeons, urging that these feeble-minded institutions, which are to be set up under this Bill and the English Bill, should be used for the purposes of research. When you see a suggestion of that sort made in cold blood, a suggestion that advantage should be taken by the Government and by the surgeons—of course, in the interests of the community, just as vivisection is carried on in the interests of the community—to employ these institutions for research, and to employ the inmates of these institutions as victims of research, it ought to make us doubly careful how far we leave it to the medical profession alone to determine whether or not a man or woman is feeble-minded. Therefore, I am not at one with the hon. Member for Stirlingshire in suggesting that it is possible to put in a perfectly loose definition of feeble-mindedness, and then to leave it to the common or garden medical practitioner, for these cases do not come before specialists, and the medical certificates will net be signed by men like the
  1402
  late Member of this House, Sir William Collins, or the hon. Member himself. In these circumstances. I submit that it is not fair to say, whatever the definition may be, that the state is well known to medical science, and, therefore, needs no more precise definition. Then the hon. Member referred, I thought rather boldly, to Turner as being a feeble-minded man.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: I did not say Turner was feeble-minded. What I said was that if the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) had sail Turner was feeble-minded, and not his mother, I should have been more inclined to agree with him. I was contrasting the sanity of his mother and the alleged feeble-mindedness of Turner. I did not say he was feeble-minded.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am sorry I misrepresented the hon. Member. I quite see it was a hypothesis which could not be imagined, and therefore which it was not necessary to agree to. At the same time, when the hon. Member says it is possible for a man to be feeble-minded in certain departments of his life and not in others, we are verging upon the very difficult question whether we are justified in saying that a man shows himself feeble-minded in business, however excellent a father he may be, and therefore ought to be locked up. Directly you deal with these states of mentality, you are dealing with a subject which is one of extreme difficulty and one where extreme carefulness of definition should be adhered to. That is why I strongly urged that certain Amendments asked for by that distinguished surgeon, Dr. Bernard Hollander, should be embodied in the Bill, though I regret to say when the Bill was discussed they were not accepted and apparently were not debated. The question of definition is, of course, an enormously difficult one, and the doctors themselves have failed to give a very satisfactory definition.
  Now I want to pass on to another part of the hon. Member's speech. He tried to make out that I was calling these institutions prisons, whereas, as a matter of fact, they were homes. It is on that point that he and I differ, and that I shall ask the House to support a scheme which would ensure their being homes and avoid the possibility of their becoming prisons. I have offered all along to withdraw all opposition to these Bills, and my Friends who act with me will do the same, provided we could be assured that there will be no, asylum treatment, that there

  1403
  will be no warders and no bolts and bars, that the new institutions should be exactly on all fours with the existing institutions, so far as liberty is concerned. But they might be, of course, better than the existing institutions in that you might have more division of the different classes of treatment, not only keeping the sexes apart, but keeping persons of different ages apart, or of different ability and adaptability. On those lines there might be improvements on the existing institutions, but I would urge that on no account should that alteration be made in the existing institutions which would tend to deprive their inmates of such liberty as they possess at present. At present they are free to go and come if they like, and we all know that they do not go. There is no running away from these institutions, or whatever there is is of a very small character indeed. They are contented, they are comfortable, and they are well looked after. What I fear, and what I believe the hon. Member (Dr. Chapple) himself fears too, is that if you once give the managers of these institutions such powers as the director of a lunatic asylum has, where every ward is looked after separately from the next ward and where people are looked after by a big staff of nurses and warders who naturally become to a certain extent callous in their treatment of these people, you will be opening the door to all those abuses which he and I are most anxious to avoid. He says:—
  "There is no consciousness of restriction or of chains, or of bolts and bars to which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme refers."
  Of course there is not, because, at present, they have not got these bars and bolts and these restrictions; but under this Act they will have.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: Why should they have them?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Because under this Bill the homes are not places which the inmates are allowed to leave, because they will now be exactly on all fours with the asylums which we have at present. There will be the same necessity for control and the same powers, and I am afraid we are all inclined to be bureaucrats at heart, and if those powers are given they will be exercised. But I have a more serious bone to pick with the hon. Member than this misstatement of the character of these new institutions. He says the posi-
  1404
  tion of the poor parent at present is as follows:—
  "They cannot keep the feeble-minded child at home since it is almost impossible to do so. They make use of these institutions which are now open to the rich."
  Who wants to object to their making use of these institutions? But when the hon. Member brings forward a special plea such as that, he knows perfectly well that we are all anxious that they should make use of these institutions. We are all anxious that there should be more of these institutions so that they could make use of them. At present they cannot, because there are not enough of them. But what we object to is their being forced to make use of those institutions.
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: It is a misstatement to say that this Bill merely provides the poor with an opportunity which the rich already enjoy. It goes far beyond that. It not only provides them with an opportunity, but, in addition to that, it compels them, whether they like or not, to make use of that opportunity. That is a form of compulsion which I think is illiberal. I do not believe it is a part of true Liberal policy to compel parents even to be good parents. The only thing we can do is to provide opportunities for parents to be good parents, but not to say to them, "if you are not good parents, according to the ideas of this board of doctors and experts you will be compelled to be good parents against your will." We have got too much of that kind of compulsion. We have recently had compulsory thrift, we have had compulsory education, and we are now threatened with compulsory segregation of the unfit, and compulsory service in the Army. I maintain that I am on sound Liberal ground when I object to this kind of compulsion. It is not the business of Liberalism at any time to compel the people to be either moral, or thrifty, or well educated, or even to be excellent marksmen. All these things may be desirable, but it is not the business of any Government to enforce them on the people of this country.
  That leads me to the question of inspection. This Bill applies to Scotland. My belief is that the people of Scotland are more liberal than the people of this country, that they do resent far more

  1405
  even than the English people do interference with individual liberty, and that they do resent having people coming into their houses at all hours of the day, and even of the night, and seeing that they are not overcrowded, seeing that the children's heads are clean, and seeing that the children are going to school. I have recently been in my own Constituency, and I can assure the House that there is in this country, even in a nice peaceful district Like the Midlands, a growing feeling of revolt against this perpetual inspection and interference with everything the poor citizen does. It does not affect us, because we are above the line that is inspected. Anybody who has over £160 a year, and who lives in a house which is rated for more than £16, escapes the attention of the inspectors; but it is those people who live in small houses who are getting badgered to death with our legislation and inspection from morning to night, from the cradle to the grave. That is what goes on in the houses of these poor people, and it is getting intolerable. Here we are, under this Bill, taking another decided step forward in this direction. I ask the House to consider what this Bill means in Scotland. The Irish got exempted from it, because in that country liberty is inborn, and they would not tolerate it for a moment. In every county in Scotland it will be the duty of the new committee of the county council, or whatever body it is, to inspect and to make a list of the people who come within the somewhat vague definition of feeble-minded. They have to draw up a black list when getting the information. The policeman, or the officer of the new authority, will search people's houses, examine the children, and make all sorts of backstairs inquiries from neighbours; they will get information from school teachers; and all this is to go on in Scotland as the result of an Act passed by a Liberal Government nominally in favour of Liberalism. I would ask any Scottish Members here whether they think that, when this Bill is passed and inspection is being carried out, they will be as popular as they are at present time or whether their popularity will not decline?
  I know perfectly well it is difficult for an ordinary layman to differ from expert authority. It is difficult for an ordinary layman to attack this Bill when it has the backing of a Royal Commission, but I would ask the House to remember that while it is impossible to controvert their
  1406
  statement or to deal with their doctrine of heredity—although some doctors say it is not altogether true—it is quite possible to say that by passing this Bill we would be setting up a Vehmgericht. You are giving to these expert committees powers of smelling out, such as the witch doctors possess on the West Coast of Africa. It. will not affect yourselves or your relations, but it must vitally affect the deep-seated feelings of the working classes of this country. They will not like it, and what is more they will answer in this way, "Why do good Liberal Governments always seek to deal with the results of a bad social. system? Why not go to the roots of the evil and try to stop the causes themselves?" Hon. Members know that, if we have feeble-minded children, we can look after them, and that there is nothing we should hate more to see than the taking of them away to institutions. Why can we look after our children? It is because we have a certain amount of leisure and wealth and can afford to do it. Do you think that if the working classes got full reward for their labour, they would not be in a position to look after their children themselves? When you see how much larger feeble-mindedness is among slum people than among wealthy people, is it not obvious that feeblemindedness must be the result, not of heredity entirely, but of the conditions under which these mentally stunted children are being brought up in the slums? When your constituents ask questions about this Bill and begin to heckle you at by elections as to some of the scandals which will arise under it, I think, whatever your answers may be, and however plausible the plea of the hon. Member for Stirlingshire may be in regard to looking after unfortunate girls who have illegitimate children, they will answer, "Why not go, to the roots of the evil and deal with the poverty in the country, instead of always tinkering with the results and trying to look after the poor whose condition is largely due to economic causes?"
  I want to raise another point. It was referred to by a Scottish Member who stated that there was a large demand in Scotland for this Bill. I ask where it is. It comes in resolutions from boards of guardians, town councils, and all manner of organisations of the middle class and other classes of people, who will not be affected by the Bill, but who are all permeated with the idea that it is their duty and their mission in life to improve the poor. These people pass resolutions, send

  1407
  letters to Members of Parliament, and interview the Scottish Office to press forward this Bill. Has any Minister of the Crown attempted to defend this proposal in Scotland? I think very few Members of the Cabinet have read the Bill, and, if they have, it is certain that not one word has been spoken in the country upon it by any responsible Minister.
  Mr. CAWLEY: It was supported by the Under-Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Ellis Griffith) when speaking at Stockport.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: He is only an Under-Secretary. I wish the name of some responsible Member of the Cabinet. As a matter of fact, this subject has not been mentioned in the country to any extent since the Bill was introduced, and before the Bill was introduced it was not mentioned at all. There is no shadow of mandate for the Bill. There is no shadow of any sort of authority from the electors of the country for the measure. It is quite true that a certain number of people, of whom I am one myself, are shocked and horrified at the condition under which these people are looked after and tended to-day, but we are shocked end horrified because there is not sufficient accommodation and because the State has never attempted to help in any way to deal with this problem, and while we are only too anxious to see something done to help these feeble-minded people, let us be quite certain that it shall be a help, and not A punishment. There is, of course, some possibility of getting this Bill and the English Bill through. It is only possible if hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Stirlingshire and the hon. Member for Heywood (Mr. Cawley) are prepared to modify their demands. Here you have these enormously long Bills going up to the Committee. These Bills will get through Committee, but if hon. Members in favour of them think that they are going to get from the Prime Minister a Guillotine Resolution in order to shove them through on Report, I can assure them that they are mistaken, and yet without a Guillotine Resolution we know perfectly well that these Bills can never become law. There are a good many determined friends of liberty in this House who are opponents of all such interfering and meddling legislation as this. Therefore, if hon. Members want to get the Bill through to help the feebleminded in this country, of course they
  1408
  will consider the possibilities of compromise and coming to terms with those who have been opposing them up to now, but who do honestly and earnestly wish to see something done for these feeble-minded persons.
  As far as I can gather from the meagre reports in the Parliamentary Papers, there was a sort of tentative concession made upstairs on the English Bill which does not go far enough, and is entirely illusory as it stands at present, but which I hope indicates a weakening of the extremists' position on this question. They have put in that these feeble-minded persons shall not be put in institutions except after the parents' consent has been obtained. Then comes the proviso which takes away the whole point of the concession, that such consent is not to be reasonably withheld. We all know that the definition of "reasonably" is an extremely difficult thing to get in black and white. We have all seen the way in which the Vaccination Acts are treated in this country. I do not like to give to an unsympathetic magistracy, who are imbued with the idea that their business is to lock up everybody and to protect society against all these people, the interpretation of what is meant, by "unreasonably withheld." Where the parents are bad parents, people whom no reasonable being could trust with the responsibility of their child's welfare, there is always a case for refusing to consider that point of view, but in such cases as that it is always possible to proceed against them under the Children Act and under the Prevention of Cruelty Act, and I think that we shall want something a great deal more clear than those words "unreasonably withheld." There is another and more important point on which we differ. I ask the hon. Member for Stirlingshire to use his influence with the Home Office to see if terms cannot be reached. He and I both think that the existing institutions are good, though possibly they might be improved. Why, then, go out of the way to put in all these penal clauses, punishing people who help inmates to escape and giving this power of inspecting every year and taking them in for a further year if the state of their health is not good? All you want is to have a home, to see that those homes are run on similar lines to the present, with similar powers, with no addition to the penal restrictions of inmates or of the people outside who are interested. On all these points there will be required a great

  1409
  deal of remodelling of these Bills. The Bills are built up by experts of the Home Office, with the criminal code, the asylum laws and the Lunacy Acts at the back of their minds.
  Those are the two points which I wish to emphasise: make it perfectly easy for the parents, decent parents against whom the police can really urge nothing except mere obstinacy, to retain control, and, in the second place, see that all restraints are removed from these home institutions. So far as the penal ones are concerned, I do not say that anything can be done with inmates transferred from prisons to these institutions which the Secretary of State is willing to pay for, but in an ordinary institution where the inmate has committed no crime whatever, where his presence is merely the result of sifting out from the ordinary elementary education, I maintain that if you keep these homes free until the child is sixteen, you ought to keep them open and free for the rest of the time. It might be that in 5 or, perhaps, 10 per cent. of the cases they will quarrel with the managers of the institution and go out and have these unfortunate, illegitimate children, but it is worth while submitting to a few cases such as that if you can only prevent the definite imprisonment of so large a portion of the population. You cannot make things perfect in this world by locking everybody up who ought to be locked up; but what you can do is to provide an opportunity by which feebleminded people can get looked after, and at the same time continue to enjoy the privileges of British citizenship. It can be done, and I hope it will be done before very long, both in the case of the English and the Scotch Bills. I have been emboldened to take up so much time because the hon. Member for Stirlingshire spoke of the English Bill and is on the Committee of the English Bill, and I have nothing more to say except to beg the House to believe that in all my actions as regards this Bill I have the interests of these mentally defective persons at heart Just as much as the Home Secretary and others. I want to get the best possible treatment for these people while securing their liberty, and to see that justice is done to them, as I believe it can be.
  Major HOPE: The hon. Member who has just spoken has explained how he obstructed the English Bill, but I trust he will not on that account raise any strenuous opposition to the Scottish Bill, but that he will allow Scottish Members
  1410
  to voice the opinions of Scotland, for I think that perhaps they are better capable of correctly interpreting Scottish opinion on the subject. The hon. Gentleman has voted in favour, certainly of Home Rule for Ireland, and probably Home Rule for Scotland, and I think we might ask him to let us settle a question of this kind in our own way.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will you do the same for England, and keep away Scottish Members?
  Major HOPE: I did not interfere in any way with the English Bill.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Other Members did.
  Major HOPE: Personally I welcome the introduction of this Bill, and I trust that in some form it will be passed during the present Session. There is urgent need for legislation, both in the general interest of the community, and also on behalf of those for whom it is primarily designed, and who I believe will benefit by the measure if it is passed into law. The feebleminded are not of course able to exert political pressure or voice their own feelings on the subject, and all the more reason, therefore, that they should receive special consideration from this House, and that their interests should be sympathetically considered, as I believe they will and can be under this proposed Bill. I was glad to see that the Prime Minister the other day repudiated the suggestion of the Member for East Edinburgh that Scottish Liberal Members are opposed to this Bill. I trust that if the Member for East Edinburgh continues his opposition to this measure he will not receive any more support than he did on two occasions yesterday on Scottish matters—on one of which he could not even get tellers for his Motion. Personally, I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of opinion in Scotland demands that the principles of this Bill should be carried into law, and I believe that Scotland will be justly indignant if the English Bill is passed into law and the Government do not give time to complete the Scottish measure this Session. The Scottish Bill, as it is, already lags behind the English Bill, which was read a second time three weeks ago, and half the Clauses of which have already been dealt with in Committee upstairs.
  Mr. MARTIN: Only one-third.
  Major HOPE: Twenty-six out of sixty-six Clauses have been dealt with, but

  1411
  those twenty-six Clauses include the most important in the Bill, and those which raise the most controversy. I submit therefore that practically half the English Bill has already been satisfactorily dealt with in Committee. I hope that the deliberations of the Committee on the English Bill will materially assist our deliberations on the Scottish Bill in Grand Committee, and that we may be able to make up leeway with the Scottish Bill. 1 believe the English Bill is a distinct improvement on the Bill introduced last Session, and that the Scottish Bill, which deals with our particular local circumstances and different local government, is an enormous improvement on the hurriedly drafted Clauses with which it was proposed that the Bill of last year should be made applicable to Scotland. I shall, of course, support the Second Reading, but I should like to call attention to one or two points in regard to which I think this Bill requires Amendment in Committee. I submit that its financial provisions are not generous or even fair to Scotland, as compared with England. The Home Secretary on the Second Reading of the English Bill made the special point that local authorities would not be required to deal with the mentally defective unless half the cost was provided from central funds. Scotland is to have £20,000, and the local authorities are to be compelled to provide for all the feeble-minded and pay for the remainder of the cost over and above the £20,000. In the Report of the Royal Commission, in 1906, it was stated that 26 of the population of Glasgow were mentally defective. If this proportion of the population holds good throughout Scotland there would be some 11,600 mentally defective to be provided for in that country. Taking the cost of maintenance at £25 per head—I do not think that is an excessive estimate—the £20,000 would only provide half the cost for 1,600 of these mentally defective, the whole cost of the remainder falling on the rates under the Scottish Bill. The Home Secretary said that he hoped more money would eventually be found for England, and I hope for Scotland, too. I would remind the House that in England the pressure of public opinion in regard to the mentally defective not being provided for will tend to loosen the Treasury purse strings, but in Scotland there will only be the cries of the over-burdened ratepayers to effect this object, and we know that the fulfilment of
  1412
  promises to the ratepayers is very often long delayed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  There is another point: The central Government Grant for pauper lunatics which is to be continued and available for new Boards of Control, is 4s. per head in England, and only 2s. 10d. per head in Scotland. I know that is the stereotyped Grant, but Scotland is a distinct loser by the Grant being only 2s. 10d. at the present moment as compared with, in England, 4s. per head per pauper lunatic, who, of course, would have to be dealt with by the new Board of Control. Nor is this all: Clauses 3 and 5 of the Scottish Education Act are to be made compulsory on school boards, that is to say, education will have to be provided for all mentally defective children between five and sixteen years of age. In England under the Defective and Epileptic Children Bill, to be read a second time to-day, the education authorities will only have to deal with children between seven and fourteen years of age. There again there is a heavier burden on the Scottish ratepayers than is to be imposed on the English ratepayer. In any case, I think Scotland would have especially felt the burden owing to her poor and thinly scattered population in the Highlands, and in many of the outlying districts. In Scotland we have also the small school board areas, which will feel the burden much more seriously than will the large county areas in England, over which the education rate is to be spread. The President of the Board of Education a week or two ago—I think it was in London—made the public statement that in order to assist the education authorities in England the Grant for mentally defective children would be increased from four guineas to £6, and that for residential schools for mentally defectives a most substantial Grant would be forthcoming. I asked the Secretary for Scotland last week if he had noticed this speech of the President of the Board of Education and he said he had, and it was receiving his attention. I asked him if he would give a guarantee that Scotland would receive an equivalent Grant, but I am afraid he declined to pledge himself. I trust that the Secretary for Scotland will be firm in demanding that Scotland should receive fair treatment as compared with England in all the financial parts of the Bill, and I trust that in this firm attitude he will have as full support from hon. Members opposite as was promised yesterday when he put forward claims for more money for Scotland

  1413
  on behalf of small holdings. I fear, however, small holdings have more claims on hon. Members opposite than the care of the mentally defective. There are certain election platform promises to be fulfilled in the ease of small hodings, and I am quite aware none of these have been made in the case of the mentally defective. I hope, however, that the Scottish Members upon both sides of the House will support the Secretary for Scotland in securing fair treatment as regards the financial aspects of this case.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) referred to the question of children under sixteen being placed in institutions without the consent of their parents. On that aspect I am somewhat in sympathy with him. I certainly believe that unless children under sixteen are neglected, abandoned, or ill-treated they should not be placed in institutions contrary to the will of their parents or guardians. I believe the English Bill has been amended in this direction, and under the English Bill as it now stands these children can only be placed in institutions with the consent of their parents, provided that consent is not unreasonably withheld. I should be quite ready to see that this Amendment was made in tins Bill, that no children under sixteen should be placed in these institutions without the consent of their parents, either by a judicial order or any other means, unless they were abandoned, neglected, or ill-treated, and that would place them on the same footing as adults, who can be placed in institutions if they are ill-treated, etc.
  There is just one other point to which I wish to draw attention, and that is the representation of the county councils upon the governing board of control. Under the provisions of this Bill, for the first three years the county councils are to have representation to the extent of one-third. After that they are to have no representation at all upon the new board of control. That seems absolutely indefensible. The whole cost of the erection of these institutions—the whole capital cost—has to be provided by the county areas and distributed over county areas. Half the cost of maintenance is to be distributed over county areas. I am not now going into whether it is best to have the Poor Law system or county assessments, but the fact remains that the county as a whole will bear considerably more than half the expenses of the Bill, and that after the
  1414
  first three years the county councils are not to have any representation upon the board which is to replace the old Lunacy Board, which was practically the county council. I do not wish to go further into this case, because I have this morning received a letter which informed me that there had been a conference in Glasgow last Wednesday and that representatives both of the county council and the parish council were present, and as far as I can gather from the letter the parish council representatives equally agreed with the county council representatives that the county council should be represented upon this new board of control. They appointed a sub-committee to go into this question more thoroughly, and I believe there is to be a larger meeting in Edinburgh on 14th July to consider the report of the sub-committee, and I trust that that larger meeting, representative, as I hope it will be, of the county councils, the parish councils, and the school boards, will come to some agreement as to the precise constitution of these new district boards of control, and that when they have arrived at an agreement the Secretary for Scotland and hon. Members here will be ready to fall in with the enlightened suggestions of the county council, the parish council, and the school board.
  Mr. BARNES: Like the last speaker, I have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme in regard to the treatment of youngsters under this Bill. I should draw a line between them and adults, because adults of defective minds may be of vicious habits and a danger to the community, which cannot be said of the young. Therefore, I am in sympathy with the hon. Member opposite who has spoken and with my hon. Friend here in regard to protecting so far as it is consistent with the public welfare the right of the parents to have control of their children, and if this Bill can be strengthened in that direction I will support the effort to strengthen it. I also have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Member in regard to the character of the institutions under the Bill. We do not know exactly what the character of these institutions will be, but I hope that not only will provision be made for taking the youngsters out and some distinction made between them and persons of defective mind, but that power will be taken in regard to taking out children, if necessary, at the desire of their parents. I hope, also, that the institutions may be

  1415
  such that there will be some chance of restoring people to a normal condition of mind, if at all possible. I hope that the prison element and the asylum element may be as far as possible altogether re-removed. I am also heartily in sympathy with the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme in his observations as to the need, and, in fact, the duty of this House to devote some time, and a good deal more than it has done, in getting down to the underlying causes as to why we have so many people of defective minds amongst us. I believe with him that the causes are very largely the social and industrial condition in which our people live, and therefore I should be more heartily in favour of a Bill which would remove the causes that produce the feeble-minded than a Bill merely to deal with the feebleminded that we have got in our midst. But having said that, I part company with my on. Friend, because I am one of those practical minded persons who like to face face facts and unfortunately whatever may be the cause of the feeble-minded being amongst us, there they are, a source of demoralisation, and a source of danger to their immediate relatives and friends as well as to the community, and, therefore, that being so, we should make better provision for them than we yet have. I have come across cases in my own experience. I remember a brother and sister. The sister had been in prison over 200 times for drunkenness. She would be sent to prison for seven or fourteen days, and then on being liberated would get into liquor, and in the course of a few days be in prison once more. The brother I have seen in the streets, scrambling after insects on the posters. It is perfectly obvious that that type of person is a nuisance to everybody with whom they come in contact, and there is always the possibility that they may perpetuate their kind and land the community in further trouble with their offspring. The last speaker quoted a percentage which, in regard to Glasgow, works out at 2,500 people of that type. However strongly we may feel, as I feel, that landlordism and capitalism are largely, I do not say entirely, the causes of this sort of thing, whatever we may regard as the underlying causes, we ought, at all events, to face the fact that in Glasgow, with a population of 1,000,000, there are 2,500 of these people roaming about demoralising everybody with whom they come in contact. The fact that they depress the standard of living is
  1416
  one which we, of the Labour party, ought to have in view. Some of us have had experience of this type of individual in the workshops. A man comes along and gets a job, very often simply because he is willing to take it at less than a man of normal habits and full power. Therefore, the fact that these people are allowed to roam about is not only a cause of moral demoralisation, but a cause of economic trouble in that they depress the standard of living amongst large numbers of people throughout the country.
  Major HOPE: May I correct the hon. Member's figure with regard to the population of Glasgow? 26 on the population only amounts to 1,614 in all.
  Mr. BARNES: That is a mere matter of arithmetic. If the hon. Member will apply that percentage to a million population he will get a different result from what he has just announced.
  Major HOPE: Is there a population of 1,000,000 in Glasgow now?
  3.0 P.M.
  Mr. BARNES: I am speaking in round numbers. There may be a few thousands less or more, but roughly speaking, there are 1,000,000, and the percentage given by the hon. Member on that basis would give 2,600. Even if there are only 1,600, every one of them is a centre radiating demoralisation of all sorts, and that is sufficiently serious as a justification for this Bill. It is said that there is no public opinion in favour of the Bill, and even that there is no need for it. The need is recognised by the fact that we already deal with these people in a chaotic manner. Large numbers of them are dealt with through the agency of the Poor Law. The Commission on the feeble-minded stated in their Report, issued about five years ago, that large numbers of the very class of people to be dealt with under this Bill are at present in the workhouses, associating with people of normal mind, and very often under circumstances that must depress them and prevent their getting out of the workhouse and taking their proper place in life.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It is not infectious.
  Mr. BARNES: I say that very often it is. I remember a case in a workhouse where a woman had pneumonia, and alongside of her was a person of weak mind who shrieked all night, so that the woman with pneumonia could not get any sleep.

  1417
  The weak-minded person may not in the ordinary acceptation of the term give the other person weak-mindedness, but she may conduct herself in such a way as to make it practically impossible for the person with pneumonia to recover. I say that that is altogether a wrong way of dealing with these people. We have recognised the need for dealing with them by taking them into the workhouse. Let us go a step further and deal with them in a proper manner by the authority set up under this Bill, and therefore outside the operation of the Poor Law altogether. It has been said that there is no public opinion in favour of the Bill. I have received numerous letters from Scotland in its favour. A public body in the district represented by the hon. Member for Midlothian have passed a resolution in favour of the Bill. A similar resolution has been passed by the Scottish Women's Temperance Association, which is very large body. There has been a good deal of discussion in the public Press in Glasgow, and the Labour and Socialist papers have given the Bill an unqualified support. That being so, and for the reasons I have given, I shall vote for the Second Reading, while, at the same time, I would much rather vote for a Bill going to the fundamental causes of the production of a great many of these feeble-minded people. I fully sympathise with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme in that respect. I only wish with him that we had some measure to deal with those bottom causes engaging our attention instead of the Bill we are now discussing. But that is another matter. We have not got a Bill and we have got the feeble-minded. Therefore this Bill to deal with the feeble-minded will have my support.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I have no doubt that what the hon. Member opposite has said with regard to the demand for this Bill is perfectly true. I cannot see how, in view of the great difficulties which have to be solved, there should be anything else than a general desire for some legislation to deal with some of those difficulties. But in a question of this sort there is the great danger that we are apt to think that the immediate demand places upon us the obligation as fast as possible, and perhaps with insufficient consideration, to place upon the Statute Book any measure that professes to deal with the particular difficulty. It must be remembered that great as is the evil that has to be dealt with, the question of
  1418
  amelioration is one of quite as profound difficulty—difficulty that is felt by the man of science, and difficulty that is felt by those who have done the work of practical administration. I happen to know something on the educational aspect of this question.
  Mr. MARTIN: May I call attention to the fact that forty Members are not present?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): A little while ago I satisfied myself that there was more than a quorum of Members present in the Chamber, and therefore I shall disregard the intimation now.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I am not quite sure that the House in its endeavour to deal with this question has taken counsel as to all the logical inferences that are involved in some of the proposals that are now before the House. They are very drastic. If hon. Members knew these schemes and proposals put forward on behalf of some scientific men here and abroad they would realise what a very dark and difficult task it was upon which we are embarking. I feel I must dissociate myself from some of the words of my hon. and gallant Friend who spoke a little while ago, the Member for Midlothian, in deprecating the interference of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, or any English Member, in questions of this sort. I claim the right to interfere in regard to Imperial questions. Three-quarters of my own Constituency live outside Scotland, and it is all nonsense to suppose that we are to be confined in our interference in debate to merely those who happen to be connected with some particular part of the Kingdom. I welcome the interference of the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I do not always agree with him, but I think it is not only the right, but it is most useful on the part of an English Member to say what he feels impelled to say.
  After all, let us look at this thing as men of common sense. Is there a special form of idiocy or imbecility in Scotland that can only be dealt with by people who happen to be sent here from constituencies North of the Tweed? The question is a great general question which must be dealt with on the lines of statesmanship for both parts of the United Kingdom. I do welcome therefore the interference of hon. Members. It is of enormous importance in questions of this sort that all those who have given time, attention and

  1419
  attention, and study, should be heard. Good may be done by this new effort, but there may be serious evils in legislative proposals against which it is well to safeguard ourselves, such as interference with the homes of those concerned, harsh and drastic rough-riding officialism, and against tyranny. Without going further into these questions which are very difficult, I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland certain general complaints in regard to the Bill and to the foundations upon which it is built, which are not the same as those of the English Bill. Perhaps in some respects it would have been better to have had a common Bill laying down general principles, and then by separate Clauses adapting the provisions of the Bill to each part of the United Kingdom. I think then you would have been going upon safer grounds. First of all, what is your local authority. In England you establish a local authority, which I think is likely to be a very happy and useful one. It is to be a special committee appointed by the county council in each place. In Section 26 of the English Act we have laid down:—
  "Every local authority shall constitute a committee for the purposes of this Act to be called the Committee for the care of the Mentally Defective, consisting of such members as the council may determine, being Poor Law guardians or other persons having special knowledge and experience in respect of the care, control, and the treatment of the mentally defective, and of the persons so appointed one at least shall be a, woman."
  What have you in the English Act? You have a provision that the persons must be those selected for their knowledge and experience in dealing with the mentally defective, and they must have one woman on the board. What have you in place of that in the Scottish Bill? The school board of each district upon which there may be no woman whatever! It is one of the most essential points that a woman should be present. I do not know anywhere where it is more necessary for the presence of a woman on a committee. At present you have no guarantee that there
  shall be. It is merely an education authority popularly elected which has to constitute the committee. A school board is not elected in order to attend to the mentally defective. It is elected in order
  1420
  to promote the general education of the whole community. I have noticed of late years, especially since this Government came into office, a dangerous tendency in educational legislation and administration, and that is to wrap up with educational administration far too many things that are altogether extraneous to it.
  The school board is purely an educational authority. It ought to be looking to the promotion of the greatest efficiency in education for the community at large. It ought not to deal with questions that properly come under the Poor Law Board or a committee for the mentally defective. There has been far too much of late of converting real educational administration into setting up amateur Poor Law guardians or giving persons a sort of roving commission to deal with the whole domestic life of children under the age of sixteen. This is not a matter with which they are fitted to deal or with which they can deal without serious detriment to their public duties. I would beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider very carefully whether he cannot follow the better precedent of the English Act, and have a special committee dealing with these mentally defectives apart from ordinary education or administration. I am perfectly certain that it will interfere with that educational administration, and I am quite sure also that those persons who are elected to look after secondary and elementary schools, and to promote the proficiency of education for the general classes of the community, have not the time, even if they have the interest, qualifications, or experience, which would constitute them the most fitting members for a committee for the care of the feeble-mended. Either the proper duties will suffer or else persons not specially fitted to perform educational duties will be elected on the school boards in order to attend to those other duties. I thought it was a pity when the feeding of children was taken away from the Poor Law guardians and put upon the school boards. I think it was an economical error, an administrative mistake, and an injury to education. I think the matter was managed quite as well before by the Poor Law guardians, eked out by the very generous voluntary subscriptions.
  I think you are making precisely the same mistake here in putting this altogether extraneous duty on to the school boards. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that question. By this Bill

  1421
  the school boards will now be responsible not only for the conduct of education, but to another Board, and it is a most dangerous thing to put any local authority under more than one central authority. Can you conceive anything worse as a piece of administration than putting the school boards under the Board of Education and under this new Board of Control? The school board is responsible to the Education Department for its own proper work, and you add a totally alien sort of work. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether the general foundations of this Bill ought not to be recast upon some sort of sounder administrative foundation. I have to insist and mention these things because this Bill will go up to a Committee, and this is the last time it is possible to give any opinion on the question, a question to which I have given by far the largest number of the years of my life. The Bill after to-day goes upstairs, and then we know how impatiently any further discussion will be heard. We are dealing with a question of enormous difficulty and complexity. I have pointed out some administrative objections to this Bill which I think are of a most serious character. I am not going to stop simply because some hon. Members think it would be easy and convenient and popular with the constituencies in Scotland that we should slur over and botch up a piece of legislation of this kind, which requires every guidance which we can have from science and experience and from the study of administrative experiments elsewhere of a similar kind. I trust before this Bill passes its Second Reading we shall have some assurance that some of these administrative difficulties will be dealt with in Committee upstairs.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: The hon. Member who has just addressed the House speaks with great authority on the educational aspects of the measure we are considering. I am bound to say I sympathise somewhat with some of the criticisms he has made against the measure in its present form. I am glad to associate myself with other hon. Members from Scotland who have stated that there is a desire in Scotland for such a measure, but 1 do hope that there may be further consideration given as to the form of the Bill before it reaches the Statute Book, so as to deal with some of the criticisms just made by the hon. Member and by other hon. Members. I think the question of the position
  1422
  and interests of our school boards is one of very great importance indeed in regard to the duties which are imposed upon them under the Bill. I should like to know whether the school boards of Scotland have been fully consulted in regard to all the matters which it is now proposed that they should have to deal with in the future. I gather from reports which I have seen in the Press and from communications which I have received from Scotland that there is some doubt in the minds of a good many of our school board authorities how far those additional duties should be properly imposed upon them. I notice that the Glasgow School Board Committee on Special Schools, at a meeting the other day, did make a suggestion that the duty of dealing with idiots and imbeciles should not be thrown on school boards, but that the responsibility for all such mentally defectives of whatever age should rest on the parish councils. I think it will be very desirable in this matter that we should be in a position to consider fully the representations which the school boards of Scotland are inclined to make when the Bill is being considered in Committee stage.
  I think Section 2 of the Bill as it stands imposes upon the school board duties which they will find it very difficult indeed to carry out, because that Section provides that the power conferred upon school boards under the 1908 Act to contribute towards the maintenance and education in institutions of defective children should be made a duty in the future, and that the boards should have to undertake that duty, where before they could exercise discretion. I think it is very desirable that it should be made clear to the Scottish people that there is no attempt to be made to compel defective children to leave their parents, or to be placed in institutions, particularly those living in rural districts where it would be difficult for educational authorities to make provision on the spot, and I hope that this matter will be reconsidered in Committee, so that there shall be in no case obligation placed on the parents to part with their children, and especially in the ease of poor parents, except under very special circumstances which make it necessary that they should be treated in institutions. With reference to the constitution of the new District Boards of Control which it is intended to set up, the hon. Member for Midlothian (Major Hope) has already drawn the attention of the House to the

  1423
  fact that a conference was held in Scotland a week ago of representatives from the existing District Lunacy Board, and that there is a strong feeling that further consideration should be given to their views, and that in future the existing Districts Boards should continue to have a substantial representation upon the new Boards of Control. It seems to me, looking to the services which the District Lunacy Boards have already rendered in Scotland, they should be recognised in future, and that their complete abolition should not be permitted. I think there is a general feeling that an arrangement could be arrived at which would meet the case and deal with the position of the town councils, parish councils, and county councils, and that the new Board might be so constituted as to give effect in a fair way to the interests of all those parties. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement, made on the last occasion when this Bill was discussed that he was prepared to consider with an open mind, representations made to him on that point. The feeling of the representatives of the existing Lunacy Boards in Scotland, is that they are quite prepared to acquiesce in a change in the provisions of last year's Bill, so as to confer upon the parish councils the administrative control of the mentally should be continued on the new Boards. They think the new administrative duties thrown on parish councils are already so great that they ought to be prepared to accept the assistance of those, who, in the past, have done such good work in connection with the administration of the Lunacy laws in Scotland. They desire that the present Lunacy Boards should continue to exist, and that their representation should be continued on the new Boards. There is no objection on their part to a large representation of the parish councils.
  With regard to the school boards, I understand that they are in a somewhat different category, but there would be no difficulty in arriving at an agreement if the right hon. Gentleman could arrange for the matter being further considered at a general conference. I wish to deal with the position of asylum officers under this Bill. Clause 34 which proposes to deal with the superannuation of officers of certified institutions for the defective by the District Boards prescribes certain adaptations and modifications of the existing Superannuation Act of 1909, which
  1424
  may be prescribed by the Secretary for Scotland. Those adaptations and modifications are to include the alteration of the classes of officers, the periods of service and scale of allowances and contributions. I think it is very desirable that in a Bill of this character, where you are proposing to include a new set of asylum officers—because that is practically what the new officers will amount to—and where you are going to modify the asylum officers Superannuation Act of 1909, you should at the same time consider the case of those who have a real grievance under the present superannuation system provided by that Act, and that their case should be dealt with in this Bill. A very strong appeal has been made to introduce into this Bill a section which would deal with the case of the asylum officers who have served in asylums, which were formerly parochial institutions, and which have only recently become district asylums, in order to secure that the period they have served in the parochial asylums should count for superannuation purposes. These officers have had a real grievance for many years, and so have the officers who have served in the pauper lunatic wards in our poorhouses. It is desired that their case might be dealt with in this Bill by making their period of service in the parochial asylums arid pauper lunatic wards count for the purpose of superannuation. I might remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is a small private Member's Bill before the House, backed by the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Sir John Jardine) and other Scottish Members, which deals with this and other points affecting Scottish asylum officers. I hope the right hon. Gentleman may be in a position either to give a guarantee that that Bill will receive facilities this Session or else that he i3 prepared to deal with the most important of its provisions in this Bill.
  I desire to refer, but without going into any detail, to the further grievances of those asylum officers who, under the Superannuation Act, have been classified for superannuation purposes in class 2 instead of class 1. There are a large number of these officers in Scottish asylums employed as tradesmen attendants who are anxious to have their case considered. These officers perform very responsible duties and have the care and charge of patients and they should not be put into the position of having to go into class 2 which consists of officers who have had

  1425
  no control of patients. I think these officers should be given the advantage of being dealt with in this Bill and be classified in class 1 as officers who are in charge of patients. I trust also that the right hon. Gentleman will keep in view the desirability when appointing the new central Board of having at least one woman Commissioner. That point has been dealt with in the English Bill, and it has been agreed that in England there shall be one woman on the Commission. Under the Section of the Bill which deals with the Commissioners and the Sub-Commissioners it is left discretionary to the Secretary for Scotland to appoint even one woman as a Sub-Commissioner or as a Deputy-Commissioner out of the four additional appointments which may be made. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us the assurance that instead of this being discretionary on his part, he will agree to one woman acting as a paid Commissioner in view of the large number of women who will fall to be dealt with under the Bill. I trust this measure will be very much improved in Committee, and that some consideration will be given to the suggestions which have been made in different quarters of the House. I feel sure it will give satisfaction in Scotland if it passes in a somewhat altered form to meet the views which have been expressed.
  Sir JOHN SPEAR: Although I am an English Member, I wish to congratulate the Scottish Members upon the prospect of better provision being made for the care of the feeble-minded in Scotland. I cannot share the doubts expressed by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwdod) about there being a popular demand for legislation of this kind. As president of the Poor Law Association for England and Wales, I know that one of the most prominent subjects they have considered is that of the provision of better care for the feeble-minded, and from all I can learn opinion in Scotland is of the same kind. Not only the dictates of humanity, but expediency demands steps such as are contemplated in this Bill. There is nothing more distressing, to my mind, than to see parents who have feebleminded children who are not in a position to see them well cared for. I cannot help thinking that it is one of the first duties of a nation to come to the aid of people so situated, and try to make the burden which has fallen upon them less heavy than it is at the present time. It seems
  1426
  to me that in the interests of the country we should embrace the first opportunity of helping to care for these children who are feeble-minded.
  First of all, we should take such steps as are contemplated by this Bill to meet the condition of mind of the children. I have in my own experience seen cases in Devonshire where feeble-minded children have been trained to physical work, and, they are able not only to make articles of furniture, but devise patterns which they could put into execution. To see those children enjoy their physical work makes one feel how important it is that provision should be made for the children of poorer people who have not the opportunity of availing themselves of an institution of that kind. The hon. Member for Glasgow spoke of feeble-minded persons in workhouses, and he mentioned that there were persons of that character who, were a source of injury and annoyance to their fellow inmates. That is quite correct, and, as a Poor Law guardian, have been face to face with that difficulty and have felt that it is undesirable and unjust that persons of that description who have become somewhat dangerous should remain as inmates, but hitherto we have had no alternative but to send them to the lunatic asylum, and they have sufficient sensibility to make their association with lunatics extremely painful to them. Poor Law guardians have felt for years that it is very desirable there should be a home for feeble-minded where persons of that character would be taken care of in a way consistent with the requirements of their individual case. I quite agree as to the necessity of safeguarding the liberty of the subject, and I hope that in Committee the opinions which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) and the hon. Member for Glasgow have expressed will be taken fully into consideration to see whether there are any provisions of the Bill which unduly interfere with the liberty of the subject. That, however, is a question that may be dealt with in Committee, though, as far as I can see, there is some precaution taken not to interfere with the feelings between parents and the afflicted child unfairly or unduly.
  It seems to me that at present it is the poor who are so situated who have first claim to our consideration. Wealthy people who can afford to send their children to a home are already provided for. There are many who are not able to

  1427
  send their children to such a home, and it is to them that the Bill will prove a real boon indeed. I quite agree that at present the Bill does not provide sufficient funds to efficiently carry out the proposals. Surely the care of the feeble-minded is a national concern, and funds should be provided out of the Imperial Exchequer to carry out this work, rather than place an increased burden on the ratepayers. The increased charges which fall on the rates make it very difficult for public administrators of the law to carry out their work because of the resentment felt by the ratepayers at having to provide more money. I hope that the Government, both in this Bill and in the English Bill, will take steps to meet the natural liability which rests upon them and will find more funds from the Imperial Exchequer with which to carry out this work. I can speak from my knowledge of Poor Law administration and my acquaintance with the desires and opinions of the largest Poor Law authority I believe in the world, and I say that we are as anxious as hon. Members to safeguard the liberties of the subject, but we hope, through the English Bill and through this Bill, to do something not only to secure the liberty of the subject, but also to secure to poor people who have invalid children of this kind the liberty and the right to send them to a home where everything that can be done will be done to develop their intellect, and where due and considerate care will be taken of them while they are in the institution.
  Mr. WHYTE: Some regret was expressed earlier in the afternoon that this Bill had not made the same progress as the English Bill. I am not sure that I share that regret, because in the interval Scottish public opinion has had time to crystallise, and when we get in Committee upstairs on this Bill, as I have no doubt we shall very soon, we shall also have the advantage of the Committee on the English Bill. I agree with a good deal that has been said in criticism even of the principle of the Bill. I agree that the question of definition is extremely difficult, but I do not admit that it is as impossible a matter as has been suggested by some of the more severe critics of the measure. The definition is a good deal better in this Bill than it was in last year's Bill, and the year's delay has done no harm either to the English Bill or to this Bill. At the same time I wish to say that as far as I can gather, and I have taken some trouble to find out
  1428
  how educated and enlightened opinion in Scotland regards this question, there would be serious dismay not among those whom the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) would call superior persons but throughout the community from top to bottom, among persons who have really taken a serious interest in this subject, if this Bill were not to proceed to a successful conclusion.
  Criticism now is mainly directed to the details of the Bill, and with that criticism I have a good deal of sympathy. The Bill and its methods are in the nature of things a good deal of an experiment, and it is better when we are proceeding by way of experiment to proceed with too many safeguards rather than with too few. On that account I wish to do everything that lays in my power to allay the fears of the small folk in Scotland who think, erroneously as I believe, that their children, if they happen to be feeble-minded, will be snatched from their arms and locked up in the dark prisons of the hon. Member's imagination. He calls it an inquisition. I think he will find that the inquisitorial cases will be a very small minority indeed, and I think that I am entitled to say that people in Scotland have not the fear and suspicion of their own public officials that perhaps people have in England. As far as I am able to judge, the relationship there is a good deal better than it is South of the Tweed, but, be that as it may, we must proceed to criticise this measure on the assumption that it is going to be administered with caution and by men of good sense. I am perfectly certain that would be the case, and in case there may be a certain number of mistakes made by the primary authority concerned with the feeble-minded in Scotland I am quite prepared, as I say, to support those who wish to insert the strongest possible safeguards in the Bill. On the question of definition, I have had it strongly pressed on my notice that there is a certain class of prisoners who frequent Scottish prisons who might possibly be brought under the operation of the Bill. A society which does very good work indeed among the discharged prisoners coming out of the prison in my Constituency has urged very strongly upon me whether a certain class of prisoners might not be regarded as moral imbeciles, but I will not dwell upon that because it is a point which we shall be able to thresh out in Committee upstairs. I was asked to lay this particular question before the House, and I do so the more

  1429
  readily because it is quite evident, that for that class of person who spends the larger part of his days in prison, constantly in gaol and constantly returning to it, something better than our present system is urgently needed. The Discharged Prisoners Aid Society has taken the opportunity of the publication of this measure to express the opinion, for whatever it is worth, that Sub-section (d), Clause 1, might be made applicable to that class of person. I want to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities who wishes to take school boards out of the Bill altogether—to remove the care and control of feebleminded children from the school board and to hand them over to the jurisdiction of the parish council.
  Sir H. CRAIK: No, not of the parish council, but of some special committee for the care of the feeble-minded chosen for their experience, knowledge, and special qualifications.
  Mr. WHYTE: On the point who is to be the authority regarding the treatment of the feeble-minded, once feeble-mindedness has been established I have an open mind. But I am quite convinced that the school board alone is entitled to judge—of course in consultation with the parents—whether or not feeble-mindedness exists, and on that ground we object to one of the provisions in the Bill in which the Scottish Education Department is brought in to decide in cases of doubt. I cannot conceive anything more likely to prove to an inspector who comes down from the Scottish Education Department that a child is feeble-minded than the presence of that inspector himself. I am not speaking without book in this case, because I have in my mind the cases of two small children who were left orphans, both father and mother being dead, and, at a very early age, a medical man of high standing decided that they ought to be under some special supervision. He was not actually prepared to say they should be certified as insane, but I am confident that if this measure had been in operation, he would have certified that they were feeble-minded. That was simply and solely due to the fact that these two small children who had been deprived of the care of their parents, were undoubtedly backward in their mental development without being feeble-minded, and the natural nervousness, not to say the terror which came over them when brought
  1430
  face to face with a doctor, was quite enough to make them shrink into themselves altogether, and to show their least favourable side. I have, therefore, great objection to bringing an outside inspector in to decide a question of that sort. I say the only people entitled to decide are the parents and the teacher. Joint authority should rest with those two. Consequently the question of the decision should not be taken out of the hands of the education authority which, in my opinion, is the only body at all fit to judge the question. Once the decision has been made, I have a perfectly open mind as to who shall have care and control over the further treatment of such children.
  Sir H. CRAIK: The teacher is not a mental expert. He is neither trained nor qualified in that way.
  Mr. WHYTE: What does the hon. Member mean by that?
  Sir H. CRAIK: I say the teacher could not say if a child showed signs of mental deficiency. That is a question for a trained doctor.
  Mr. WHYTE: In my opinion the people best able to judge are those who exercise care and control over the child, and the teacher who is in constant contact with the child. I have already stated one instance in which the introduction of a strange element, such as a technical medical expert, or an inspector of a public education department is quite enough to turn the balance.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I never proposed the visit of an inspector of the Scottish Education Department.
  Mr. WHYTE: But it is proposed in the Bill. I should like to turn to two other points. The question of finance has been already raised, and I think it was the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) who, in the first half of the Debate ten days ago, was only speaking the truth when he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on doing a great deal better for Scotland with the Treasury than previous Secretaries for Scotland. But in this case I think the operation of this Bill may be seriously handicapped unless its finances are put on a better footing. If we start out with a stereotyped Grant front the Treasury it is difficult to make the Treasury move again. In the case of a stereotyped Grant, as the administration of a measure proceeds in a locality it is bound to happen that the expenditure increases.

  1431
  While the State Grant remains unaltered, the local burden grows greater and greater, and the result is that we have an ever-increasing reluctance on the part of the local authorities to enthusiastically cooperate in putting into operation such measures as we are discussing to-day. Therefore we should do well to promise the Secretary for Scotland our enthusiastic support of any proposal he may make to the Treasury to secure a more elastic Grant, and not a stereotyped one, for the working of this measure. Then there was a point raised by the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire, namely, the inclusion of women on a much wider scale than is proposed in the Bill in the administration of the measure. That seems one of the vital points in the success of the Bill. A large part of the administration of the measure will, in future years, be concerned with children, and, in dealing with them, I am perfectly certain that a strong element of women representation on all bodies concerned with the administration of this measure is absolutely necessary, if it is to succeed. All these points, however, will be dealt with in Committee upstairs, and I will only add, on the general question as to the desirability of the Bill passing, that I find no strong body of opinion in Scotland which at all echoes the criticisms made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood). On the contrary, bodies which are in no sense composed of superior persons, but working-class bodies and educational bodies, are keenly alive to the need for this measure, and have made their desire for it very clear in many forms to many Members of this House.
  Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend the Member for the Tavistock Division (Sir John Spear) told us that he was in favour of this Bill because he considered that mentally defective children belonging to the poor should be properly looked after. That is an excellent proposition with which I agree. But it has very little to do with this Bill. What I object to, and what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme objects to, is the compulsory part of the Bill—in fact, this Bill Would have very little effect if it were not for the provisions as to compulsion. The Bill goes much further than my hon. Friend suggested. It actually, in Clause 10, gives power to the Secretary for Scotland, if he finds a mentally defective person in prison undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, to
  1432
  keep that person imprisoned without any rhyme or reason being given, for all that he has to do is to get a certificate from two duly qualified medical practitioners. You can get a certificate from a doctor, as you can get an opinion from counsel, with very little trouble. I attach no importance whatever to the certificate of two duly qualified medical practitioners, especially when it is asked for by a person in the position of the Secretary for Scotland. The Bill really puts the Secretary for Scotland in the position of the old French kings, who sent out lettres de cachet, and kept people in prison as long as they liked. It is true that here there is a revision. At the end of the year somebody must come forward and say that the right hon. Gentleman is keeping the person in prison rightly and properly, but once the right hon. Gentleman has him in his power he will not be anxious to let him go. Another point is that doctors differ, and while two doctors might be found to say that I, perhaps, am mentally deficient, I should be equally able to produce two doctors who would say that upon one subject—the single tax—the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was mentally deficient, and ought to be locked up. I am not sure that I should not hold that view if I were the Home Secretary.
  4.0 P.M.
  I desire to point out to my hon Friend for the Tavistock Division that this proposal goes much further than he thinks. It is really a very serious attempt upon the liberties of the subject. I am opposed to this Bill, as I was opposed to the English Bill, on the ground that it interferes with the liberties of the subject. I am an individualist, and believe strongly that the great majority of the people in this country are individualists, if they only knew where individualism came in. They are deceived and deluded by such speeches—I do not say it in an offensive way—as that of my hon. Friend the Member for the Tavistock Division. They think it will do something to relieve them to an obligation, and will put the expense upon somebody else. My hon. Friend says that the boards of guardians all over the Kingdom have been desirous of extending the operation of this Bill. Naturally all officials desire to extend their power. My hon. Friend says that these boards of guardians are desirous of doing all this at the expense of the taxpayers and not at that of the ratepayers. That is one of the very serious blots upon this Bill. The

  1433
  hon. Gentleman who has just sat down made an appeal to the Treasury to increase the Grant. We know that as soon as the Bill is in operation it will be found that it cannot be carried out for the money voted by the Treasury, and further efforts will be made to obtain more money from them. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) made some very interesting remarks. I understood him to be not very favourable to this Bill, and that he would prefer another Bill which would go to the root of the evil and stop mental deficiency. He said that mental deficiency was caused by landlordism and capitalism. He is in a powerful position in this House. Why does he not bring in a Bill to abolish landlordism and capitalism, vote against the Second Reading of this Bill and then wait and see the effects of the abolition of landlordism and capitalism? That is a much simpler method of procedure and one which will probably have a much better result. I do not think that mental deficiency is caused by poverty. It is very difficult to know how it is caused. I fail to see how this Bill is going to stop the production of mental deficients. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division said he would like to stop the production of feeble-minded persons. So should I. But how can you do it? You will certainly not stop it by this Bill. Whether or not you will arrest its growth by this Bill is extremely doubtful. I felt obliged to say a few words upon this subject because I was unable to speak upon the other Bill, and although I am a member of the Committee on the English Bill, I have not been able so far to attend its meetings. As to the suggestion put forward that the objection I have raised to compulsion has been to a certain extent met by the insertion of an Amendment in the English Bill, which says that a child cannot be taken away from the custody of its father or mother without their consent, but that such consent should not be unreasonably withheld, that seems to be a most ridiculous suggestion, and the Amendment was too absurd to have been put into the Bill. Who is to
  decide what is unreasonable? Probably it will be two medical practitioners who have already made up their minds that the child is mentally deficient, and who will say that the objection is unreasonable. You might just as well have a Bill dealing with the liberty of the subject in regard to leases and say that if the consent to repair is unreasonably withheld the person shall be imprisoned. That infringes upon the old doctrine that an Englishman's home is his castle. I do not know where we are going. What with sentimental Gentlemen on this side of the House and sentimental Gentlemen on the other side of the House, and the medical students who think they are going to revolutionise the whole world, and by science prevent what has been going on for I do not know how many thousand years, and what with all this sort of Bill to carry out the fads of these hon. Gentlemen, I do not know what is going to happen to the country. Where have we been during the last three or four hundred years when we had none of these measures taking one man and locking him up, and taking a child away from his parents. We were progressing until the year 1906, when, I admit, our progress stopped. Prior to that time we had been progressing in the most satisfactory manner. I felt bound to express shortly the views I hold strongly, not because I desire to prevent a feebleminded child or person being looked after, that is the last thing I should desire to prevent, but because I desire that everybody, whether a rich man or a poor man, shall be able to do what he likes with his own affairs without constant interference on the part of right hon. Gentlemen opposite or boards of guardians or other officials paid for out of the pocket and by the work of that person.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood)The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood) rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 75.

  Division No. 125.]

  AYES.

  [4.5 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Beale, Sir William Phlpson

  Bryce, John Annan

  Alden, Percy

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Arnold, Sydney

  Boland, John Pius

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Clough, William

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Parry, Thomas M.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Joyce, Michael

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Keating, Matthew

  Pointer, Joseph

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Crooks, William

  Kelly, Edward

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Radford, George Heynes

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  King, Joseph

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Delany, William

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Reddy, M.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Leach, Charles

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Doris, William

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Duffy, William J.

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Roth, Walter F.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Lynch, A. A.

  Rowlands, James

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Falconer, James

  McGhee, Richard

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Sheehy, David

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Fitzgibbon, John

  M'Kean, John

  Shortt, Edward

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Goldstone, Frank

  Meagher, Michael

  Sutherland, John E.

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Molloy, Michael

  Sutton, John E.

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hackett, J.

  Morrell, Philip

  Verney, Sir H.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Muldoon, John

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Munro, Robert

  Wardle, G. J.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster)

  Webb, H.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Francis

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whyte, Alexander F.

  Hinds, John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Dowd, John

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Malley, William

  Younger, Sir George

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Shee, James John

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Grant, James Augustus

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Barnes, George N.

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Barrie, H. T.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Thomas, J. H.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Kerry, Earl of

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Macpherson, James Ian

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Martin, Joseph

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Millar, James Duncan

  Winterton, Earl

  Croft, Henry Page

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Falle, Bertram Godfrey

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Robert Harcourt and Mr. Neilson.

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bill read a second time.

  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move,
  "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."
  The House divided: Ayes, 19; Noes, 241.

  Division No. 126.]

  AYES.

  [4.13 p.m.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Radford, G. H.

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Grant, J. A.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Kerry, Earl of

  Williams, Col, R. (Dorset, W.)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Neilson, Francis

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood and Mr. Martin.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Adamson, William

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Alden, Percy

  Gilmour, Captain John

  MacGhee, Richard

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Maclean, Donald

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Arnold, Sydney

  Goldsmith, Frank

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Goldstone, Frank

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hackett, J.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Barrie, H. T.

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Molloy, Michael

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Beale, Sir William Phlpson

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morrell, Philip

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Muldoon, John

  Benn, W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Munro, Robert

  Black, Arthur A.

  Hayward, Evan

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Boland, John Plus

  Hazleton, Richard

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Norton, Captain William Cecil

  Bryce, John Annan

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hinds, John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Dowd, John

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Grady, James

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  O'Malley, William

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Clough, William

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Shee, James John

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Cowan, William Henry

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Crooks, William

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Cullinan, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Keating, Matthew

  Pointer, Joseph

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Kelly, Edward

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Delany, William

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  King, Joseph

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Doris, William

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Reddy, Michael

  Duffy, William J.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Leach, Charles

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Robinson, Sidney

  Falconer, James

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  London, T.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Fell, Arthur

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rowlands, James

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Thomas, James Henry

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Whyte, Alexander F.

  Sheehy, David

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Winterton, Earl

  Shortt, Edward

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Wardle, George J.

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Younger, Sir George

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Webb, H.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Sutherland, John E.

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Sutton, John

  Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DEFECTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): There are two broad reasons why we believe this Bill should become law. The first is that we have had an experience of fourteen years under the Defective and Epileptic Children Act of 1899, and we are convinced as a result of that experience that this Bill ought to pass so as to make the application of its provisions universal and uniform. The second reason is that we believe that the solution of the problem of the feeble-minded adult is really based on the essential preliminary stage, namely training the feeble-minded child. I feel myself that the magnitude of the problem will be very materially reduced by proper attention being given to the training of the feeble-minded child, if only the education authority will undertake to distinguish between those who are educable and ineducable. This Bill is really the corollary and complement of the Bill that has been already sent upstairs and that is now being considered in Grand Committee. Clause 29 of that Bill places upon the local education authority the duty of ascertaining which are the mentally defective children and which the sound children. This Bill will enable special schools to be created with three objects—one to enable all doubtful cases of feeble-minded children to be properly diagnosed in those schools secondly, to determine which are educable and which ineducable; and,
  1440
  thirdly, to provide industrial and manual training suitable for the varying capacities of the children, and also to train them in habits of good conduct and self-control. The duties imposed by this Bill on the local education authorities we believe should be imposed, because they have already proved themselves to be in the best position, through their established school medical service to train and educate and care for the educable feeble-minded children.
  Mental incapacity is only one of the very many incapacities with which the Board of Education has to deal. There are cripples, blind, deaf, and deaf and dumb; there are those with heart disease, and those who suffer from consumption; and all those defects we have to treat in a special way. Mental deficiency, backwardness and dulness, is only one of the many types of disease we have to combat. There are in this country 318 local education authorities, and they are all handling this question through their school medical service. The machinery already exists and is in working order. There is a staff of expert medical men employed by the education authorities, and we have at the Board of Education a competent staff of medical inspectors who go round those schools. There are 176 authorities who have actually taken some steps under the Permissive Act of 1899, 52 maintain schools of their own, 173 schools are already established, and 100 authorities contribute to these schools situate sometimes in areas outside their own. We admit that there may be still something to learn and the work to-day, which is voluntary and partial, is not so effective as it might be if this Bill became law. A child, if it is not capable of receiving education, is notified to the new authority that will be established under the Mental Deficiency Bill which is now upstairs, and, so far as the Board of Education and

  1441
  the local education authorities, are concerned, these children will remain with their parents until such age as the authorities think it necessary to take charge of them and look after them themselves. In the event of any child under treatment appearing to be normal, that child will be transferred to an ordinary elementary school.
  The Report of the work done in these special schools is most encouraging. When I state that about half the feebleminded children are already in special schools, and that half of those, are proved to be almost self-supporting when they leave the schools, the House will realise what a grand work has already been done in the direction of helping these children to become useful citizens in afterlife. Let me take one or two illustrations. There were six special schools for elder feeble-minded boys in London in 1909, and 45 per cent. of the boys were found good positions or promising employment. In 1910, from eight special schools for elder feeble-minded girls, 51 per cent. were found on investigation after they left the schools to be in good work or promising employment. I could give the House other figures to show that good employment depends very largely upon the amount of supervision given by those kind people who serve upon the employment and after-care committees. Where proper attention is paid to these afflicted children, we find that over 50 per cent. can obtain employment. I have a Return here from special schools showing that the wages obtained on leaving the schools amount to 14s. a week in some cases. Of course, sometimes they are only able to begin at 5s. or 6s. The very fact that half of those who enter the schools can be sufficiently trained under the expert teachers of the local education authorities to earn Dart or all their living is a full justification for trying to do something more for the children who are not attending these schools. The Royal Commission thought that there were about 150,000 mentally defective persons in the country, of whom 48,000 were children under sixteen, and that 36,000 of these children were educable. As a matter of fact, since the period of that Report a school medical service has been established throughout the country, and we find that the number of these children has been rather over-estimated. We believe that there are about 24,000 children who ought to be sent to these special schools.
  1442
  There are 12,000 already in the 173 schools established throughout the country, and 12,000 at large with no prospect of becoming useful citizens owing to the neglect they have suffered.
  I must explain that while we are going to impose a fresh obligation upon local education authorities, we realise that they ought to be helped out of the Treasury, and we propose to increase the Grant of four guineas hitherto paid in respect of each of these children to £6 per head for all those who will be treated in special schools in the future. That will apply, not only to the 12,000 who are not in the schools at the present time, but also to the 12,000 already in them.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Voluntary training?
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to pay the same or a higher Grant for the children in these residential schools?
  Mr. PEASE: Yes; I want to explain that 36s. is the additional Grant that will be paid on the 12,000 already in the schools. In regard to the residential schools we recognise that there will be increased expense placed upon those concerned for the children that reside therein, or are boarded out so as to be in close connection with the school at some distance from their own homes. We propose, therefore, in respect of these children that have to be sent away, to increase the Grant from £4 4s. to £12. That will mean that in the course of a few years instead of the State giving £45,000 to the local education authorities which at present we are giving, we are going, not merely to double the amount, but to give £200,000—for that is the amount we expect to be able to contribute eventually to the local education authorities who are carrying on this good work. There are two objections which have been taken to the proposals. One is that we are establishing a large number of new authorities. We are not doing anything of the kind. We are only using the existing authorities, which have already got their machinery at work. The next is in respect to the residential schools. It is suggested that they in some cases produce a feeling of resentment on the part of the parents who desire to keep their weak-minded children in their homes, and do not want to send them a long way from home. I am most anxious that we shall meet any legitimate views and arguments in Committee upstairs. I recognise that it is

  1443
  absolutely important that we should secure the confidence of the parents of the children in connection with the treatment that is given in these residential schools. We already have eight of these in the country, one of which is for the blind, who are also mentally defective. The result of that experiment has been wholly satisfactory. I myself have not received a single complaint in regard to the treatment of the 400 children already established in these residential special schools.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Are these residential special schools compulsory at the present time?
  Mr. PEASE: No, they are not. A number of parents who had rather hesitated to send their children to these schools were invited to visit them, and they realised how well their children are in these schools and what a good thing it is for them. It is obvious that it is for the interest of the child that it should be trained and not be allowed to be a wastrel in the community, it is obvious also that in the interest of the State that we should give every opportunity for improvement to these children, who unfortunately are scattered about in our rural districts and give them exactly the same opportunities as those in our urban areas. The expense may be considerable, but I am satisfied in my own mind that in no direction can this money be better spent than in the improvement of these children, many of whom only want a little time, care, and personal attention in order that they may improve and develop into useful citizens. I hope that the House will pass the Second Reading of this Bill this afternoon; in the event of any reasonable Amendments being suggested upstairs we shall be glad to try and meet them.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day three months."
  At the outset I wish to make it perfectly clear that I agree that permissive legislation has not been successful, and that some provision has to be made for the case of these mentally defective children. The right hon. Gentleman in his statement alluded to a great many-things which are not in the Bill. I wish to deal with the Bill as it stands. This Bill proposes to make the Act of 1899
  1444
  compulsory, or, rather, the Bill really only proposes to make part of the Act of 1899 compulsory, because it does not propose to deal with physically defective children, and apparently it does not deal with epileptics, because although this Bill puts the obligation upon the parent of an epileptic child to send such child to a suitable institution, there is no duty put upon the local authority to make suitable provision for epileptic children. Therefore, for all practical purposes, this Bill only deals with children who are mentally defective under the Act of 1899. As the House is aware, and the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, under the Act of 1899 the education authorities were empowered to provide special schools and classes for the education and training of mentally defective children within the meaning of the Act of 1899. Under the Act of 1899 mentally defective children are defined as children not being imbeciles, and not merely dull and backward, but who are by reason of that mental or physical defect incapable of receiving proper benefit from the instruction in ordinary public elementary schools, but are not incapable by reasons of such defect of receiving benefit from instruction in such special schools as might be provided under the Act.
  It is perfectly clear that this Act was passed in order to make provision for the children mentioned in this Bill—that is, for children of a special degree of mental defect. These special schools were not intended for and ought not to contain children who are merely backward, nor ought they to contain children who are imbeciles or idiots. They are simply intended for children who are suffering from that degree of mental defect specified in the Bill. Anyone who is acquainted with these special schools and classes knows that in these schools at the present time there are a considerable number of children who are merely backward and who ought to be in backward classes, wherever such classes can be established. They also contain a very considerable number of children who are practically imbeciles and idiots, but who have been given the benefit of the doubt and have been classed as capable of receiving benefit in these schools simply and solely for the reason that at the present time no institution exists where these idiot and imbecile children can be sent. This is going to be altered by the Bill to which the House has already given a Second Reading—the Mental Deficiency

  1445
  Bill. Under that Bill institutions and homes are to be provided for idiots and imbeciles. The right hon. Gentleman gave certain figures. He told us that at the present time fifty-two education authorities have provided special classes in schools under the Act of 1899, and that something like 12,000 children are provided for in these special schools. There seems to be some doubt in regard to the actual number of mentally defective children who ought to be provided for in special schools. In the Report of the Royal Commission it is estimated to be 48,000. The right hon. Gentleman to-day tells us that there are only 24,000.
  Mr. PEASE: The 48,000 included epileptics and the ineducable as well as the educable feeble-minded.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: I should like to remind the House that all these schools have been established in urban areas. I do not believe that a single special school has been started in the country districts. What is more, all the special schools, with very few exceptions, are day schools. The right hon. Gentleman told us there are only seven residential schools for mentally defectives in the country. I think everyone will agree that the day schools where a child spends thirty hours a week only is not the proper place for children who require constant supervision. Most of the children in our special schools certainly do require constant supervision, and you ought to look after them in residential homes or custodial institutions. The day school is only the proper place for slightly defectives who can be made self-supporting in after-life, and children who are really defective ought to be in custodial homes. You are going to establish this sort of home under the Mentally Deficiency Pill for imbeciles and idiots, but not for feeble-minded and mentally deficient under the age of sixteen.
  Let me point out the position if both the Mental Deficiency Bill and this Bill become law. You will have two sets of institutions dealing with mentally defectives, one set under the Board of Control and another set under the Board of Education. The idiot and imbecile children are to be sent to the institutions under the Board of Control and the feebleminded under sixteen are to be entrusted to the Board of Education. If the House will look at the Mental Deficiency Bill they will see that an idiot is a child who is
  1446
  "unable to guard itself against common physical danger." The definition of an imbecile is a child" incapable of being taught to manage themselves or their affairs." The Mental Deficiency Bill says an imbecile is a person in whose case there exists from birth or early age, mental defectiveness, not amounting to idiocy, but so pronounced that they are unable to manage themselves and their affairs, or, in the case of children of being taught to do so. I would like to know how it would be possible to say that a child of seven will be in after life able to look after its own affairs or not. That is absolutely impossible, because you cannot say that at the age of seven. Under this Bill you are required to say whether you will be able to teach the child to be able to look after itself.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: That refers to existing affairs. A child might not be able to button up its clothes.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: It all depends what construction the hon. Member puts upon the phrase "able to manage their own affairs." The two classes I have mentioned, idiots and imbeciles, are not to be sent to these special schools because they are too bad for them, but they are to go to the institutions under the Board of Control. The children who are incapable of receiving proper benefit from the instruction in ordinary schools, and are therefore to go to special schools, are classed in this Bill as feeble-minded persons, and a feebleminded person is described as a person who requires care, supervision, and control for his own protection or for the protection of others. I really defy anyone to draw a hard and fast line and to say this child belongs to this class and that child to that class; this child is a mentally defective child which ought to be handed over to the Home Secretary; that child is a mentally defective child which ought to be handed over to the Board of Education. As far as local administration is concerned, one set of institutions is to be under the Local Education Committee and another set of institutions is to be under a new committee for the care of the mentally defective which is to be created by the Mentally Deficiency Bill. It seems to me absolutely clear and obvious that all mental defectives, of whatever class and of whatever age, ought to be under one local authority and under one central authority. I am sure that the right

  1447
  hon. Gentleman will agree that in the country districts it will be absolutely impossible to send children to special day schools. You have probably got one mentally defective child in every village, and you cannot possibly set up sufficient day schools to enable these children to attend. You have got to have residential schools. Therefore you are asking your local authority or county council to erect two sets of residential institutions—those under the Mental Deficiency Bill and those under this Bill, with two sets of officers, inspectors, and teachers. Under the Mental Deficiency Bill you are already putting a very heavy charge upon the local authorities, and under this Bill you are putting an additional charge upon them. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he is going to increase the Grant to local education authorities. The Grant so far, I believe, has varied from £4 4s. to £4 10s., and it is now going to be increased to £6. Does the right hon. Gentleman know what is the actual cost of these special schools?
  Mr. PEASE: The approximate average cost of maintenance in day special schools is £11 per child.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: I have the Report here from the London County Council, and they state that the gross cost is £17 per year, or £13 after deducting the Grant from the Board of Education. This Bill contains a new financial principle. If the local education authority do not come up to the requirements of the Board of Education under this particular Act, then the Board of Education can not only withhold the Grant under this Bill, but they can make any deduction they think fit and proper in the aid Grant under the Act of 1892. That is an entirely new principle. If the Board of Education paid the whole of the cost of those mentally defective children, or practically the whole, then certainly they might have the right to make that deduction, but as they do not propose to pay the whole of the cost, as they propose to saddle the ratepayers with the greater part of the cost, I certainly think that they have no right to withhold from the local education authority Grants which are entirely unconnected with anything they are asked to do under this Bill. The whole of this question was carefully considered by a Royal Commission which reported a few years ago, and recommended not only that this
  1448
  Act of 1899 should not be made compulsory, but that all existing special schools should be transferred to the Board of Control, and should not remain under the jurisdiction of the Board of Education. I think the matter is of such importance that I ought to read the exact words used by the Royal Commission:—
  "Therefore we do not propose that in order to Increase the number of special classes for schools the Elementary Education Act of 1899 shall be made compulsory. We believe that by itself, without any modifications or changes in other directions, that can meet the needs of the mentally defective. We propose accordingly that where there are special schools they shall he used primarily for teaching those who, later in life, will in all probability he able to look after themselves and to do useful work under supervision, and, secondly, for the purposes of observation. Such classes or schools would, however, pass under the control of the Board of Control and would not remain under the Board of Education."
  Thus the Royal Commission reported that these classes or schools should be handed over to the Board of Control. The right hon. Gentleman, however, now recommends not only that they should remain under the Board of Education, but that similar schools or classes should be erected all over the country—in town and country districts, where they have not yet been started. What are the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman has given us in favour of this Bill? He says that a large number of children in these schools become self-supporting in after life, and that many return to the ordinary schools. He gave us some figures. I think he Stated that 50 per cent. of the children in mentally defective schools become self-supporting. But here is a Report from the chief medical officer of his Department—
  Mr. BOOTH: What is the date?
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: 1912. Page 207. He is dealing with cases at Liverpool, and he says:—
  "Of these 170 are in employment—equivalent to 24 per cent. as compared with 28 per cent. last year. This result cannot be considered other than as very unsatisfactory."
  He also points out that although a large number of these children—a considerable number have got employment, it is absolutely impossible to say for certain that that employment is permanent.
  It being Five of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned; Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP E).
  Sir WILLIAM HOWELL DAVIES reported from the Committee on Group E of Private Bills, that the parties opposing the Halkyn District Mines Drainage Bill had stated that the evidence of Dr. Aubrey Strahan, Assistant Director, Geological Survey and Museum, Jermyn Street, S.W., was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Dr. Aubrey Strahan do attend the said Committee on Tuesday next, at Eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That Dr. Aubrey Strahan do attend the said Committee on Group E of Private Bills on Tuesday next, at Eleven of the clock.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAEER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.
  Adjourned at Two minutes after Five o'clock until Monday next, 30th June.

  PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
  The following Petitions were presented during the week, and ordered to lie upon the Table:—

  MONDAY.
  Employment of Children Bill—Petition from Dumfries, for alteration.
  Post Office (London) Railway Bill—Petition from Stepney, against (praying to be heard by counsel); to be referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.
  Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays Bill—Petitions in favour, from Anston, Bradford, Bucklebury, Inkpen, Leicester, Tinsley, and Upper Tooting.

  TUESDAY.
  Post Office (London) Railway Bill—Petitions against (praying to be heard by
  1450
  counsel), from Charles Hugh Berners, of Woolverston Park; Great Northern Railway Company; London County Council; Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London; Mayor, Alderman, and Councillors of the Metropolitan Borough of St. Marylebone, Mayor, Aldermen, and Councillors of the Metropolitan Borough of St. Pancras; Herbert James HopeEdwardes, of Netley Hall; and the Trustees of the Bedford Charity; to be referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.
  Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays Bill—Petitions in favour, from Alnwick, Birmingham, Bradford (five), Eastbourne, Harborne, Islington, Kensington, Shepherd's Bush, Stapleford, Tottenham, and Wyke.
  Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill—Petitions for inquiry, from Lewes and Thirsk.

  WEDNESDAY.
  Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays Bill—Petitions in favour, from Birmingham, Featherstone, and Tunstall.

  THURSDAY.
  Employment of Children Bill—Petition from Edinburgh, for alteration.
  Established Church (Wales) Bill—Petition from Edinburgh, in favour.
  Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays Bill—Petitions in favour, from Cradley Heath, Ecclesfield, Lavenham, Portesham, Portsmouth (two), Stamshaw, and Waltham Abbey.

  FRIDAY.
  Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays Bill—Petitions in favour, from Acle, Bungay, Cradley Heath, Diss, Doncaster (two), Earby, Girlington (two), Hethersett, Hickling, King's Lynn, Lingwood, Loddon, Long Stratton, Martham, Norwich (three), and Swallownest.
  Employment of Children Bill—Petition from Renfrew, for alteration.
  Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Bill—Petition from Forfar, for alteration.