Commons Sitting of 15 April 1914

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Whitwell and District Gas Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Chesterfield Corporation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Newport Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Rhymney Railway Bill (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Northern Junction Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
London County Council (Money) Bill,
"To regulate the expenditure on capital account and lending of money by the London County Council during the financial period from the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, to the thirtieth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen; and to enable the said Council to raise money by mortgage." Presented and read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

WINES IMPORTED.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 14th April; Sir Frederick Banbury]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 189.]
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911 (PART II. AMENDMENT) BILL.
Return ordered "containing a Report with regard to the National Insurance Act, 1911 (Part II. Amendment) Bill by Mr. Thomas G. Ackland, Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries and Honorary Fellow of the Faculty of Actuaries."—[Mr. Burns.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Nyasaland (Arrest of Mr. H. R. Cox).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has information regarding the arrest of Mr. H. R. Cox, in Nyasaland, on a false charge of murder; whether his accusers have been punished; what are the circumstances; and whether any compensation will be granted to Mr. Cox?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have no information beyond what appears in the local Press, but I am in communication with the Governor as to the facts of the matter.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    NEW REGULATIONS.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the new Regulations for the Army as recently issued alters the former Army Regulations that an order given to a soldier or officer must be a lawful one?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): No, Sir.
    Mr. HUNT: Could the Army be lawfully used to drive Ulster out of the Union of Great Britain after the Home Rule Bill has come into operation?

    HIGHLAND LIGHT INFANTRY (9TH BATTALION).
    Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)asked by whose instructions a circular was recently issued to the officers and men of the 9th battalion Highland Light Infantry, asking for the names of those who would be willing to be enrolled as special constables to defend the battalion headquarters and the Patterton magazine; what were the circumstances which made this step necessary; and whether, having regard to the conditions of their service, it was open to those concerned to have refused this duty?
    Mr. TENNANT: The circular was issued by the officer commanding the 9th battalion Highland Light Infantry. This was done under a misapprehension and had no reference to any special circumstances. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

  INDIA.

    CALCUTTA (ASSAULT UPON MISS BEASLEY).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary for India whether he has now received information regarding the assault upon Miss Beasley, in the Maidan, at Calcutta?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): I have asked for a report, and will let the hon. Member know the result.

    OFFICERS SHOT BY FANATIC.
    Sir GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether any further news has been received regarding the recent outrages at Tonk?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Secretary of State has learned with deep concern that Major Dodd has succumber to his injuries. The telegram is as follows:—
    "With reference to my previous telegram regarding the outrage at Tonk, I have to report with the deepest regret the death of Major Dodd at 11.45 on the night of the 14th. The immediate cause of death was heart failure.
    The death of such a capable, experienced, and gallant officer, and the loss it involves to the Frontier Service, must be deeply deplored."
    The Government of India also lay stress on the courage shown by Lieutenant Hickie and the officers and men of the constabulary in surrounding the murderer. The Secretary of State wishes to associate himself fully with the language used by the Government of India, and to express his profound sympathy with the relatives of the victims of the outrage in their distress.

  Elementary Education.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the latest published figures of schools in Bootle still show overcrowded classrooms; whether the new council school is
  160
  sufficient to supply all deficiencies; and whether he will approach the local education authority with the view of sufficient school places being provided immediately?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of EDUCATION (Mr. Pease): According to the latest returns in the possession of the Board (which are for last month) the average attendance exceeded the recognised accommodation in three departments by three, six, and eight units, respectively. I understand that if the new Balliol Council School fails to relieve pressure in other schools the local education authority propose to add 220 places to the Gray Street Council School. In the circumstances, I do not at present think it necessary to take further action.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that of the thirty infant school departments in Birkenhead twenty-one are refusing to admit children of school age, because those already on the roll largely exceed the recognised accommodation; and whether he will take immediate steps to insist upon the local education authority providing sufficient accommodation?
  Mr. PEASE: I am unable to verify the statement contained in the hon. Member's question while the schools are closed for the Easter holidays. I will make inquiries when the schools are reopened and communicate the result to the hon. Member.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that in the case of the nine infant school departments in schools at Birkenhead which are not overcrowded two charge weekly fees of 2d. and 4d. for infants attending; that three are inconveniently situated at a distance from the homes of the school population; that one has no playground at all; and that two charge fees in the higher classes; and whether, in view of these facts, he will urge the local education authority of Birkenhead to abolish school fees and to provide better school accommodation?
  Mr. PEASE: It is difficult to verify the statements contained in the hon. Member's question without knowing the names of the departments to which he refers. If he will be so good as to let me know the names of the departments, I will make inquiries and communicate the result to the hon. Member.
  Sir J. D. REES: Are the technical requirements of the Code for children enforced as a matter of course, without any regard for the circumstances of the unfortunate parents?
  Mr. PEASE: I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman means. The Code, of course, is enforced, and accommodation must be provided for children of school age irrespective of the parents, and under the Acts of Parliament relating to education.
  Sir J. D. REES: And irrespective of the rates made—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is the law!"]—so that if there seems a necessity the Code is—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put the question down.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    INCOME AND EXPENDITURE (WHITE PAPER).
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can expedite the publication of the annual White Paper showing the income and expenditure of Great Britain and Ireland respectively, so that hon. Members may be able to study it before the introduction of the Financial Resolution for the Government of Ireland Bill?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): It will not be possible to complete the usual Annual Returns before the end of June, but steps are being taken for the preparation and issue at the earliest possible date of a Memorandum on the same lines as that presented last year.

    URBAN AND RURAL LAND.
    Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)asked the Prime Minister if the proposals of the Government for dealing with urban and rural land questions when formulated will apply to Ireland, or if under the Government of Ireland Bill such matters will be within the jurisdiction of the Irish Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The matter referred to would, under the Government of Ireland Bill, be within the jurisdiction of the Irish Government.

    SUGGESTION STARE.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister what interval will elapse before the suggestion stage of the Government of Ireland Bill is taken in this House; how many days will be allotted to such stage;
    162
    in what form is it proposed that suggestions should be submitted for the consideration of the House; and whether such suggestions will be restricted to proposals for the omission, modification, or amendment of the existing provisions of the Bill; or whether they may extend to the substitution therefor of another measure more consonant with a scheme of devolution applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom?
    The PRIME MINISTER: A statement of the intentions of the Government on this subject will be made in due course, and I am not prepared to anticipate it.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the suggestions on the Home Rule Bill will be taken in the order in which they appear on the Notice Paper, or in the order of the Clauses of the Bill to which they relate?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I would not like to commit myself at this moment.
    Mr. HEWINS: May I ask whether before we reach the suggestion stage the right hon. Gentleman will state in detail what changes the proposals he himself has made involve changes in the several Clauses of the Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that.
    Mr. BATHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, allow sufficient time after the announcement of his intentions in this matter to admit of carefully considered suggestions to be drafted?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. I do not wish at this moment to lay down anything as to the form of procedure we shall have to adopt, but I will bear in mind the suggestion of the hon. Member.

  Torquay Post Office.
  Colonel BURNasked the Postmaster-General why the man who has been carrying out the duties of assistant superintendent at the Torquay Post Office since September, 1913, and occasionally even more responsible duties, cannot be permanently appointed to that position?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): The officer in question has failed to display the powers of control necessary for the efficient discharge of the duties of an assistant superintendent at Torquay.
  Colonel BURN: Has it taken six or seven months to discover that?
  Captain NORTON: We are often obliged to put men in charge who are not considered competent to be promoted afterwards, seeing that there are better men forthcoming.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE.

    DERBYSHIRE EXCHANGES.
    Mr. HANCOCKasked the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the telephone exchange recently opened at Ambersgate is inconveniently placed, that the railway station is much frequented, most convenient, and that more trains stop there than at any other station in Derbyshire, except Derby, he would give instructions for a call office to be opened there; can he say when the telephone unconditionally promised for Fritchley two years ago will be provided; and whether it is possible to meet the definitely and generally expressed wish of Crich people by erecting one there?
    Captain NORTON: I regret that I am unable at present to provide a call office at Ambergate railway station, as it has not yet been possible to come to terms with the Midland Railway Company in respect of such installations. I am not aware that any unconditional offer to provide a telephone service at Fritchley has been made. The establishment of a call office there was offered under guarantee last September, but the offer has not been accepted. The case of Crich is under inquiry, and I hope to be able to give a decision shortly.

  Mail Contracts.
  Mr. BARNESasked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the refusal of the Anchor Line Steamship Company to pay 5s. bonus to men handling His Majesty's mails on board ship, a payment which is common on other lines; and if, under the terms of the Fair-Wage Clause, it is within his province to compel payment?
  Captain NORTON: The Anchor Line Steamship Company is not under contract with the Post Office, but, even if it were, the Fair-Wages Resolution has never been considered applicable to contracts with steamship companies for the conveyance of mails.

  Portuguese Government (British Trade).
  Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is considering the treatment the traders of this country are receiving at the hands of the Portuguese Government, and that the most-favourednation treatment is being deliberately contravened in the case of duties levied on English goods; and if he will confer with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the duty at present levied on port wine, and how it may be raised with advantage?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Burns): There is at present no Treaty of Commerce between this country and Portugal securing most-favoured-nation treatment in Portugal for British produce and manufactures, but negotiations are at present in progress for the conclusion of such a treaty. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that these negotiations are making good progress, and in these circumstances there is at present no occasion to consider the suggestion made in the last part of the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. HEWINS: What is the obstacle in the way of concluding a treaty with Portugal?
  Mr. BURNS: I could not answer that at the moment without consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Death Certificates.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the recent speech of Sir Charles Cameron, M.D., formerly M.P. for the College Division of Glasgow, when presiding at the annual meeting of the Cremation Society, in which he protested against the scandalously lax requirements of the burial law, which afforded every facility for the concealment of crime and conduced to the compilation of worthless statistics, and alleged that death certificates given by medical practitioners were filled up in a most perfunctory manner, too often on hearsay and without personal knowledge, and that many thousands of deaths were each year registered which were not certified by any medical practitioner; whether, in the opinion of his advisers, such allegations are well-founded; and, if so, whether it is proposed to introduce legislation dealing with this matter?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have not seen a report of the speech referred to. Under a recent Regulation issued by the Registrar-General uncertified deaths are required to be reported to the coroner. With respect to the last part of the question, the Registrar-General is considering the question of what amendments are desirable in the law relating to the registration of births, deaths and marriages, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement as to legislation on the subject.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Am I to understand from that answer that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the fact that these death certificates are at the present time given in a far from precise manner by medical practitioners?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should not be prepared to make any sweeping condemnation of the manner in which medical practitioners perform the duties cast upon them, but I have no doubt that there are defects in a considerable number of cases.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he has yet obtained an undertaking from the Argentine Government that, in the event of no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease occurring in Great Britain for three months prior to the 29th June, no embargo shall be placed upon British live stock purchased for exportation to Argentina at the Royal Agricultural Society's show at Shrewsbury; and, if not, whether, in view of the feeling of British agriculturists on this matter and the impossibility of justifying a six months' embargo in such cases, he will, with the assistance of the Foreign Office, seek without delay to obtain such an undertaking?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): My right hon. Friend has nothing to add at present to the answer which he gave to a similar question addressed to him by the hon. Gentleman on the 9th March last.
  Mr. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that unless something is settled at once it will render impossible any trade between the Argentine and this country on the occasion of the Royal Show at Shrewsbury?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: My right hon. Friend is fully apprised of the importance of this matter, and is doing all he can to bring about a satisfactory arrangement.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if, in order to discourage the imposition by other countries of a six months' embargo upon British live stock after the most recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain, and to demonstrate British bona fides in this matter, he will forthwith arrange with the Department of Agriculture in Ireland that the policy as between Great Britain and Ireland of imposing such prolonged embargo shall be at once abandoned, and the period thereof, in view of the admitted fact that the incubation of the disease docs not exceed ten days, be reduced to two months, and that such revision of departmental policy shall be notified for the information of other countries?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The policy as between Great Britain and Ireland of imposing an embargo on live stock for six months from the date of the most recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease cannot be abandoned because it docs not exist. The period during which restrictions are maintained varies according to the circumstances, but if the hon. Gentleman will look back over the records of recent years ho will find nothing at all inconsistent with the contention that the six months' embargo imposed by certain foreign countries is unnecessarily long. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to admit that the incubation of foot-and-mouth disease never exceeds ten days.
  Mr. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Irish Department, at any rate, imposed a six months' embargo upon our stock after the last outbreak in this country?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I understood the question had, reference to the care of the English Department.

  Sale of Milk Regulations.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether under the Sale of Milk Regulations it is open to inspectors of local authorities to prosecute milk producers for the alleged adulteration of milk by the addition of water on the ground that such milk contains less than 8.5 per cent. of solids when in fact such milk contains admittedly over 5 per cent. of butter fat, and

  167
  there is no deficiency of solids other than sugar, demonstrating that such adulteration, in the opinion of chemical experts, could not possibly have occurred; and whether steps will be taken by the Board, in fairness to dairy farmers, to secure that no conviction shall take place in cases where the fat content exceeds 3 per cent. unless the public analyst, on whose evidence the prosecution depends, has ascertained also by analysis not merely the percentage of total solids, but, in addition thereto, the respective percentages of ash, milk, sugar, and proteins?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The Sale of Milk Regulations of 1901 provide that where a sample of milk is found to contain less than 8.5 per cent. of milk solids other than milk fat it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that the milk is adulterated by the addition of water. It is open to inspectors of local authorities to avail themselves of this presumption however rich the milk may be in fat, but in the opinion of the Board of Agriculture the fact that a sample of milk is rich in fat, and other circumstances, should be taken into consideration by the officers of a local authority when deciding the question of instituting proceedings, and the Board believe that this course is usually adopted. There is a division of opinion among experts as to whether a deficiency of non-fatty solids due to a low proportion of milk sugar is an indication that the milk is genuine though abnormal, and the Board do not think it desirable that the discretion of local authorities should be limited in the manner suggested in the last part of the question.

  Quadrant and Regent Street (Re-building).
  Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister if he will arrange the business of the House so that the question involved in the rebuilding of the Quadrant and Regent Street, in the style of the Piccadilly Hotel, may be adequately discussed and the sanction of this House obtained before any irretrievable blunder is committed?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No design for the rebuilding of the Quadrant in Regent Street has yet been settled, and before a design is sanctioned it will be exhibited in the Tea Room of the House.

  Blocking Motions.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention
  168
  has been drawn to the use of Blocking Motions adopted on Wednesday last by which the proceedings on the Adjournment Motions were reduced to a farce; and whether he is prepared to take any and, if so, what steps to prevent a repetition of such proceedings?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My opinion on this subject is well known and has been frequently and strongly expressed. I will put down again on the Paper the proposal which I have made in previous Sessions in the hope that it may receive something like general concurrence. I observe there is a Motion down in the name of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Robert Cecil) for to-night. I hope that will be passed unanimously by the House.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Does that mean that the Prime Minister is inviting the House, if I may so put it, to accept the fact of many previous Motions having been blocked by hon. Members, including an important one on Tariff Reform, and to forego the claim of those who were successful in the ballot for to-day?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give sufficient time for the discussion of the Motion that stands in my name or put down a Motion in his own name?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather put a Motion down in my own name.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman put it down and give Government time for it? The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the previous condition proved to be quite ineffective?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will put it down in my own name, and I will undertake to give a reasonable time for discussion.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Then may I ask what time the right hon. Gentleman will give for it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—it is a legitimate question—and when it will be given? Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the condition of the Notice Paper at the present moment, and is he aware there are Blocking Motions, mainly standing in the names of hon. Members opposite, blocking discussion on every conceivable topic?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid it is a case of reprisal on both sides.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Certainly!
  The PRIME MINISTER: And it is very desirable it should come to an end. I am sure the whole House will agree that the condition of things is scandalous, and no one could be more anxious than I am that that condition of things should be brought to an end. If the Noble Lord will accept my assurance that I will give time for its discussion—such time as may be needed—as soon as may be, I hope he will not move his Motion to-night.
  Mr. HARCOURT: Would it be possible for the Prime Minister to appeal to hon. Members who have Blocking Motions on the Paper for to-night to withdraw those Motions?
  Mr. MORRELL: May we take it that the conditions imposed by the right hon. Gentleman last year, that he would not proceed unless there is general assent, no longer holds good, and that the Government will make this a Government matter?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am satisfied that the general opinion of the House is in favour of the proposal I make. I exact no conditions of that kind. With regard to the Private Business on the Paper, it is not for me to make an appeal. The Government have no desire one way or the other, but I think it would be well if the Blocking Motions were withdrawn.

  Evicted Tenants, Ireland (Reinstatement).
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can say when the Estates Commissioners will reinstate Michael Driscoll, an evicted tenant on the Leahy estate, at Ballinclemsig, North Kerry; whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board, who have bought this estate, are willing to hand over a portion of the evicted holding from which Driscoll was evicted to the Estates Com-missioners so that Driscoll would be reinstated therein; and whether he will ask the Commissioners to take action in the matter?
  Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): The Estates Commissioners are in communication with the Congested Districts Board in reference to this case, but they are not yet in a position to say what action, if any, they may take in the matter.

  Land Valuation Department (Cost).
  Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the sum
  170
  of £3,022,011, being the actual and estimated total cost of the Valuation Department up to 31st March, 1915, whether such sum includes the costs of the Ordnance Survey Department in preparing special maps for the use of the Land Valuation Department; and, if not, what will be the estimated total cost to 3lst March, 1915, of these additional services?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The sum referred to includes the costs of the Ordnance Survey Department in preparing special maps for the use of the Land Valuation Department.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    DEATH OF INSURED CONTRIBUTOR.
    Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, if J. M. Southard, an insured contributor under the National Insurance Act, who recently died from advanced tuberculosis of both lungs, was treated by the panel doctor attending him for rheumatism and cold; whether, in making this diagnosis, the doctor submitted Southard to a thorough examination; what time elapsed between the date when Southard was last seen by the doctor and the man's death; if the coroner's jury in this case censured the doctor; how many insured patients were included on his list at the time; and whether his name still remains on the insurance panel?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): I cannot add anything at present to my previous reply to the hon. Member on the subject. I will, however, communicate with him as soon as information is available as to the results of the inquiry.

    MATERNITY BENEFIT.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether it is proposed, in the forthcoming Bill dealing with deposit contributors, to give the full maternity benefit of 30s. to the mothers who now get less than that amount owing to their husbands being forced to become deposit contributors because unable, as medically unfit, to obtain admittance to approved societies?
    Mr. BENN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for West St. Pancras on the 23rd March.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked how many deposit contributors, approximately, have been unable to obtain the full maternity benefit of 30s. owing to the funds to their credit being exhausted?
    Mr. BENN: The figure for which the hon. Member asks is approximately 4,300 up to the 31st March.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury how many deposit contributors have received maternity benefit under the National Insurance Act; and the average amount received by each such contributor?
    Mr. BENN: The figures for which the hon. Member asks are, up to the 31st March, 6,242 and 22s.

    PERTH INSUIRANCE COMMITTE.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether at the last meeting of the Perth Insurance Committee it was reported that the income for administration was much too limited to carry on effectively the work required of it?
    Mr. BENN: I have nothing to add to the reply given to a similar question by the hon. Member yesterday.
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTE: Have the Commissioners been in communication with the borough insurance committee in regard to the allegations made by the hon. Member for Salisbury?
    Mr. BENN: No, Sir. My reply was that no such statement as that referred to in the hon. Member's question had come to the notice of the Commissioners.
    Mr. WHYTE: Will the hon. Gentleman communicate with the borough Commissioners in order to find out the exact facts?
    Mr. BENN: Certainly, if the hon. Member wishes.

ACCIDENT TO SCOTCH EXPRESS.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I desire to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question with reference to the proposed Scottish inquiry into the recent, railway accident: Whether he can see his way to order that the proceedings may be public?
Mr. BURNS: The inquiry will be held in public unless, in the opinion of the inspecting officer, there is some strong reason to the contrary. I have seen Major Pringle, who will hold the inquiry, and he proposes to hold the inquiry in public
172
unless there appears to be some strong reason to the contrary.
Mr. THOMAS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what possible reason there could be to prevent a public inquiry?
Mr. BURNS: It sometimes happens that men who may have to face a charge of manslaughter are reticent in giving evidence that they would be inclined to-give freely on material and physical facts that arise from a railway accident it a preliminary inquiry is made. The hon. Member has had experience in railway matters himself, and he will probably see the force of that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord EDMUND TALBOT: With reference to the Supply fixed for Thursday, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, in the unfortunate absence of the President of the Board of Agriculture, he proposes to-make any partial change in the Supply down; and also whether he is in a position to make any statement with reference to-the Budget and the business for next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: Owing to the regrettable absence of my right hon. Friend, through indisposition, we shall not take the woods and Forests Vote tomorrow, but we shall take the Irish Local Government Vote.
The Budget will not be introduced next week but the week after. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am sorry to say, is not in very strong voice.
Next Monday and Tuesday, we propose to take the Welsh Church Bill.
Perhaps the hon. Member will put his other question to-morrow.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether on Wednesday he can take his Motion with regard to Blocking Motions?
The PRIME MINISTER: If we can get the Second Reading of the Welsh Church Bill on Tuesday, I will consider that suggestion.
Mr. HUNT: I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Motion standing in my name for to-night is blocked?
Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member for East Nottingham presents his Bill, I think that would happen.
Colonel BURN: May I ask whether the Motion standing in my name to appoint a Committee to inquire into the existing conditions governing the fishing industry in Start Bay can be moved to-night, or is it blocked by the Motion of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge)? It is a matter of very great interest to those I represent, and after all it is but an appeal for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the matter.
Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member for East Edinburgh proceeds with his intention to give notice of his Bill, that would block the hon. Member's Motion.
Mr. HOGGE: The object I had in view has been served by the Prime Minister's announcement, and I do not propose to present my Bill.
Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Would it be possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to make an appeal to the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) to adopt the same course?
Mr. MORRELL: I do not intend to move the Bill standing in my name. May I suggest, therefore, that the hon. Member for East Nottingham would be serving the convenience of the whole House by withdrawing his Motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION.

  FOOD SUPPLY IN TIME OF WAR.
  To call attention upon Wednesday, 13th May, to the problem of our food supply in time of war, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Bird.]
  To call attention upon Wednesday, 13th May, to the increasing gravity of the problem of our food supply in time of war, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Shirley Benn.]

  "GROWING AUTOCRACY OF THE CABINET."
  To call attention upon Wednesday, 13th May, to the growing autocracy of the Cabinet, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Wedgwood.]
BILLS PRESENTED.
  NATIONAL, INSURANCE ACT, 1911 (PART II. AMENDMENT) BILL.
  "To amend Part II. of the National Insurance Act, 1911." Presented by Mr. BURNS; supported by Mr. Robertson; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 186.]
  MOTOR CAR ACT (1903) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  "To amend the Motor Car Act, 1903." Presented by Mr. ARTHUR STANLEY; supported by Mr. Joynson-Hicks and Mr. Cathcart Wason; to be read a second time upon Friday, 24th April, and to be printed. [Bill 187.]
  AGRICULTUR AND INDUSTRIES (FOREIGN COMPETITION) RELIEF BILL.
  "To relieve Agriculture and Industries subject to Foreign Competition from all public burdens of which an equivalent is not applied to imported competitive Foreign produce" Presented by Sir J. D. REES; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 188.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  EAST AFRICAN PROTECTORATES (LOANS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  EAST AFRICAN PROTECTORATES (LOANS) BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Limitation of Act.)
    No loan shall be made under this Act after a period of five years from the passing of this Act,—(Mr. Wedgwood.)
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.

    SCHEDULE.—(Maximum Amount of Advances.)
    £

    East Africa Protectorate

    …

    1,855,000

    Nyasaland

    …

    816,000

    Uganda

    …

    329,000

    Mr. SANDYS: I beg to move, before the words "East Africa," to insert the word "British."
    I have put this Amendment down in order to obtain a statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to what is the correct method of describing this part of the British Empire. There seems to be a doubt, because it is referred to in different terms in different parts of the same Bill. In all the other references to this part of the Empire these Protectorates are described as British East Africa, and it seems desirable that the same terminology should be followed throughout to avoid any confusion and in order to make the Bill more satisfactory and accurate.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I do not think it is necessary to make this arrangement. It is sometimes referred to as the East Africa Protectorate and sometimes as the British East Africa Protectorate. I am not sure which should be regarded as the highest term of art, but, at any rate, we have taken the precaution of covering both those terms, because the Title covers one and the Schedule the other. [HON. MEM-BERS: "Speak up!" and "We cannot hear you"] I do not think it is necessary to make any alteration in the Schedule as it stands.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am not satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. What is the actual position? The title of the Bill says that we are to authorise certain loans to the Protectorates of British East Africa, Nyasaland and Uganda, and then when Ave come to the Schedule it is East Africa Protectorate. East Africa is a very large tract of country, and, as far as I know, we only have a protectorate over a certain portion of it, and unless you put in the word "British" it might mean the whole of East Africa. If Germany or France were to establish a protectorate over any portion of East Africa, the question might arise as to which of the two Protectorates this loan referred. This is a very small Amendment, and it would assimilate the Schedule to the

    185
    description which has already appeared in the Bill. I can only think of one reason why the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the Amendment, and that is, that he does not want a Report stage. That is an absurd reason. The Bill has been drawn up in a slip-shod way, and has not been presented in a careful form to the House, and I see no reason why we should not insert the word "British" merely in order to avoid a Report stage. I suggest, as a lesson to the Government that they must not refuse Amendments merely in order to save a Report stage, that my hon. and gallant Friend presses this Amendment to a Division.
    Sir J. D. REES: I have supported the Bill right through on every occasion, and I hope that I may be allowed to press upon the right hon. Gentleman that this is a very reasonable Amendment to make. The fact that East Africa is part German is a reason for adhering strictly to correct terminology. I would address to the right hon. Gentleman an argument which he applied to myself when I referred to the Uganda Railway as being situated in Uganda, although I knew perfectly well that it ran through the whole of British East Africa. The right hon. Gentleman then said that these mistakes are made frequently, even by people who ought to know better. That is a reason why, in dealing with this Schedule, the same terminology should be adopted as is adopted earlier in the Bill. There is every reason for discouraging loose alternative nomenclature in a case like this, and I therefore venture to add my voice to the appeals made to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. BOOTH: I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite will move as consequential Amendments to introduce the word "British" before Nyasaland and Uganda. I shall raise the point in a very definite way on the Third Reading, which I think will be more convenient. I intend to know whether these districts are in the British Empire or not, and before the Bill eaves this House I shall have another attempt. I have never yet had an answer to my question. It is quite true that the Motion to introduce the word "British" here does raise that question, but it does not do so as definitely as I hope to be able to do on the Third Reading. I rose to inquire with regard to the consequential Amendments. I would prefer that the word should apply to all three, on the ground that if they are not British they
    186
    should not have our guarantee. It is not at all clear why the word "British" is objected to. I suspect that it is because they dare not face answering the very pertinent inquiry I have made as to whether these districts are within the British Empire or not. Therefore, if this goes to a Division, I shall vote for the Amendment in order to test that point.
    Mr. HARCOURT: The only reason I have adhered to the words "East Africa Protectorate" is that they are in the Order in Council of 1902, which, under the authority of this House, constitutes those territories a Protectorate of the British Empire. I have followed the nomenclature of that Order in Council.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I do not know why hon. Members opposite insist on trying to move these Amendments. They know perfectly well, as we on this side know, that the whole of this Committee stage is a pure farce. They know perfectly well that not a single Amendment can be accepted, and as long as Bills like this are discussed on the floor of this House instead of in Committee upstairs, the big battations of terrace voters will always vote down the best arguments. This Bill has got to be rushed through, and there is to be no Report stage, and in order to have no Report stage you must have no alteration even of a comma in Committee. It is therefore perfectly obvious that this simple Amendment cannot be accepted by the Government, and if it goes to a Division the hon. Member opposite, as the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) knows perfectly well, will be beaten as usual. The hon. Member for East Nottingham would not have ventured to have supported this Amendment if he had thought that it was going to be carried. He knows perfectly well that he can make his protest of independence, and at the same time not risk losing his Bill. I hope for that reason that the Committee will not be put to the trouble of a Division.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I should like to say a word in support of what has fallen from the hon. Member opposite. I have always known that this Bill, and, indeed, every Bill, ought to go to a Committee upstairs to be discussed if there is to be any real freedom to hon. Members of this House. This is a particularly scandalous instance—although I have not taken any part in the Debate, having no strong view one way or the other—of voting down all Amendments without regard to their

    187
    merits in order to avoid a Report stage. The result of that is that, under the guise of keeping a greater control in this House as a whole, you get rid not only of the Report stage but of the Committee stage as well. In point of fact you deprive this House and all its Members of any control over the details of the Bill once a Minister has resolved that he does not desire to have a Report stage. I think this is a scandalous instance of the abuse of the forms of this House. We hear a good deal of the wickedness of private Members when they make use of the forms of the
    House to carry out their will, but the Government are allowed to do what they like and to make scandalous and outrageous use of the forms of the House in order to carry out their will. I do not think the sneer with regard to my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) is deserved. Whatever his faults are, he does not lack courage. He is not like the Labour party.
    Question put, "That the word 'British' be there inserted."
    The Committee divided; Ayes, 55; Noes, 113.

    Division No. 77.]

    AYES.

    [3.30 p.m.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Grant, James Augustus

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Barnes, George N.

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Barnston, Harry

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Bird, Alfred

    Hunt, Rowland

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Campion, W. R.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

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

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Younger, Sir George

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Sandys and Captain Weigall.

    Goldstone, Frank

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Duffy, William J.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Adamson, William

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Alden, Percy

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    King, Joseph

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Leach, Charles

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Field, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

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

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Black, Arthur W.

    Gill, A. H.

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Boland, John Plus

    Glanville, Harold James

    McGhee, Richard

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Maclean, Donald

    Brace, William

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

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

    Brady, Patrick (Joseph)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hackett, John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hancock, John George

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Molloy, Michael

    Clough, William

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Havelock-Allan. Sir Henry

    Mooney, John J.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Morrell, Philip

    Crooks, William

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Crumley, Patrick

    Higham, John Sharp

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Cullinan, John

    Hinds, John

    Needham, Christopher T.

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

    Hodge, John

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Nolan, Joseph

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Delany, William

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Johnson, W.

    O'Dowd, John

    Donelan, Captain A.

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

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

    Doris, William

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Malley, William

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

    Robertson, John M. (Tynaside)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    O'Shee, James John

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

    Rowlands, James

    Webb, H.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Pratt, J. W.

    Shortt, Edward

    Williams, Jonn (Glamorgan)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Radford, G. H.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Reddy, Michael

    Thomas, J. H.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot take the next Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood). It seems to me to be trifling with the Committee.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I desire to move the Amendment to reduce the amount for British East Africa by £5,000, in order to increase the amount allotted to Uganda by the same sum. That is my reason for moving the Amendment. I also want to protest against the way in which the Bill
    has been rushed through the House. If I am in order, I would like to indicate what has taken place over this Bill—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must wait for the Third Reading.
    Question put, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 29.

    Division No. 78.]

    AYES.

    [3.39 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Farrell James Patrick

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Alden Percy

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Field, William

    McGhee, Richard

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Maclean, Donald

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gill, A. H.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Barnston, Harry

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

    Glanville, Harold James

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Grant, James Augustus

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

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

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

    Molloy, Michael

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hackett, John

    Mooney, John J.

    Boland, John Plus

    Hancock, J. G.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Morrell, Philip

    Bull, Sir William James

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Nolan, Joseph

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Clough, William

    Hinds, John

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hodge, John

    O'Dowd, John

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    O'Malley, William

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Neill. Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Crooks, William

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Johnson, W.

    O'Shee, James John

    Cullinan, John

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

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

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Delany, William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pratt, J. W.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    King, Joseph

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Doris, William

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Radford, G. H.

    Duffy, William J.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Melton)

    Rawlinson, Sir John Frederick Peel

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Reddy, Michael

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Leach, Charles

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Sykes, Alan John (Chas., Knutsford)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Robinton, Sidney

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Tennant, Harold John

    Whyte, Alexander F (Perth)

    Rowlands, James

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Sandys, G. J.

    Waring, Walter

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Scott, A. MacCallum, (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Shortt, Edward

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Younger, Sir George

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Webb, H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Welgall, Captain A. G.

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

    NOES.

    Adamson, William

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

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Barnes, George N.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Brace, William

    Hogge, James Myles

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Bridgeman, William Olive

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Bytes, Sir William Pollard

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Campion, W. R.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wedgwood and Mr. J. Ward.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Bill reported without Amendment; to be, read the third time to-morrow (Thursday).

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  When this Bill was first framed it was intended to give it the title of the Abatement of Imprisonment Bill. As, however, we proceeded with the various drafts of the measure it became evident that while this title would accurately describe the main purpose of the Bill, yet, inasmuch as it appeared necessary to make certain Amendments of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, this title would not have been strictly appropriate. The opportunity has also been taken of adding certain slight but very convenient amendments of the criminal law. As the House knows, this is not the first attempt which has been made to abate the evil of imprisonment as it affects juvenile or first offenders. In 1879, when Lord Cross was Home Secretary, the Summary Jurisdiction Act was passed, under which it was provided that in the case of a first offence the statutory amount of imprisonment, or the statutory fine, could be reduced by the Court, and it was also provided that an offender guilty only of a trifling offence could be discharged upon giving
  192
  security for good behaviour. In 1887 the First Offenders Act was passed, which definitely aimed at the reformation of the first offender otherwise than by sending him to prison, and gave him the opportunity, if the Court thought fit, of finding surety for good behaviour, even when the offence was one which could be punished with imprisonment up to two years. In 1901 the Youthful Offenders Act was passed, which provided an alternative place of detention to prison. But much more important than this Act was the Act of 1907, known as the Probation of Offenders Act, under which anybody found guilty of an offence may, if the Court thinks fit, be discharged on entering into a recognisance, one of the conditions of the recognisance being that he is placed under the supervision of a probation officer. Considerable, and I am happy to say, increasing use is made of this Act at the present time, but we believe that very much more extended use would be made of it if in every case the Court could be reminded by the presence of an efficient probation officer that they have at their hands machinery for making use of the Act.
  In the following year, 1908, two very important Acts were passed. The first was the Children Act, which provided that no child under fourteen shall, in any circumstances, be sent to prison. Offenders between the ages of fourteen and sixteen can only be sent to prison under circumstances which fortunately are very rare, and I think must be very rare—that is to say, that a young offender is

  193
  so unruly that he cannot be dealt with in any other way. It is provided also under this Act that provision should be made for erecting proper places of detention for children other than prison. The other Act in 1908 was the Prevention of Crime Act. So far as that Act is concerned the Bill which I am now introducing only deals with one part. The present Bill does not touch that part of the Prevention of Crime Act which relates to the indeterminate sentence. It touches only the part of the Act which provides for the establishment of Borstal institutions. It was felt in 1908, and experience of the working of the Act has justified the opinion then formed, that the youthful offender between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one whose character and associations and conduct show him to be on the brink of a criminal career ought to be dealt with otherwise than by the ordinary punishment of imprisonment. Such a person, it was thought, should be sent to an institution where he would be detained for such a length of time, and where his physical, mental, moral and industrial training would be such as would reasonably be expected to give him a chance of rehabilitation.
  Such have been the Acts which this House has sanctioned, quite regardless of the party character of the Government or of the majority in the House of the day, with the intention of abating the evil of imprisonment. In all these Acts alternatives to imprisonment have been provided under the law. There is no doubt—I do not think the proposition will be questioned by anyone—that while short terms of imprisonment may be punitive, and may also be deterrent, they can hardly, under any circumstances, be reformative. Moreover, the deterrent effect of imprisonment is greatly impaired after the first experience of the interior of a prison. Beyond everything we ought to avoid, if we can, the familiarising of the young offender with prison walls. But if State control becomes unavoidable, we ought to immure him only under such conditions as will develop the healthy and industrious habits of life, and with only such a minimum of punishment as necessarily belongs to even a partial deprivation of liberty. In the present Bill we recognise all the substitutes for imprisonment now provided under the law. We deal with fine, with probation, with supervision, and with the Borstal institution, but we propose to amend, to amplify, and in certain respects to simplify the existing provisions of the
  194
  law in order to build up a duly graded system of punitive and reformative punishment which shall give some hope of the restitution of the offender to active, civil life.
  4.0 P.M.
  I will take the provisions of the Bill in the order in which they appear in the Bill. The first subject dealt with is that of fines. Under Section 7 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879, to which I have already referred, power is given to the magistrate to allow time to pay fines, but, unfortunately, we have found by experience that advantage is not taken of this power to the extent which might have happened. The figures on the subject of fines are very remarkable. In the year ending 31st March, 1912, no less than close upon eighty thousand persons were committed to prison on non-payment of fines—that is to say, more than half of the total of the commitments to local prisons were on such non-payment of fines. Of the eighty thousand who were committed, close upon thirteen thousand paid their fines in whole or in part after commitment, and there is very little reason to doubt that if time for payment of the fines had been allowed in every case a very much larger number than thirteen thousand would have paid their fines rather than go to prison. The evidence on that point reported to me by the magistrates and others who have experience of the subject is undoubted.
  Sir F. BANBURYindicated dissent.
  Mr. McKENNA: I notice that the hon. Member for the City of London shakes his head and is somewhat incredulous upon this point, but I can assure him that the evidence from the different Courts—those Courts where time is habitually allowed, and those Courts where the routine goes through as a matter of course and commitment follows upon non-payment of the fine—from the evidence from the two classes of Courts, we find that a very much larger proportion of fines are paid when time is allowed than when it is not allowed.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I understood the right hon. Gentleman said that eighty thousand were committed on non-payment of fines, and that only thirteen thousand paid their fines after they had been committed. I then shook my head to indicate that commitment induced them to pay the fines which they would not have paid if they had not been committed.
  Mr. McKENNA: I think the hon. Baronet is not right in that view. I think that if time had been allowed they would have paid, and there is very strong evidence upon that point. We propose, therefore, in Clause 1 of the Bill that in every class, with certain defined exceptions, when the fine is under 40s., not less than seven days' time for payment shall be allowed, and in the case of a young offender the Court is empowered to place him under the supervision of a person appointed for the purpose, whose duty it will be to keep an eye upon him and to report to the Court whether he has done his best to pay the fine. Clause 2 enables the Court to extend the time for the payment of the fine. The intention of those two Clauses read together is to carry out the following system: A young offender, being fined, is allowed a week within which to pay. During that week he will be under the supervision of a properly appointed person who will call upon him, talk to him, see how he is spending his time and what he is doing, and notice if the offender has the means to pay the fine, but if the report of the supervision officer is not satisfactory, he will undoubtedly and inevitably go to prison. If at the end of a week the supervision officer reports that the offender, while unable to pay the fine, has still done his best, has tried to find work, and has endeavoured to get the necessary money, then the Court, under Clause 2, will extend the time for the payment of the fine, and from time to time, by extension of the time, full opportunity will be given to the offender to redeem his character and to pay his fine, so long as he shows a desire and intention to obey the law. Too often an offender in the first instance becomes the victim of circumstances later, because he is not able immediately, or within any short time, to find the money to pay the fine, but in such circumstances, though he may not be able to find the money, he will, under the report of the supervision officer, be successful in avoiding imprisonment. The next provision of the Bill to which I wish to refer is a very important one. It is that the fine shall include all costs. At the present time a person may be fined 10s. and costs. It often happens that the costs will amount to two or three times as much as the fine itself.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: More than that.
  Mr. McKENNA: In certain circumstances the costs may be much more, but I
  196
  on the average it can be said that the costs imposed with the fine exceed the amount of the fine itself. I gave some figures yesterday in the House in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) as the result of a Return for 1903, which is the latest we have, and from which it appeared that the total amount of costs largely exceeded the total amount of the fines imposed. We hope by these means that the system of fining shall no longer in any Court become a mere automatic procedure under which, upon nonpayment of a fine—that is to say, when the offender has not got the money in his pocket—he goes to prison. Each case will be considered, and if time is not allowed by the magistrate, a special report of the circumstances of the case in which time is not allowed will have to be given.
  The next subject in the Bill is that of probation. We propose that powers shall be taken under this Bill to recognise societies for the supply of probation officers. Hon. Members will perceive in Subsection (4) of Clause 7, in a paragraph which is given in italics, we take power to recognise societies out of moneys provided by Parliament by payments towards their expenses. Very fine work is now being done by probation officers, but the amount of their remuneration is inadequate, and almost inevitably the supply of efficient officers is insufficient. We hope that by the recognition of societies of this kind we shall be in a position to provide every Court with a competent officer. The duties of the society will not be confined merely to the supply of probation officers. We shall look to such societies also for supervision officers, and, what is not less important, for officers who will undertake after-care, as we call it, for offenders let out on licence, either from Borstal institutions or from reformatories and industrial schools. We hope by means of societies of this kind to establish a philanthropic network over the whole country, and that in due course every young offender on being discharged from a reformatory or industrial school or a Borstal institution will have somebody whose business it will be to look after him, and, so far as possible, to see to the redemption of his character.
  I have touched quite briefly upon the provisions which relate to the alternatives to imprisonment—fine, supervision, and probation. Supposing all these methods fail, what is to be done with a determined offender who repeatedly breaks the law,

  197
  or repeatedly breaks the recognisance under which he is discharged? If his character is not otherwise bad, or if his associations are not such as to lead to the suspicion that he is really engaged upon a criminal career, in such a case imprisonment is unavoidable. If, however, coupled with the convictions, we find that the offender is an associate of criminals, and that the general record of his life is bad, then we think it is a case which can only be dealt with by treatment and detention in a Borstal institution. I am dealing now with cases of offenders between sixteen and twenty-one years of age. The law relating to Borstal institutions, as I have already said, is contained in the Act of 1908. Under that Act the minimum sentence is one year, and the maximum is three years. The period of supervision at the expiration of a sentence is six months. An offender can only be committed to an institution on indictment by Quarter Sessions or a higher Court. We propose under this Bill several amplifications or variations of the Act of 1908. In the first place, we propose that an offender who is proved to be of bad character, or of associating with criminals, and who has been twice convicted of a summary offence, may be sent to a Borstal institution.
  We propose, also, while retaining the maximum period of three years, that the minimum period shall be increased to two years, and also that the period of observation at the expiration of the sentence shall be extended from six months to a year. It would seem at first sight somewhat severe to send a culprit to a Borstal institution for a minimum period of two years when he has only been guilty a second time of an offence, before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, but he could not be so sent unless it was proved against him in addition before the Court that he was a bad character. Let the House consider what is to be done in the case of a juvenile criminal of that kind. It is agreed that short terms of imprisonment will never reform, and to send him again and again for two, three, or six months to prison is only going to spoil his life without giving him the smallest chance of reform. If we send him to Borstal are we sending him to prison at all? My answer to that is certainly not. I may remind the House at once that the Borstal institution is quite a modern one. We readily admit that. It is by no means yet fully developed. But our object is to provide in the Borstal institution a place
  198
  where the offender will not be imprisoned, but will only be deprived of his liberty to that degree which is necessary to ensure discipline; where he will live under strict discipline affecting alike his body, his mind, and his character, and where he will be taught an industry. It is not a prison. It is, or it should be, far more like a school under severe discipline with a strict industrial training. And if hon. Members object to the Borstal institution because they regard it as a prison, then I will agree that their objection is a good one, if it be justified, to the present management of the Borstal institution, but it is not an objection to the principle of this Bill.
  For we do not intend the Borstal institutions to be anything like a prison, and as we develop in the management of the Borstal institutions, I can assure the House that they will be more and more removed from anything in the nature of a prison, and become more and more purely reformative and training institutions. But taking a young offender between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one, you cannot effect any real change in his character or habits in a short period of time. I cannot be sure that my figures are strictly accurate as I have not been able to get a definite Return, but I am told that the number of sentences now of one year in the Borstal institution is about one-fifth of the whole. Most Courts recognise that a sentence of a year is insufficient in order to develop new habits. To give an opportunity for the development of new habits, the experience of the management of these institutions tells us that beyond question, in the great majority of cases, a year is insufficient time. I do not say that it is insufiicient in every case, but under the Act we have power to release or licence at any time. A sentence in a Borstal institution of two or three years does not necessarily mean that the offender will remain under detention for that time. He will be let out on licence as soon as ever the evidence of his conduct is such as to justify his release. Far and away the majority of the young offenders who have passed through Borstal have, so far as we can ascertain with our present experience, begun to do well in life. There is a certain number of failures, but we have been able to say that the number of failures is very small.
  Sir W. BYLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the percentage?
  Mr. McKENNA: I could not give them with any certainty, because there is a number that we are not clear about, and we cannot say what has become of them. There is a considerable number who have gone to sea, and we could not give with any certainty a percentage as to the number who have come through satisfactorily.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of these inmates are reluctant to leave the institution?
  Mr. McKENNA: Some of them show no great desire to leave, but, as a rule, like boys at school or like anybody else who is compelled to stay in a particular place, they very often wish to go.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Like Members of Parliament.
  Mr. McKENNA: Like Members of Parliament, including Cabinet Ministers. My hon. Friend must remember that we are dealing with a class of offender who has committed a breach of the law more than once, and who has associated with criminals, and we are using the time during which he is detained to teach him a trade so that he can go out into the world afterwards and earn an honest living. We are giving him, in the Borstal institution, an opportunity which he has never had all his life. If my hon. Friend thinks that the mere desire of such a youth to be at liberty is sufficient justification for placing him at liberty, knowing as we do that he is still of tender age and is quite incapable, in ordinary competition in the world, of doing even the most unskilled labour, then my hon. Friend is not treating an offender of that kind in the kindest way. I hope that I have made sufficiently clear what is the scheme in the Bill. To sum it up: so far as possible we avoid imprisonment of youthful offenders. The Clause relating to fines deals with offenders of all kinds, but in the rest of the Bill we are dealing only with the youthful offender. Our great object is to keep him out of prison. I, indeed, look forward to the day when no person under twenty-one will be found in any ordinary prison, but we have to go step by step, and I believe that in this Bill we are making a long step forward in this direction. We think that where reformation is possible, we should spare neither expense nor trouble in providing institutions where
  200
  a new character may be developed, and it is hoped that the combination of prevention and supervision in the Borstal institution will provide a system which will sufficiently deal with all classes of juvenile offenders.
  The Bill contains other proposals, but of a minor character. We propose to abolish all short terms of imprisonment for less than five days In substitution for these short terms, we give the Court a new power of detaining the prisoner within the precincts of the Court until ten o'clock at night, and power also, if the local authorities provide proper police cells or bridewells, to order a prisoner to be detained in these cells or bridewells for a period of not more than four days under proper regulations. We deal also with the subject of hard labour. We propose that hereafter no sentence of imprisonment in default of paying a fine shall be given: under conditions of hard labour. On the other hand, we propose that hard labour, no matter what the statutory offence may be, may or may not, at the discretion of the Court, be given in every other case. There is a great deal of misunderstanding as to what hard labour means. The only distinction between hard labour and imprisonment in the third division is that during the first twenty-eight days of imprisonment the offender committed with hard labour is kept in his cell—that is to say, he does not do his work in association with the other prisoners. But so far as the quality or kind of work or the food or other conditions in which he lives are concerned, whether it be for the second or third division or in the case of hard labour prisoners, it is practically a mere question of the medical report on the prisoner. It would depend on the medical report as between the second and third divisions.
  I think that the only distinction is, if my memory serves me, that in the second division there is given the option of cocoa which is not given in the third division. But the amount and quality of the food depends upon the doctor's report. It is the same as regards the kind of labour done. The distinction between the second and third division is a distinction of character. In the second division we hoped that the Courts would place all prisoners whose character otherwise was good, in order that they might not associate with bad characters. Equally, we hoped that the Courts would place in the third division prisoners whose characters were bad.

  201
  so that they might not contaminate prisoners in the second division. Under this Bill we hope to make sure that that division of the classes may be properly effected, and we take power, where the Courts have not themselves ordered the second division, and the prisoner has gone automatically into the third division, that on the recommendation of the visiting justices the prisoner may be transferred from the third to the second division or equally may be transferred from the second to the third division. We hope by that means to avoid the possibility of persons who perhaps are convicted of a first offence, or whose character otherwise is good, being thrown necessarily into the company of hardened offenders.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not quite follow it, but does the Bill enable a prisoner to be transferred direct from the third division to the second division?
  Mr. McKENNA: On the recommendation of the visiting justices, before whom the case of the prisoner would be put, we take power to transfer him from the third to second division. I may tell the Noble Lord that in order to effect this purpose we have had to do something of the same kind administratively. We have not got the statutory authority to transfer from the third class to second class, but we have had to introduce administratively what is known as the "starred class," to which a prisoner in the third division can be transferred, by virtue of his character, to associate with prisoners of the second division. There are various other provisions of the Bill, dealing with the bail and remand and the salaries of clerks to justices, and with the holders of licences and persons under police supervision, all of which I may describe as useful amendments of the law, but of a purely technical character, not involving any question of principle, and about which I do not propose to detain the House now. But they are all matters of great importance to be discussed in Committee, and I hope that when this House is so good as to give a Second Reading to this Bill I may have the advantage of many hon. Members upstairs in framing this measure—many hon. Members who know the subject well, and who could give us the benefit of their experience and of their competent advice as to the form, extension, or amendment of many of the Clauses of this Bill. I hope, after this explanation of the main principles of the measure, that the House will give it a
  202
  Second Reading. I can assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that, so far as I am aware, the Bill contains nothing of what may be described as ordinary party controversy. On the contrary, many of these Clauses are mere amendments of Bills which have been passed to the credit of Governments representative of the side opposite as well as of Governments representative of this side, and it is in the hope that the House in all quarters will combine in giving us as effective an instrument as possible, in dealing with juvenile offenders, that I ask for the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Mr. RAWLINSON(who was indistinctly heard): I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is nothing of a party character in this Bill, which I think is a desirable one, and certainly should have a Second Reading. I desire to offer some criticisms on matters of detail contained in the Bill, and possibly some points of congratulation. I am not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman into the naming of the Bill; it does not very much matter what the Bill is to be called; but certainly upstairs it will be called an Omnibus Bill, a Bill containing powers on very varying subjects and in very varying degrees. Personally, I wish there were more Bills of this kind containing small reforms, which are neglected while other questions of no use to anybody are dealt with in this House. The first Clause of the Bill is one which relates to fines, and I myself support it. The Clause provides that a man who is fined for a small offence shall have time allowed him in which to pay, instead of his being sent to prison on default. The Clause is restricted to fines within 40s., but I do not see why that restriction should be made, and it is also restricted to Courts of Summary Jurisdiction. I do not understand the meaning of those restrictions. This is a matter which I have brought before the House, not once, but, I suppose, twenty or thirty times during the years that I have been a Member. This House yearly creates fresh offences for which people may be fined.
  There have been more fresh offences created in the last eight years than in any other eight years in even early days. Under the Children Bill new offences have been created and made the subject of fines. Every municipality, county councils, and so forth, nowadays must have their by-laws, which, again, create numberless offences for which fines are imposed, or, in default, imprisonment. A

  203
  man may be fined for not carrying his bicycle, or for not having a light on his cart, and there are a great many of that kind of cases. It was Lord Brampton who said that these by-laws were a test of the efficiency of a police force, when it was seen how many people were brought before the Sessions for small offences under by-laws. He said that if you found numerous charges before the Petty Sessions of persons riding without a bicycle light, or riding on the footpath, or offences of that character, it was perfectly certain that the police were not doing their duty in looking out for criminals, but were simply looking out for offenders under the by-laws. A policeman often brings an unfortunate offender from the other end of the county, perhaps seven miles or more, on the charge of his not having carried a light on his bicycle, and the man will be fined 1s. or 2s. and costs, while the policeman gets his day to give evidence in the matter. If the man cannot pay, he goes to gaol. I do not suppose that there is anything more distressing than to go over a prison and see the tremendous number of people in gaol simply because they have not been able to pay fines. I hope that this House in future will be less inclined to create those fresh offences.
  So far as it goes, I think this Bill is a distinct gain, and, at all events in the smaller cases, the offenders will have time to pay the fine. I quite agree with the light hon. Gentleman that the power which already exists has not been sufficiently exercised throughout the land. The power is vested in the magistrates, but for some extraordinary reason it has not been exercised. This Bill will alter that, and will apply the power in a different way. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt in detail with the question of juvenile offenders, but he omitted to mention what appears to me to be a very important Clause of the Bill, namely. Clause 4. I do not know that I quite rightly understand it. The Clause reads:—
  "Where a person has been summarily convicted of any offence and sentenced to pay a sum of money, the Court by which he is convicted may order him to be searched."
  If a man has any money upon him it is found before anything happens. I think that is a very useful provision, and I should very much like to know how it is that this great improvement has come to
  204
  be put forward. I think I may make the observation, in the absence of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, who is so anxious for the liberty of the subject, that I do not very much mind whether a man is searched or not. I was wondering whether the Clause was really aimed at certain people at one time known as "passive resisters." Sub-section (2) of the Clause says:—
  "Where a warrant of distress is issued by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, it shall authorise the person charged with the execution thereof to take any money as well as any goods of the person against whom the distress is levied, and any money so taken shall be treated as if it were the proceeds of sale of goods taken under the warrant, and the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts shall apply accordingly."
  I quite agree that if a man will not pay a fine of 4s., though he is in a position to do so, the Court certainly ought to have the power to get the money somehow or other, and the man should not be allowed to make a martyr of himself by going to gaol. There might be means to seize his banking account, which is found to be effective in the Law Courts. A man's banking account can be garnisheed in order to secure payment, and if it were seen that an offender refused to pay a fine, though he had the means and insisted upon going to gaol, people would have very little sympathy with him when they-knew that he had a banking account, and those people who had not banking accounts would have no sympathy with him at all, and would say that he ought to pay and that he ought not to be able to put himself in the position of a martyr by going to gaol. I would very much like to have known the history of this most excellent Clause, which I am strongly in favour of, and I should like to hear from the Home Secretary how it has come to be inserted. Then conies Clause 5, which deals with the allocation of fines and fees, and the question of costs. I honestly do not understand the Clause. Does it mean that only when a man is poor the fine is to be inclusive of the costs, and that if the man be rich he will have to pay the costs, or does it mean that whether the man be rich or poor the costs are to be included in the fine? Does it mean that in every case?
  Mr. McKENNA: It would not mean the inclusion of the costs in every case—in trade-mark proceedings, for example; but

  205
  it would include the Court fees in the case of an ordinary fine in an ordinary case. It would really mean that in an ordinary summons against a poor man the Court fees would be the only costs, and they would be included in the fine.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: In the case of a poor man the fine of half a crown would include the costs, but would that apply also to a man perfectly well-to-do?
  Mr. McKENNA: In a case where a man has made a defence to the action he would have to pay those costs, and he might have to pay the costs on the other side, but the fine would include only the police costs—the Court fees.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Even in the case of a rich man?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, even in the case of a rich man.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Clause 5 says:—
  "A Court of Summary Jurisdiction in fixing the amount of any fine to be imposed on an offender shall take into consideration, amongst other things, the means of the offender, so far as they appear or are known to the Court, and where a fine is imposed, the payment of the Court fees, and any police fees payable in the case up to and including conviction, shall not be imposed in addition to the fine."
  I am very much obliged that the right hon. Gentleman has made it quite clear that in all cases the fine is an inclusive sum, and it is a change with which I heartily agree. It is an excellent change in the law, so far as it goes. The person knows how much he will have to pay, and the magistrate knows exactly the amount he can call upon the offender to pay. We come to the question of probation. I do not know that that is any very great change from the existing law as regards probation officers. I do not see any objection to power being given to subsidise voluntary societies if the right hon. Gentleman says that these officers cannot be got without that. The next question to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and one which I am afraid I must differ from him, is that of the Borstal system. Taken as a whole, I think we must not put too high a weight upon it, and I think the right hon. Gentleman put the matter too higldy. He says that Borstal is not a prison. I really think it is playing with words to say that it is not. I have been over it, and, while I believe it is an excellent
  206
  institution, I regarded it as a prison, and a very good form of prison. You ought not to send anybody there unless you are satisfied that they are young criminals, or have been convicted more than once, and really have begun a criminal career. When you send them there you send them to a prison under any definition that I know. Their liberty is interfered with very materially, and the intention is that their stay there should be punitive and reformatory. I agree that it is at present exceedingly well managed by those who take an interest in the boys, and that it is far better than the old reformatory schools which got a very bad name. There is not, however, the slightest doubt that it restrains liberty, and it is unquestionably a serious sentence on a boy to deprive him of his liberty for two years. The hon. Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles) asked what I thought was a very pertinent question by inquiring whether we had got any statistics relating to the Borstal boys. I do not think the statistics are so very satisfactory. I have found, personally, that boys have come back again after having served their time.
  Sir W. BYLES: What I desired to elicit was, if possible, how the number or percentages of redeemed persons compared at Borstal with those in ordinary prisons, and what proportion of recidivists there are in Borstal prisons compared with those in ordinary prisons.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: They are very much better, I think, than ordinary prisons, but certainly a certain number come back. I think it is rather a mistake to send a boy a second time to Borstal. We are not here, however, to discuss the general system of Borstal treatment. I must enter a caveat against what the right hon. Gentleman said when he remarked that he hopes the time will come when nobody under twenty-one will be in gaol at all. I think that is a great mistake. Take the case of two boys of eighteen and nineteen of respectable family who have indulged in a career of crime for some months, and are finally caught. Are those boys to go without any punishment at all? Probably people will say not.
  Mr. McKENNA: I said not in an ordinary prison.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: If you send the boys in that case to which I refer to Borstal for two years you are doing so at the expense of the State, and it is certainly a mere

  207
  waste of money and a great hardship on the parents, who do not wish to have the boys taken away from them. Surely in a case of that kind of boys of eighteen and nineteen an ordinary short term of imprisonment is a necessary evil. I quite agree with the Home Secretary that we should first think of the reformation of the prisoner, but we have also got to remember punishment of the offender and the deterrent to others as well as the reclamation of the prisoner. It is too one-sided to say that no person under twenty-one should ever be sent to an ordinary prison but ought to be sent to a Borstal prison. This Bill does not deal very deeply with the Borstal system. It makes two alterations, one of which I am thoroughly at one with. Under the present system you cannot send a boy to Borstal for less than one year. Some do send boys for that time. I think it is plain not only to the people at Borstal, but to the people elsewhere, that you cannot reform a boy in one year, and therefore you ought to send him for the maximum time of two years. This Bill proposes that the term shall be not less than two years and may be three. That, no doubt, does seem a long time, but on the whole I think it will be an improvement. But Borstal ought not to be used lightly, and there should only be sent there cases fit for Borstal treatment. That applies to young men starting a criminal career, and two years seems to be a reasonable maximum.
  The second change which the Home Secretary makes—and I am not quite so sure about liking it until I hear more about it—is the extension of the time of what is euphemistically called the "supervision of the Prison Commissioners," which sounds like the old police supervision, and which is attached to a boy discharged from Borstal. The maximum time used to be six months, and now it is extended to one year. I should like a stronger case made out for this change before I vote for it. Personally, I have a very strong feeling that once a person is out of whatever punishment place he has been at that he ought to have a free hand, and that probation or supervision, if it is compulsory, may interfere with him. For instance, in the workshop attention might be called to the visitor, and people would want to know about it, and the fact that the boy had been in Borstal might be rubbed in too much. I should like a much stronger case made out for an alteration of that kind.
  208
  Clause 13 provides that a Court of Summary Jurisdiction shall not have power to sentence anybody to a term of imprisonment of less than five days. I do not understand what the objection is to this power, but I see no harm in the provision, although I would ask why it is confined, if it is a good thing, to Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, and why it is not extended to Quarter Sessions and Courts of Assize? The Clause also provides that a man may be sentenced to four days, provided that there is a cell or bridewell or other suitable place in which he may be kept:—
  "The Court may, if any police cells, bridewells, or other suitable places provided…are available for the purpose, order the person to be detained therein for such period not exceeding four days."
  5.0 P.M.
  I do not see what the object of that is. If there is no suitable place, and if a sentence of four days is passed, apparently the man is to go free. I hope somebody will explain what the object of this Clause is. Has it anything to do with the difficulty where a man was sentenced under the Children Act to a whipping, and where there is no power to detain at present? There are certain Clauses altering the Malicious Damage to Property Act. They have not been explained or why the trouble has arisen or why the alteration is needed. Has it anything to do with window breaking under £5 in value? There is, then, a further very important alteration to which the Home Secretary did not refer, and which is contained in Clause 15, Sub-section (2). At the present time if a man who has been charged with an indictable offence comes up before the magistrates, they have no power to deal with him, and they have to send him to Quarter Sessions. It is proposed to alter that state of affairs. I do not quite know personally why this is done, though I have no objection to it. It is a considerable alteration to which the Home Secretary did not refer. It gives extra power to the magistrates. The Home Secretary did deal with Clause 16, which provides that where people are imprisoned in default of a fine they must be imprisoned without hard labour. I was under a complete misapprehension as to this. I thought if a person was sent to prison wth hard labour that not only was he worked slightly more, but that he received more food than if without hard labour. The right hon. Gentleman tells me that the scale of diet is

  209
  the same in both cases, and probably it has been altered. I agree that the proposal would be an advantage. Then there is a very important Clause, which the Home Secretary did not mention, and which in its present form may land the Home Office in some difficulty. It is proposed that where a man is in prison, whether sentenced or not, and it is found that he is suffering from ill-health and an operation is necessary, the Secretary of State may order the prisoner to be taken to a hospital, or other suitable place, for the purpose of treatment or for an operation. I think I know what was intended to be met by this provision. It was probably the case of a prisoner who absconded when on bail under these circumstances. But this Clause goes much further. As it stands, if the prison doctor says that a prisoner is suffering from a complaint which requires a surgical operation to be performed, the Secretary of State may make an order that the prisoner shall be operated upon. That certainly is not what is intended, and I hope that some such words as "with the consent of the prisoner" will be inserted.
  Another point to be considered is, Will the time that a man is in hospital count as part of his sentence? Suppose a man is sentenced to three months' hard labour and is in the hospital for six weeks, will those six weeks count as part of his term of imprisonment? I agree that it ought to do, but, having consulted other people, I have obtained divergent views as to the effect of the Section. As it stands, I doubt whether the time so spent would count as part of his term of imprisonment. The words are "deemed to be in legal custody," which is a much wider term than "gaol." If a man escapes from a constable in a railway train he escapes from "legal custody," not from "gaol." The Home Secretary has not told us anything on that point, and I do not know why it is necessary that this power should be given. I am quite prepared to give such a power, but I should like the Clause to be made clearer on the points which I have indicated. I expect that the case which gave rise to the provision was that of a man who had been remanded for trial, the jury disagreed, and the case went over to the next Sessions without bail. I think that in that case the man, being seriously ill, was taken to the hospital, and when he left the hospital he did not come back to gaol.
  210
  Clause 18 puts a tremendous stop on the powers of magistrates—a provision which I am very glad to see. A habit has become prevalent amongst magistrates—and stipendiaries have been greater offenders than unpaid magistrates—of giving consecutive sentences. That has been held to be legal, therefore I presume that it is, but I am perfectly certain that it was never intended. If a prisoner is charged with three offences he is sometimes sentenced to six months' hard labour upon each. The result is that he is sentenced to eighteen months. I do not think that such a sentence ought to be within the power of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Therefore that Clause will have my whole-hearted support. Clause 22 is not easy to understand, but as a result of considerable cross reference I understand what it means. At the present time a policeman in charge of a police station has power to grant bail if he cannot bring a man before a magistrate within twenty-four hours. I understand this Clause to provide that he shall have that power in any case. I hope that before the Bill becomes law some simpler form of drafting will be found. The provision of Clause 24 is, I believe, a distinct improvement, but I should like to know why it is proposed. Clause 25 adds to the power of the Secretary of State, and I am not quite so sure about the advisability of that. It is, however, a matter of detail, and a point for Committee, therefore I will not trouble the House in regard to it.
  Clause 27 (3) deals with bigamy cases, and its effect ought to be made perfectly clear. Does it mean that the real wife is to be a compellable witness against her husband, or does it simply mean that she is to be competent to give evidence? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it quite clear what is intended. Clause 30 has reference to the clerks to justices. At present they are appointed by the local authority, and this Clause makes it essential that the Secretary of State shall give his consent. I am not prepared at present to state my view upon that; my mind is quite open in regard to the matter, and I should like to hear why it is thought necessary that the Secretary of State should interfere in the appointment of clerks to magistrates in Yorkshire, Lancashire, and elsewhere. Speaking as a general rule, I think that considerable care should be exercised before such powers are given to the central Government. There is a slight reference in the

  211
  Bill to people committed in respect of the non-payment of rates. I shall probably have something to say on that question before the Bill leaves the House. Possibly the Home Secretary will indicate that some change may be introduced in the general collection of rates-collection in advance or some other change—so as to do away with the very unpleasant necessity which exists at present of imprisoning people for the nonpayment of rates. As I shall not be on the Committee upstairs, and shall only see the Bill when it comes back to the House, I am sure that the Home Secretary will excuse my having called attention to these various matters, which are of great importance, especially to the poorer classes, and to those who administer justice in any way. I hope the House will give careful consideration to the Bill, which I certainly think ought to have a Second Reading. There is much that is good in the Bill, but there are other points which require very careful scrutiny before being passed into law.
  Sir W. BYLES: For my part, I welcome this Bill. I am very glad that the Home Office have at last found time to pay attention to the question of the prison population—or, perhaps I ought to say, to bring this matter before the House of Commons, because I have no doubt it has been under their attention long enough. Unfortunately the House of Commons is so difficult an engine to move that we really cannot get at great matters in which many of us take an interest. It is several years since we had an opportunity of discussing prison matters in this House. I am glad that the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Rawlinson) has given his blessing to the Bill, and I sincerely hope that we shall have the great advantage of his services upon the Grand Committee. This Bill aims at two reforms which I have long desired. The first is to keep people out of prison, and the second is to treat them intelligently if they get there. The House of Commons and the general public know and care far too little about the prison population. The gate is shut upon these poor creatures, the door is locked, and we forget all about them. We think, "Oh, they belong to the criminal classes; they do not concern us; there are quite enough honest people in the world to absorb all the interest and energy that we are able to exercise; what is the use of going on about them?"
  212
  It is, nevertheless, discreditable to England that we should treat these people on the principles on which our present system is based. I have been very glad to notice in the observations of the right hon. Gentleman a totally different spirit from that which I maintain is the foundation spirit of our prison system. Our prison system is based upon the idea of punishment, revenge, of "paying out" those who have-offended us. Society says to them, "We-will get even with you." The spirit of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman was very different. I believe, and always have believed, that our methods of treating criminals should aim, not at punishment, not at making them pay back their debts, so to speak, but at reform, and reformation, and once more making men of them. We should say of such, "Here is a wheel, a rivet, a rod in the social machine which has got broken or damaged: let us send it to the repairers "—all our prisons ought to be repairing shops. Such a course would be far better, not only for the criminal classes, but for the honest classes, for in this way you would be sending men and women back into the world prepared for an honest life.
  I do not forget that we have reformatory schools for young people. We have heard a good deal this afternoon about them. These are a step in the right direction. I am very glad to know that Borstal methods are to be extended and improved by the Bill which we are now considering. I cannot forget, when I think of this question of prison, that poverty and destitution are the dominant causes of crime. It is the difficulty that a man has in getting an honest living that, in nine cases out of ten, turns him into a criminal—probably in a larger proportion than that. Nearly all the offences which we punish arise out of the violation of property rights. If men were already well off, if they had a good pasture to themselves, they would not want to feed in the pastures of other people. I rejoice in this Bill, because its first object is to keep people out of prison. I look upon prison as a bad, not as a good place; not as a desirable place at all. If we can prevent people getting there, if we can prevent them getting the brand, the cachet or reproach of prison upon them, so much to the good; for once got they can never really recover from it. The second object of the Bill is to amend the law in respect to the treatment and punishment of young offenders. There is a very vigorous prison

  213
  reformer on a bench of magistrates in the county of Surrey, a gentleman, no doubt, well known to the Home Secretary. He is a great friend of juvenile prisoners and criminals, and is a visiting justice at one of the prisons. He was kind enough to show me through one of them. He told me he had paid the fines of many of these young people so that they might get out—had done so, in fact, for a good many years. I went into the cells of some of these young people.
  The first man I came to was an Army man. He had received four months for stealing a bicycle. He was perfectly honest and straightforward about the matter. He wanted to get out of the Army and get back home, where there were seven more of the family. His whole object in stealing the bicycle was to get his discharge from the Army and get back home. I took notice of ever so many more cases of this description. I went from cell to cell and found there men who were not really criminals, and who did not belong to that class, but whom our prison system is turning into criminals. One was in prison for selling newspapers at Victoria Station. Another, a lad of nineteen, was in for seven days for having got drunk—the first time in his life. These cases, I say, show the very way that we add to the criminal population. I mention these things to show how glad I am that one of the main objects of the Bill is to prevent people getting into prison, and, when they do unfortunately get there, to treat them with intelligence. I do not deny that a good many very useful criticisms have been offered by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I will not go into them, because I do not know about them, but I say that Borstal methods of treatment which aim at reformation and reclamation, rather than at punishing, revenge, and vindictive treatment, should receive a welcome from this House.
  I cannot help believing that our prison population might be doing some very useful work if the matter were properly revised and superintended. There are examples in America and Canada which I will not go into now. There are examples showing how useful colonies of the prison population have been founded. What should be aimed at is to let all these men that we have taken away and deprived of liberty so adjust and rearrange their lives that they will live a healthy and industrial life, cither in the workshop or on the farm. They might earn their own living. Our
  214
  prison ought not to be an expense to those who are not in prison. It they are, those inside ought to be able at least to earn their own living—and, for that matter, build their own prisons. In that case our Home Office Vote for prisons would be very much smaller. I do feel very strongly that we ought to move in regard to this-population, every individual of which, remember, is a reproach to the rest of us It is these men who are the social pariahs, and who simply indicate that the social machine has broken down. If it were perfect we would not have any criminals. Therefore we are responsible for them, and we ought to do to them what is good for them in restoring them to an honest life, if possible. Such a course would, too, be doing good for ourselves. Society would be freeing itself from those burdens which are now laid upon it. The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to give me some estimates and percentage" of the success of the Borstal system. He tells me that over 40 per cent. of cases are believed to be satisfactory, and 25 per cent. believed to be unsatisfactory. That does not exhaust the whole. The percentages amongst ordinary prisoners and criminals convicted compares very badly with this. I believe as many as three out of four of the prisoners sent to prison come back again. That to my mind is sufficient of itself a condemnation, a most palpable, obvious, and complete condemnation of our present prison system.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I should like to offer a hearty welcome to this Bill. In my opinion much can be done under its provisions to avoid the degradation and humiliation, especially of our juvenile delinquents, that are inherent in our present policy of imprisonment. I should like, however, in consequence of the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles), to say that the unpaid magistracy, although undoubtedly it does-err at times in its methods of administering justice, errs rather owing to ignorance and lack of experience than from harshness or any vindictive spirit. The right hon. Gentleman described the latter part of this Bill as containing some unimportant provisions. I should like to refer to one of those so-called unimportant provisions as being of greater importance than possibly the right hon. Gentleman realises. Clause 30 provides for the appointment and remuneration of justices' clerks being subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. I do not agree with my hon. and

  215
  learned Friend below me that this Departmental approval should be dispensed with. My experience is that many of these appointments of justices' clerks are made as the result of very considerable local pressure, very often in a spirit of nepotism, and result in consequences which even the magistrates themselves subsequently have reason to regret. These gentlemen are appointed very often because they are thriving local solicitors with a large country practice. They hold other public offices—of which I do not complain—besides that of clerk to the justices. But there is a limit to the useful public work of these officials, and I should like to see a condition in the right hon. Gentleman's approval of such an appointment, that the private practice of such persons shall not interfere with their public duties, and shall Dot be increased as a result of their exercise of such duties.
  It is quite possible that a gentleman of that sort may be a clerk to a district council and to a board of guardians, and as clerk to a district council may be giving advice to gentlemen not experienced in the law, and that he is constantly advising litigation where there is no real reason for it, throwing a heavy burden upon the ratepayers in consequence. I do not say these, are common cases, but they do exist, and I venture to hope that the Secretary of State will exercise a real discretion in approving of these appointments and prevent unsuitable persons, with a view to their material advantage, becoming appointed to such posts. Considerable stress has been laid upon the provisions of Clause 1 of this Bill. As I understand Clause 1, it does not create any substantial alteration in the existing practice except to lay down that it shall be a rule in future that time shall be allowed for the payment of fines in lieu of imprisonment, and that imprisonment shall be the exception rather than the rule, and shall only be imposed as a penalty when there is some special reason inducing the magistrates to impose such penalty. It leaves it open as to what shall be considered a special reason, and I, for my part, would like to have seen introduced in the Bill some explanation of what will be deemed special reasons in such cases.
  As regards Clause 2 there is one difficulty that I foresee in carrying out this provision. That is the Clause which provides an allowance of further time for the payment of a sum adjudged to be paid on
  216
  conviction or order of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction if application is made by or on behalf of the offender for such further time. In purely rural districts, as a rule, the Court only meets once a month, and the time allowed for the payment of a fine does not exceed seven days or fourteen days. Surely some provision ought to be made to prevent the convicted person suffering in consequence of the Court not meeting within a period during which time is allowed for the payment of the fine. Then I do not understand, in spite of the explanation made in reply to the criticisms of my hon. and learned Friend, the exact meaning of Clause 5. I entirely sympathise with the intention to exclude, if this Clause is intended to exclude, the Court fees and the police fees as an addition to the fine imposed by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, but am I to understand that in such case the fine will be inclusive, as my hon. Friend suggested, or exclusive, of the fees.
  Mr. McKENNA: Inclusive.
  Mr. BATHURST: Then I venture to suggest it would be a great improvement if it were made exclusive, because what commonly happens at the present time is that a person may be deemed to have committed an offence which merits a very small fine indeed, of sixpence or a shilling, but when added to the costs, over which the Bench has no control, the actual sum which the accused person is compelled to pay may amount to 10s. 6d., or more. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of this Clause exactly the same thing will happen in future, because the fine, instead of being 6d., will be 10s. 6d., as it will be held to include the 10s. costs. If that is so, it will not be any great improvement on the existing system, which causes an immense amount of embarrassment and heart-searching to benches of magistrates, who feel it a great injustice that a person whose delinquency deserves the imposition of a very small fine indeed, has to pay, in addition, costs amounting to 10s., or upwards, because such is the cost involved in county administration. I venture to hope that in Committee it may be found possible to make it an exclusive payment, and not an inclusive payment, as the Bill now provides. I welcome the provision in Clause 7 for the recognition of societies to provide probation officers, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this provision relating to probation societies, if I

  217
  may call them so, will extend to cases which are to be dealt with by the Inebriates Bill now before the House. As the right hon. Gentleman may remember, under the Inebriates Bill, for which I think his Department is responsible, there is a similar period of probation provided for—probation either before admission to inebriate reformatories or in some cases after the cessation of such sentences—and surely, if it is intended to include such cases, some provision ought to be added to this Bill to enable that to be done. Otherwise I am inclined to think there would be a lacuna in the case of such confirmed inebriates as are intended to be dealt with by that Bill.
  As regards the Borstal system, it seems to me that it is early yet to say whether that system is a success or not. It does undoulatedly present many advantages over the reformatory system while retaining most of the benefits of that system. The greatest of them to ray mind is the very useful industrial instruction which this institution provides, and the possibility of persons who serve their time in such an institution leaving without being regarded for the rest of their lives as having a criminal taint upon them. In Clause 15, Sub-section (3), provision is made that where a child is charged with a felony, the Court may inflict a fine not exceeding 40s. as punishment. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, is there any definition of a child in the Bill, and whether he can say what is the age that is covered by that expression?
  Mr. McKENNA: Fourteen.
  Mr. BATHURST: That already is denned then in some existing Statute?
  Mr. McKENNA: Under the Children Act.
  Mr. BATHURST: I cannot quite understand how it is going to be possible to carry out the otherwise desirable provision for the detention upon police court premises for four days or less of those persons whose sentences are less than five days' imprisonment. In most country police courts there is certainly no suitable provision for such detention. If the right hon. Gentleman suggests that the present cells in such places are an improvement upon the county prison, I regret to tell him that in many cases prisoners would prefer to go to the county prison rather than to be incarcerated within the very narrow confines of the prison cells in
  218
  county police courts; but if it is intended that the offender should remain in the guard-room occupied by the police, then I am inclined to think that the police will have some objection to this provision, and that the result may be—and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to realise this—that benches of magistrates finding themselves in a difficulty, and realising that there are not suitable places provided in the locality, may increase the sentence to five days so as to render imprisonment possible, whereas if such premises were available they might inflict a much less serious sentence. That is a matter which I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to consider and amend on the Committee stage. I do not want to take up more of the time of the House, but I should like to say that for my part, and I am sure the bulk of the House would agree with me, I warmly welcome that provision in Clause 6, Which now once and for all abolishes imprisonment with hard labour-in the case of imprisonment for debt. Such a provision is already overdue, and I am sure there must be many outside this House that will be very glad at last to-find that the House of Commons has realised how very inconsistent with our boasted ideas of civilisation, is the present system under which people, owing to the impossibility of paying fines, are imprisoned with hard labour.
  I for my part welcome this Bill, but I should like to say that when we come to the Committee stage certain details, in my opinion, may be found unworkable in practice, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to consider such modifications as would render them workable, not merely in the towns and where there is full equipment provided, as there is very often under a stipendiary magistrate, but to render them equally workable in those country districts where unpaid magistrates find it exceedingly difficult at the present time to carry out what they believe to be their duties without, on the one hand, doing something in the nature of injustice in the case of trifling offences, or, on the other hand, adding very seriously to the cost of administration which may eventually affect their neighbours as county ratepayers.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: The House has undoubtedly been very much interested in the informing and very authoritative speeches which we have had from the two hon. Members opposite upon the exceedingly important provisions of this Bill.

  219
  Both those hon. Members appear to me to have rather skimmed over what I personally regard as far and away the most important thing in this Bill. I am afraid that even the Home Secretary has not realised how important a Bill this is. Somehow or other the Home Office has been responsible for a whole series of measures dealing with juvenile delinquencies for many years, but the Home Office, while having been successfully egged on by various societies and persons outside, has never realised its duty in regard to these measures, and if this measure is going to be administered with the laxity and neglect which has up to the present time been connected with similar measures, then we are largely wasting our time to-day, I hope this Bill is not going to be merely something to be put between the covers of a Statute Book, but that it will be something that is going to be put into real active work and do something towards bringing about a much over-delayed reform in dealing with the juveniles of this country.
  I am aware that the probationary system of 1907 and the Children Act of 1908 have already in some districts where there happened to be enlightened magistrates, worked a great reform; but I am bound to say—and I do not believe I am exaggerating in my language, knowing what we do know about juvenile crime—that at the present time every year a gross injustice and a scandalous outrage is perpetrated in the Courts of this land upon children without any necessity, or excuse, or justification. Perhaps this was excusable years ago when public opinion generally thought that the only way to deal with the criminal was the harsh way by imprisonment and such things as the wearing of irons, which was very common until recent times. In 1896 a Departmental Committee reported on this matter, and laid down an astonishing fact, and I think it is time that the House of Commons should realise its truth and see that the truth is acted upon in the Courts of this land. The fact laid down by that Departmental Committee was that in the case of juvenile offenders—some people put it down at 98 per cent., but I think 90 per cent. is a conservative estimate—90 per cent. of the children are absolutely free from what you can strictly call any criminal tendency whatsoever. The little crime, if it can be called a crime, for which some of these children are brought up to the Courts, is often such a thing as would be committed
  220
  by children more fortunately placed without anything happening to them. Take, for instance, the small boy who goes rummaging about the streets or about a market place, and lays hold of an apple or a small bit of something of that kind, or picks up a piece of coal that has fallen off a cart in the road. From a psychological point of view that boy is doing nothing worse than the public school boy who takes part in the robbing of an orchard. The only difference is that in the latter case the wealthy parents are often able to square it up, but in the other case there is not a wealthy parent to square it up, and the little offender is dragged into Court, and is often dealt with in a very summary way.
  It is universally accepted all over Europe, the United States, and in our own Colonies, that it is only from 2 to 5 per cent. of juvenile offenders who really have anything in the nature of a criminal tendency when they are brought before the Court. In the Children Act of 1908 this was recognised, and was provided for, and the magistrates of this country have been given, so far as that Act is concerned, ample and sufficient power to deal with this 90 per cent. of the children as they ought to be dealt with—that is, they should not be sent to any kind of penal institution whatever, or whatever name you may call it, and they should be left with their parents; or if their parents are not suitable, with some other relative, or if no relative can be found they should be boarded out under supervision with some other individual. That power has been given since 1908; but in spite of that fact, and in spite of its universal recognition by public opinion generally, thousands of children, hundreds of them first offenders, are being sent straight away to industrial and reformatory schools in this country right down to last year. In view of the knowledge that there is at the present time, I say that that is an outrage upon the children of this country. I know very well what has happened in regard to industrial schools and reformatories during the past few years. I know that not only in regard to discipline, but in other respects they have been very much improved. So far as the schoolmasters and the managers of those institutions are concerned, many of them are most admirable men. I know that a good deal that looks very delightful in the shape of what is now known as manual instruction and industrial training goes on in those place,

  221
  but I hope this House, at any rate, will not be deluded by these external trimmings, which really do not mean much.
  You have really only altered the degree of the punishment of the reformatory, and you have not altered its nature or character at all. The reformatory school, improve it as much as you will, is still a barrack institution. In that barrack institution 90 per cent. of the boys will meet 2 or 3 per cent. of those boys who are really vicious and depraved. There is no doubt about it that many a lad—who for a trivial offence has been committed by a magistrate who is not well informed, and who has often been misled by the external semblance of a reformatory school—has for the first time met with sexual vice and sexual immorality and has been perverted in the reformatory schools, and in all respects a great moral evil is being done in this way. The Home Office should make it clear beyond any doubt to every magistrate in this country that a reformatory school for a lad under sixteen or for a girl under sixteen should be the very last place and the very last resort, and they should not be sent to a reformatory school until every other possible treatment has broken down. Therefore I want to bring home to the House the great importance of the provisions which the Home Secretary has included in this Bill recognising associations, and I hope many of them will be provided voluntarily. With the aid of the Home Office probation officers and other persons will be provided who will supervise these children and make it possible for the magistrates to exorcise their judgment and discretion in this respect, as they already have the power to do under the Act of 1908.
  I welcome that provision for another reason—namely, that such associations as that will not only enable the magistrates to have probation officers and to exercise supervision, but the representatives of those associations will educate the magistrates, and they will be there to assist them. In districts where the provisions of the Children Act are not as well known as they ought to be, the representatives of these societies will be able to point out to the magistrates these humane and superior provisions, and thus probably influence the magistrate to act upon them in-stead of upon the unfortunate system of sending a boy to an industrial or reformatory school. I want to press one other thing upon the Home Office, and during
  222
  the Committee stage I shall endeavour to induce the Home Secretary to take power to accomplish my suggestion. I think it is time that, with the Bills passing this Session on the top of those in the last couple of Sessions, we should have some sort of consolidating Bill giving the law with regard to children generally under sixteen years of age. I defy any man in this House—perhaps I should make an exception in the case of the hon. and learned Member opposite—if he were to put a question as to the ordinary law affecting children in this country at the present moment to answer it with any degree of certainty. These laws have now become so detailed and the penalties attached to them so severe that I think the Government of this country owes it to the parents to issue those laws in a clear, simple, and handy form, without any cost to them, in order that they should have all the information as to what the law is with regard to the treatment of children. How on earth is the ordinary parent, in view of what has happened since 1907, to know what he has a right to do for his child.
  The Government has set a precedent in this matter. Not long ago they issued, through the Post Office, tons and tons of pamphlets in order to explain the Insurance Act, and that has been done more or less successfully. Why cannot the Government do something similar, and put at the disposal, say of school teachers, local magistrates, and others interested, and the people who will become members of those excellent associations who are going to work amongst the unfortunate of the country, a small booklet giving in a simple form the information as to the law with regard to children in this country. I think it is high time that we should realise the importance of doing this. I must demur to one statement made by the hon. and learned Member opposite with regard to Borstal institutions. I do not think the hon. and learned Member should give up hope under twenty-one years of age. I know there are dangers and disadvantages, but I think it is worth while trying all these devices up to the age of twenty-one. I agree that after that they have been unavailing, and then your sentences should be short and sharp, but up to twenty-one I think we should never give up hope. Long ago—and probably I am the only person in this House who has had an experience of this kind—I was myself in charge of twenty-five children who were more or less a collection of all the incorrigibles of a certain neighbourhood, and

  223
  I know only too well why it is that children get into such a state. It is not the fault of the children, but of circumstances over which they have no control.
  6.0 P.M.
  I know much of this evil has been reduced by our system of elementary education and school attendance laws. Much of it has been reduced by the laws dealing with street trading, and I hope from the two Bills now before the House that another great step will be taken to reduce this evil still more. These are the things that have in the main reduced the present population under sixteen years of age, and those are the things that will eventually bring that prison population down to a negligible figure. But while we are waiting for these things, I do not think we should act upon the old punitive method that up to the age of sixteen the method to be adopted should be absolutely and entirely reformatory and nothing else. Years ago I was blamed because I adopted a very elementary principle, and it was that in the case of a young person or in the case of children you should never use your maximum punishment, because once you have done that, the child knew the worst and had felt the worst, and your authority was at an end. You had emptied yourself of all that was really authoritative in the matter of discipline over that child. I was taught that it was always more important to keep in the impressionable mind of the child a vague notion of some great resources of power and possibilities of punishment rather than to exert it. That is true with regard to the law in this country. In the days long ago when the law dragged people up for trivial offences and cast them into dens, to the shame of our country, there was very little respect for the law. The law did not reform; it created crime by that system. It is important that we should realise that the law is a great agency for assisting people, and that they should look to its majesty rather than to its revenge, and have a feeling that the law is something to admire and respect. I hope that is going to be the effect of this Bill. When you have done that your society in general will realise a new attitude altogether towards the police and the law.
  Mr. HOARE: I have two observations which I wish to put before the House with reference to the first Clause of the Bill. It is a significant fact that
  224
  as far as statistics prove anything, the amount of crime in the country has not decreased during the last twenty years. One would have hoped, with the social legislation and the changes in public opinion that have taken place during the last twenty years, that the statistics would have been more reassuring than they actually are. A study of the last available statistics in the Report of the Prison Commissioners shows that whilst 192 per 100,000 of the population were tried for indictable offences in the country in 1893, the figure is now 184. There is not, therefore, very much improvement as far as these statistics prove anything. I pass from that to what the Home Secretary had to say with regard to the payment of fines by instalments. I am in full agreement with the Home Secretary's intention. It is almost a scandal that no less than half of the inmates of our prisons should be there simply because they have been unable to pay fines. At the same time, the House should remember that the number of these persons who are imprisoned for the nonpayment of fines is decreasing and is not increasing. In the years 1903–4–5 there were more than 100,000 men and women imprisoned for the non-payment of fines, and in 1893, 81,669. I foresee a difficulty in the collection of instalments. I foresee, for instance, in London, where the population is always moving from one district to another, some trouble and considerable expense in collecting the instalments. Apart from those two reservations, and they are very small ones, I am in agreement with the Clauses of the Bill that encourage and insist upon the payment of fines by instalments.
  The Home Secretary had some observations to make with reference to the cognate subject of fees. It has always seemed to me, when I have served on my local bench, that the amount of fees has been altogether out of proportion to the amount of fines imposed. That was borne out by the answer to a question which the Home Secretary gave me yesterday. I asked him what was the total amount collected in the last year for which statistics were available—first of all, of fines, and secondly, of fees. The figures are for 1903. In that year £218,477 were collected as fines, and no less than £350,390 were collected as fees. I think those figures bear out my statement that the amount of fees is altogether out of proportion to the amount of fines. There is at the end of

  225
  this Bill a Schedule of the standardised fees which are to be imposed in future. I have not been able to go through that Schedule in any detail, but I am informed that it is very much what the standard is in some of our counties at the present moment. It therefore does not seem to me to remedy the disadvantage of the exorbitant standard of the fees. I hope, when the Bill gets into Committee, certain deductions will be made in the Schedule.
  I pass from that to the Clauses which deal with juvenile offenders. It seems to me that the time is duo to review our methods of the treatment of juvenile offenders. During the last seven years, as the Home Secretary has stated, three very important Acts of Parliament have been passed—The Children's Act, the Probation of Offenders Act, and the Prevention of Crimes Act. The time has come to review the results of those three Acts, and to see in what respect their provisions can be improved. There are nearly 40,000 young persons dealt with each year in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction. In 1912, 39 per cent. of these children and young persons were convicted, to the number of 15,100, whereas 17,677 were not convicted, but were dismissed with a caution, or were handed over to the probation officers, or were called upon to give recognisances for good behaviour. Those figures seem to me to show two things. In the first place, they show that there is still a very large number of children and young persons brought before the Courts. A communication which I received from Birmingham informs me that no less than half of the cases which are brought before the Birmingham magistrates for street offences are cases of boys and girls under the age of twenty-one.
  The second fact which seems to emerge from a study of the Home Office statistics is the extraordinary fatuity of short sentences. The reports of the Prison Commissioners are full of the folly, indeed the criminal folly, of these short sentences, and I regret to say that several of the Metropolitan magistrates are amongst the worst offenders for sending children and young persons to terms of short imprisonment. I notice, for instance, that the chaplain of Pentonville calls attention, in the last Annual Report of the Prison Com-missioners, to the cases of 226 children and young persons who were sent to Pentonville for short terms of imprisonment. It is also noteworthy that no less than one-third of the children and young persons
  226
  who were sent to prison for short terms of imprisonment were condemned for those short terms of imprisonment by the Metropolitan magistrates. I hope, therefore, that the Home Secretary will make some inquiry as to the various methods which magistrates over the country adopt in dealing with young offenders, and will call the attention of those magistrates who do not make use of it to the beneficent legislation that this House has passed during the last six or seven years, and attempt to bring about a change in the direction that I feel sure the circumstances demand.
  If we are going to make an advance in these branches of social work, we must do two things. We must, first of all, keep the child out of the atmosphere of the ordinary Police Court, and, secondly, we must keep the child out of the atmosphere of the ordinary prison. With reference to the first requirement, I know that the Children's Act has done something, but at the same time I am not satisfied that it is being administered over the whole country as drastically as most of us would demand. I am disappointed that so few Special Courts have been set up in the country. My experience has been that in dealing with children a bench sometimes keep the child waiting in the body of the Court whilst the ordinary cases are taken, and then at the end it constitutes itself into a Children's Court and takes the child's case. In other words, the child has been sitting through the Police Court the whole morning hearing the other cases, and then at the end, when presumably he or she has been already contaminated with the Police Court atmosphere, the reporters go away, and the child's case is taken. If that proceeding is common, it is trifling with the Children's Act. I am also disappointed that as far as I know no special magistrates have been appointed for dealing solely with children's cases. In the United States, where great advances have been made in the reformatory treatment of children, magistrates have been appointed solely and only for dealing with children's cases. That seems to me to be much more satisfactory than to allow the ordinary magistrate, who has got his ideas and prejudices from dealing with ordinary cases, to take children's cases. I am therefore somewhat disappointed that this Bill, with all its many provisions for improving our criminal justice, does nothing to level up the standard, which we all very much desire, of dealing with

  227
  cases of children under the ago of fourteen who come into the Courts.
  Next, there is the question of probation. There, again, I am not satisfied, from a study of these statistics, that as much is being done as should be done. Probation officers have not been appointed in every district. Surely that is a reform which is most urgently demanded I am sorry that in the Bill there is no provision for insisting upon the immediate appointment of probation officers in every district. Even where they have been appointed they are very often so fully occupied with other work that they have not got the time for really supervising the careers of the children whose supervision is delegated to them. One hears cases of Police Court missionaries and ex-superintendents of police, and extra attendants of police, who have got a variety of interests, far too many to give them time—for it requires a great deal of time—to deal with these cases, with the result that the duty of probation is in many places dealt with in a most perfunctory fashion. Take the case of London. I am informed that here the probation districts are much too big. I wish the Home Secretary would look into that point. I am informed that the probation officer is given a very large district in London, with the inevitable result that he really has not time to keep in touch with the children whom he is required to look after. Here, again, the Metropolitan magistrates do not seem to avail themselves of most of their powers. In 1912. of 11,326 young persons who were brought before the Metropolitan magistrates, only 838 were placed on probation. That seems to me to show that some of them are not treating probation as seriously as we should desire.
  Another subject on which I should like to make a few remarks is that of the Borstal system, and here I welcome, to the full, the advance which this Bill recommends. It has seemed to me that one of the most successful of the experiments that have been made in social reform during the last six years has been the experiment that has been made under the auspices of the Borstal Association. The hon. Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles) asked how far the results justify the experiment that was first made in 1909. I have the figures here. Since the Borstal institutions have been in existence, 624 young men and women have been turned out from them. Of these, 184 are known to be satisfactory,
  228
  93 are believed to be satisfactory, seven are dead; of 188 there is no trace available, and therefore the association has lost touch with them; 142 are in prison, one is in an asylum. I quite acknowledge that the number of those with whom the association has lost touch is very great. At the same time, it is most satisfactory that no less than 270 should be doing well, and should be doing well when it is remembered that the experiment has only been in existence since 1909. The two difficulties from which those who have been working in connection with the Borstal Association have suffered are, first, that some of the sentences are not long enough for the reformatory treatment really to make itself felt; and, secondly, that the period of supervision afterwards is too short for the association to keep in touch with the boys and girls who leave the institutions. Of those in Borstal institutions now, thirty-three were condemned for only one year. That is far too short a time for letting the reformatory treatment really take effect and giving these boys and girls an opportunity of learning some skilled trade. Therefore, I welcome the change which the Home Secretary proposes in making the minimum two years instead of one for sentences to Borstal institutions. I also welcome the proposal he has made with reference to the extended time for supervision. It has been found that six months is too short a time, and I therefore hope that the proposal for extending that time to one year will be kept when this Bill goes into Committee.
  There are certain other smaller points, mostly Committee points, which yet seem to me to be of some importance. I do not quite understand, for instance, the Clause which deals with the procedure at a Court of Petty Sessions for condemning a boy or girl to Borstal treatment. It I understand it aright, it is that they should recommend Borstal treatment to the Quarter Sessions and the Quarter Sessions should impose it. That seems to me a somewhat cumbrous way of dealing with the matter. I should have thought a magistrate or a bench of magistrates would have been quite competent to make the sentences at once and not wait for a length of time, and allow the culprit consequently to be detained in prison or somewhere else until the Quarter Sessions could carry out their recommendation. I am also informed that it would be an advantage if the term of imprisonment which makes Borstal treatment possible were a fortnight rather

  229
  than a month. There are a number of cases which might very well be dealt with by Borstal treatment in which only a fortnight is given now as the ordinary sentence, particularly cases of girls, for whom Borstal treatment has been found to be most beneficial. I hope that that is a point which the Home Secretary will sympathetically consider. With these observations and criticisms, not very serious, but at the same time criticisms that deserve, I think, the attention of the House, I desire to give my support to the Second Reading of the Bill, and I hope that, long as it is, and complicated as many of its Clauses are, it will pass through Committee and become law during this Session.
  Mr. LEWIS HASLAM: I am somewhat in the predicament of practically agreeing with all that has been said by previous speakers, but I should like to say a few words of cordial welcome to this Bill. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Edgar Jones) drew an indictment against the Home Office for not making proper use of the power to make regulations under the law as it at present stands, and, with that exception, I am in agreement with all that has been said. I think the Bill is a great improvement, and I hope the Home Secretary will bear that point in mind, although I now understand that the hon. Member is not correct. I was on the Committee for the Children's Bill, and I took a very great interest in that measure and in carrying out the Children's Act, and I was very much gratified with the supervision by the probation officers. My impression is that not nearly enough has been done with reference to the appointment of such officers. They ought to be general throughout the country, and I welcome most cordially that part of the Bill which encourages societies to provide such officers and give some help from the Government with regard to the fund for their maintenance. The advantages of probation officers are twofold: Not only do they help the children themselves towards a better life, but also, if they are properly used, I think it will result, not in an increase, but in a de-creased cost, because it will reduce the number of prisoners and evil-minded persons who would otherwise grow up in our midst without having the advantage of the exercise of the functions of these officers. We all know what is said about the incorrigible child. The real fact is that the child is not in the least incorrigible, but the parents are either negligent
  230
  or ignorant or are probably weak-minded. It must be apparent that if we have people of special training who can look after such children and help these parents and guide them, the effect will be very great upon their future lives. Another part of the Bill which I welcome is the suggestion to give more opportunity and increased time for the payment of fines. I believe, as a rule, the practice is to afford time to every person who is desirous not to go to prison, but that opportunity is not always taken advantage of, and the magistrates probably fail in their duty in that respect. It is most desirable that, wherever possible, the fine should be paid instead of the alternative of imprisonment. I am rather puzzled to know what Clause 5 exactly means, and I think that difficulty has been experienced by other speakers. It would appear to be a meaningless Clause unless it embodies an instruction to magistrates to reduce the total amount of the fines, including costs. If the total amount of the two is equal to the fines and the costs separately the provision is meaningless. If, on the contrary, it is intended, where a prisoner is palpably a poor man who can ill afford to pay much, that such a man should be fined less than would be the case for the same offence with regard to a man who is well off, then I welcome the provision, because it is inequitable that the same fine should be paid in the case of offences of rich men and poor men. To fine the rich man is practically nothing, but to fine a very poor man may mean a great deal in regard to the maintenance of his family. I may be giving utterance to an expression that is contrary to the general usage of law, but it is consonant with what we generally expect when we exercise the function of common sense, namely, that the punishment should be as equitable as possible. It is not equitable that poor men should pay the same amount as rich men. It is well known that in the case of the excessive speed of motor cars that principle is carried into effect, and heavy fines are very properly inflicted upon rich men who enjoy the luxury of endangering the lives of their fellows. I desire to express a very cordial welcome to this Bill, which will be of very great advantage to the public.
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: There seems to be a very general consensus of opinion in favour of this Bill, and I readily and joyfully acknowledge that it contains very many useful provisions. In the criticisms

  231
  I propose to offer, I wish to dwell on certain features in the Bill which promise legislation regarding certain matters which really might be left to the common sense of those who administer the law, and which in certain ways may possibly create more difficulties than the Bill proposes to solve. As regards fines and the necessity imposed by the Bill of giving time, I do not think that anyone wishes to send a person to prison if it can be avoided. The Bill makes so many exceptions to the rule that it may lead to greater difficulties and puzzles for the magistrates who have to administer the law than exist at the present moment, because a magistrate has first to consider, when it is a question of giving time or not, whether the person has sufficient means to pay the fine, whether the person does or does not want the time, whether he has no fixed abode, or whether he has any special reasons of his own, of a nature which are not suggested in the Bill, for refusing to give time. So far as my experience goes, the cases are comparatively simple. There is the case of the tramp, a person of no fixed abode, to whom it is no use to give time, because you know you could not find him at the end of seven days. There are obviously cases of people who need time and who get time in proportion to their means or the character of the offence. Lastly, there are the people who can pay and may be quite willing to pay, but who have not the money in Court. In that case, according to the Bill, he must give seven days or nothing. It constantly happens that the man says, "I can pay in the course of the day," and you say to him, "Pay the money to the constable on your beat," and there is an end of it. It is much better to get the matter settled promptly in that way. I take it that that very simple and common procedure will be precluded by the terms of the Bill, because in the case of any person desirous of being allowed time the Court may give him time, but it must not be Jess than seven days.
  Mr. McKENNAindicated dissent.
  Sir W. ANSON: I may be wrong; I hope I am; but it does suggest that the Bill would be a complication of the practical working of the matter of imposing fines. As regards Clause 5 and the question of the relative amount of the fine and costs, I confess I find some difficulty in interpreting that Clause. I have never shared the difficulty which one hon. Member seems
  232
  to have experienced in determining the question of the relative amount of fine and costs, because in practice the costs—I am very glad there is a fixed table of costs provided in the Bill—are not out of proportion to the means of the person who would have to pay them. So far as my experience goes, what one always does is to determine the amount of the costs, and then to consider how much it is fair to call upon the prisoner to pay, and if you want to give costs you have to include them in the fine. As regards the question of probation and the societies who are prepared to supervise prisoners on probation, I most cordially approve of the provision of the Bill which enables societies to follow up the prisoners who are in reformatories or industrial schools or Borstal institutions. There is no doubt that the probation officers appointed under the Probation of Offenders Act have not the time to follow up the boys and young people who are sent to industrial schools, reformatories, or Borstal institutions, and it is most desirable that the sort of thing which a society of that sort can provide should be brought to bear upon them. I see also that the society may take over the care and control of persons on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. Has the Home Secretary ever considered the possible collision between the probation officer appointed under the Probation of Offenders Act and the society he may recognise under this Clause in dealing with the same person with whom the probation officer is intended to deal and is appointed to deal? It would be desirable to keep quite clear the province of the probation officer and of these societies. The societies under this Clause can obviously discharge very useful functions, and it would be imfortunate if they were brought into collision with the officer appointed under the Probation of Offenders Act. I fear that would be the effect of the Clause.
  Mr. McKENNA: That could not be.
  Sir W. ANSON: The Home Secretary may approve the probation society, but under this Clause the society and the officer are both to look after the same class of person.
  Mr. McKENNA: Only if the magistrate appoints the probation officer provided by the society. The magistrate will retain complete control, as he does under the existing law, to appoint such probation officer as he pleases.
  Sir W. ANSON: I am glad to have that explanation. The Clause will need careful consideration in Standing Committee, because, on the face of it, it looks as if you might have two conflicting authorities dealing with the person on probation. I have only one more point upon which I wish to touch, that is the variety of complications of the imprisonment or detention provided for in the Bill. There is detention in a police cell, detention in a bridewell, detention in a Borstal institution, and detention in Court. A prisoner under the Probation of Offenders Act is liable to be kept in a place of detention. Imprisonment we understand. I do not think that persons imprisoned are the outcasts and pariahs which the hon. Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles) described them as being. So far as my experience goes, prisoners are carefully attended to. The governor is full of attention to carry out the regulations of the prison, and to do for the prisoner whatever is necessary while he is in prison and with some view to his future when he gets out. There is usually a prison missioner and a chaplain. Persons of all denominations receive the attention of ministers of their denomination, a visiting committee visits the prisons at short intervals, and the prison missioner follows up the prisoners as far as it is possible after they have left prison and sees to it that they start some useful course in life. A prison is not the place for the castaway as it is sometimes described. Great care is taken of the prisoners, and it is not justice to the prison system that it should be described in the way that it has been described.
  Sir W. BYLES: I think you misunderstood me.
  Sir W. ANSON: There is also the Borstal institution. I am quite prepared to admit that the objects of that institution are of the most laudable character, and that their usefulness to some extent approximates to their object, but they are still new institutions and need to be watched with considerable care. What is the position of a prisoner who is confined in a bridewell or a police cell? I confess that is to me an objectionable feature. What provision is there for the care and supervision of such a person? He has no attention, there is no governor, and no visiting committee. The Home Secretary may at intervals have an opportunity of attending to his welfare, but otherwise I agree with an hon. Friend of
  234
  mine who said the result would be that a term of less than five days' imprisonment would never be imposed, because most districts have no Such locality into which they could put a prisoner, and most districts if they had such a locality would prefer not to put them there. Another form of detention is detention in Court until 10 p.m. I really think that might be left out. I cannot see what good purpose it serves to say that a magistrate may detain a prisoner on the premises till ten o'clock at night. I do not know who is to look after him, nor how he is to be cared for, or any proper attention paid to him. I only make these criticisms in order to show that I think this Bill, excellent as are most of its provisions, will require a great deal of care in following up its details in Committee, because it is quite possible, with the most admirable intentions, to introduce detailed complications into the law which are very much to the disadvantage of those who have to administer it and those upon whom the hand of the law falls, and good intentions in removing small and occasional trouble and injustice may result in larger injustice and greater complications, expense, and difficulty.
  Mr. RADFORD: I heartily support this Bill. I congratulate the Home Secretary on having brought it forward, and express my gratitude also to his predecessor in office, who made a promise three or four years ago of which I take it this Bill is an ample fulfilment. I am particularly grateful with regard to that part of the Bill which deals with fines, so as to carry out the intentions of the Home Secretary to abate imprisonment. We learned from the Home Secretary that in the year 1912 there were no fewer than 80,000 committals for non-payment of fines. I am sorry that he cannot give us any figures later than 1912. I hope to live to see the time when the Home Secretary, in his present tenure of office, may be able to give us figures up to date which will not leave us, on an important occasion like this, to deal not with the latest figures but with the figures of the year before last. With regard to these 80,000 persons committed for nonpayment of fines in a single year, I do not know how many were first offenders, and perhaps the Homo Secretary does not know, but I know you cannot do anything worse with a first offender than make a gaol-bird of him. I trust that the Bill may have the effect of relieving us from the responsibility of a system under which

  235
  these deplorable results obtain. I think the right hon. Gentleman may be congratulated on the fact that this Bill has been submitted in the House to-day to a kind of special tribunal of experts. Every hon. Member has referred, directly or indirectly, to his own experience on the bench, and has expressed general but, I admit, discriminating approval. I notice with great interest the discriminating criticisms which were given by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Rawlinson). The points which he made will, no doubt, be raised in Committee, and will receive the attention they deserve. I hope the Bill may emerge at least as good as it is now, and in some respects improved.
  I desire to say a word with reference to the form of the Bill. If this is a good Bill, as I believe it to be, it should be in the best legislative form. Let us recollect that the greater part of the Bill is not new law, but it deals with the alteration and modification of laws already on the Statute Book. You can deal with existing laws by repealing them, and that method is effectually applied in this Bill. In Clause 34 we have referred to and repealed a series of enactments which are contained in the second Schedule, and it will be a source of gladness to the House that III. James I., cap. X., which is called "An Act for the rating and levying of the charges for conveying malefactors and offenders to gaols "will be repealed and will never again appear in our revised edition of the Statutes. So, of a large number of other enactments. That is what I call good legislation. You repeal a Bill, and there is an end of it. There is another method of legislation which is exemplified by this Bill which is good, and that is where you repeal certain sections of existing Statutes and substitute for them certain others which are set up on terms in the Bill. I will refer to Clause 8 of the Bill, which provides that certain Sub-sections of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, shall be repealed, and there shall be substituted for it certain words which are there set out. That is good legislation. When the revised edition of the Statutes comes out next, and I am glad it is promised shortly, we shall know that when we look at the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, we shall not find there present Sub-section (2) of Section 2, but we shall find there the words which are set out in this Clause, assuming that the Bill passes. Clause 24 provides another instance of the same excellent method of legislation, but there are points
  236
  in the Bill in which you do not treat the subject in the same manner. Clause 27, Sub-section (2) says:—
  "The provisions of Section 30 of the Children Act, 1908 (which enables the evidence of a child of tender years to be received, though not given on oath), shall apply to proceedings against persons for offences not mentioned in that Section in like manner as they apply in respect of proceedings against persons for offences mentioned in that Section."
  What is the legislature, or the magistrate, administering the law hereafter to do? He has got to look up the Act of 1908, to look up the Criminal Justice Administration Act of 1914, to put together these two Clauses, and to make the best he can of them. That is not the best way of treating this kind of legislation. If it is done in that way it involves doubt and difficulty ill interpretation hereafter, and it might be done now, and it ought to be done now, and if it is not done now it is only by reason of indolence on the part of the draftsman of the measure, or the Committee which is dealing with the subject. There is a similar instance of the same kind in Clause 29, where we deal with the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879, and we say it shall apply to proceedings in respect of non-payment of rates. It is not at all difficult to put that into the form of repealing something and enacting something else. I know, when all is said and done, that this will remain a piece of legislation by reference, which is to be deplored, but in a case where you are dealing with some fifteen or twenty different Acts of Parliament, perhaps it is inevitable, and I do not blame the Home Secretary for putting it ill that shape, but when we are dealing with these twenty-fire Acts of Parliament you ought to put your legislation in such a shape that you may insert in its proper place in each of these fifteen or twenty Acts the Amendments of the law which you make.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: The Home Secretary is to be congratulated on the reception the Bill has met with. The Debate has been a very interesting one, from the speech of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) to the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Radford). It has in no way been a party Debate, and I think it will go upstairs—to a Grand Committee, I presume—in the same spirit in which it has been discussed this afternoon. The general effect of the Bill is to render

  237
  the criminal law less harsh and uneven, and to bring it more in accord with modern ideas of humanity. I should like especially to say a few words on the important question of the Borstal system. I am one of the deputy-chairmen of the West Riding Quarter Sessions, and have had some little experience in sending men myself to that institution. Also I had a very interesting personal visit to it, and went very carefully into the whole system, and it was explained by the governor exactly what the inmates had to go through. My own impression after leaving that institution was that it was doing most valuable work for the State. It was bringing up these men to be free citizens and teaching them a trade, and the governor told me, "The great majority of them are not bad naturally. They have got here because of bad bringing up and bad surroundings, but at the bottom they are good men, and we are making them good citizens. I should like to tell you one thing. You must give us a chance with these men, and I strongly advise you, as a magistrate, not to send these men for less than three years. It does not give them a chance and it does not give us a chance." This Bill goes on these lines. It has raised the minimum to two years, instead of one, so that, as far as that goes, it is on the lines of the recommendation of the governor of the Borstal institution. I believe there are three Borstal institutions altogether in the country, and the main one is at Rochester. With regard to the age, from sixteen to twenty-one, I see, under the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1908, that under a provision at the end of Section I:—
  "This Section shall extend to persons apparently under such age, but not exceeding the age of twenty-three."
  7.0 P.M.
  I do not think that has ever been done, but I am not at all sure that it would not be a good thing to give power to extend the age above twenty. That is one thing that the governor hinted. He thought the ago might be extended in some cases. Under the old Act the method of getting these offenders sent to Borstal institutions is this; A person must be convicted on indictment of an offence for which he is liable to be sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment, the age is between sixteen, and twenty-one, and by reason of his criminal habits and associations it is expedient that he should be sent to one of these institutions. Under this Bill the
  238
  principle is extended to Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, and in the case of offences where the Court is empowered to sentence to one month's imprisonment or upwards without the option of a fine this Bill provides that, instead of the passing of sentence, the Court of Summary Jurisdiction shall commit an offender to prison until the next Quarter Sessions. I am not quite sure that I agree with that procedure. The next Quarter Sessions may presumably be three months later. A young man is to be sent to prison for three months and then dealt with by Quarter Sessions. I hardly see the reason for that procedure. One thing I should like to ask is, if the Assizes come before the Quarter Sessions, why not give a sentence to the Assizes, so that the offender would not be in prison for so long? If he does go to Quarter Sessions, the Court is to pass such a sentence of detention in a Borstal institution as is authorised by the Prevention of Crimes Act of 1908. Then the Bill goes on to say that if the defendant or prisoner consent, the Court of Summary Jurisdiction should have power to send him direct to a Borstal institution. I think that is very valuable. My own experience is this: As a rule, an offender when asked the question whether he would rather be dealt with now, or sent for trial to Quarter Sessions, almost always says, "I will be dealt with now." This is only if he consents. I think that is a question which ought to be considered by the Committee.
  Clause 5 provides that a fine should be inflicted, but no costs added to it. I think the general practice of the Courts—it is my own experience—is to fine a defendant so much, including costs. It is far the best way to do it. You know exactly what you are fining an offender. If you say, "We will fine you 10s., including costs," you know what you are doing. The clerk of the Court knows how much the costs come to, and there is no inconvenience about it at all. Therefore I think the Bill in regard to that matter is satisfactory. I think the principle of probation officers has been most successful. For the State to know that a past offender is being watched and cared for by a State official is, I think, a very great convenience, and that ought to be encouraged in every way. This Bill does it in the way of supplying more probation officers who are to be officials of societies. These probation officers will be officers of the Courts. As to the provision that you must not send a person to a prison for less than five days, I

  239
  do not know exactly what is the reason for that. I know one reason which may be suggested is that it might be convenient if a Police Court is at any distance from a prison, and that if you sentence an offender to four days' imprisonment one day counts in sending him there and another day in sending him back again, and therefore you send him a long distance and pay travelling expenses for two days' imprisonment. I think that is absurd, and I quite agree that in the case of offences where the period of imprisonment is only to be four days you ought to have some accommodation close at hand. The question of the provision of cells, or whatever you call them, is an important one, and I think the Home Secretary will have to consider that point, because, so far as I can see in this Bill, there is no provision made for finding money for that purpose either by the State or by the local authorities. Certainly I should say that in most places the cells provided to keep prisoners for four days are not sufficient. I wish again to express my own gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing in this Bill. It has not been recommended by any Depart-mental Committee, or any Committee of that kind. It is simply the result of experience generally found up and down the country as to what is required in the way of an alteration of the law, and so far as my hon. Friends on this side of the House are concerned we shall be prepared to offer the right hon. Gentleman every facility and help in getting the Bill passed.
  Mr. PRICE: Previous speakers have offered hearty congratulations to the Home Secretary for bringing forward this Bill. I do not know whether my colleagues are aware the Bill applies to Scotland, but it will be more welcome there than in England or Ireland. Unfortunately, there has been in recent years a considerable increase in convictions. I am comparing the Returns made up to 31st March, 1913. In Scotland the number of convictions per 1,000 of the population was 10.32, while in England and Wales it was 4.93, showing that there were double the number of convictions in Scotland as compared with England and Wales. These are to me startling figures, indeed, and I shall hope to show that in some cases this considerable difference is brought about by the recklessness with which magistrates convict. I think they too frequently send persons to prison for small offences. I have great difficulty in
  240
  sending a person to prison for a first offence. I think great leniency should be shown in the case of a person brought before the Court for the first time. Magistrates are not fully aware of the legislation passed in recent years to enable them to treat offenders more leniently. I will give a quotation later on with respect to this point from the report of the Scottish Commissioners. I think something should be done to educate the magistrates as to the powers they have. In many cases you may have with these unpaid magistrates an old clerk who has not read any of the Acts which have been passed, and they get into the way of saying in a formal way, "This man is convicted of a breach of the peace," and so he is sent to prison.
  I would like to give the House one or two instances of convictions which I think are deplorable. Here is a case of a lad eighteen years of age who was convicted of a breach of the peace, and where the sentence passed was a fine of £5 or thirty days' imprisonment. That young man had never been in prison before, he attended Sunday school, and he went to church regularly, but he got into trouble in a riot in connection with a football match. He had never tasted liquor, and had it not been for the circumstance that he lost his temper at a time when there was considerable disturbance, he probably would never have been in prison in his life. He was sentenced because on that occasion he lost his temper. That is a perfect scandal, and the magistrate who passed the sentence ought to be ashamed of himself. Compare that with another sentence. A man of thirty-two years of age, with twenty-six previous convictions for drunkenness and begging, was sentenced to thirty days' imprisonment. In that case there was really reason for detaining him, because he was described as mentally defective. He was described as the village idiot. To sentence a lad who got into trouble in connection with a football match to the same term of imprisonment as a criminal of that kind is monstrous. Here is another case in which a man twenty-four years of age was convicted of breach of the peace and fined 21s. or fourteen days' imprisonment. He had one previous conviction against him for loitering. This man was a total abstainer, married, and his wife was respectable, but on one occasion he got into trouble through a fight following an argument about football. He belongs to the Territorial Force, and if it had not been

  241
  for this one conviction of loitering he should not have been imprisoned. I say that he should have been admonished and not sentenced to imprisonment. I have gone over an enormous number of sentences in Scotland and compared them with sentences for similar offences in England, and I find that the difference in the number of convictions in Scotland is accounted for by the fact that magistrates have been sending persons to prison without due regard to the responsibility of what they were doing. This is borne out by the Report issued by the Prison Commissioners, in which I find these words:—
  "In the great majority of local Courts the old custom prevails of imposing certain more or less fixed tines for particular offences irrespective of the means of the prisoner. Time to pay, except in some places, is rarely given."
  This is a marked contrast with the practice in England, where the magistrates give greater time than in Scotland. The Report further says:—
  "Probation is scarcely made use of at all and then often not satisfactory because of the want of suitable probation officers. While legislation is doubtless needed to effect further reforms, there is much that could be done were the legislation which has already been passed taken advantage of to a fuller extent than at present."
  I should like to say that I am very glad indeed that it is specifically stated in this Bill that longer time should be given for the payment of fines. I wish to ask the Home Secretary whether he could not provide in this Bill for what we have in Scotland, namely, a Procurator-fiscal. That is of immense advantage in Scotland in the different localities. It means that in every district there is a law officer who shall himself undertake the prosecution for any offence if he considers there is a case. There are cases, for instance, where individuals will decline to prosecute, and for that reason in England there would be no prosecution in respect of that offence. But if there were a Procurator-fiscal he would be able to take up the case if it was thought desirable. There are many cases in which grave offences are committed, and in which the persons escape because the people concerned decline to take up the case, and this is an objectionable state of affairs. Another point is that there are cases in which sentences which are too light are imposed for very serious offences. There was a case in Glasgow, where a magistrate dealt with a man who had given venereal disease to his two daughters aged nine and eleven years. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, and that sentence was far too light. I do not see how you can revise a sentence,
  242
  but it does seem to me that where a sentence is altogether out of proportion to the offence there should be some court of revision. I do not know how it could be done, but the point is one to be considered. Another case that occurred to me is that of a convict who came out of the convict prison at Peterhead, and who on the first day committed an offence similar to that to which I have referred, for which he received only a light sentence. Provision should be made dealing with such cases, and I should be glad if the Home Secretary would take the matter into consideration. I would particularly press the point with regard to the Procurator-fiscal. Speaking as one who is familiar with Scottish practice, I may say that the Procurator-fiscal is of immense advantage to the people in Scotland. I do not think that there is anything in the Bill to meet cases of constantly recurring convictions. Last year in Edinburgh there was a case of a female against whom there were no fewer than 233 convictions. Another had had 258 convictions, and another had had 228. It is absurd to bring up those people and sentence them to seven or fourteen days' or two or three months' imprisonment.
  Mr. McKENNA: They were convicted for drunkenness?
  Mr. PRICE: Yes; it is absurd to bring these people up in this manner. Greater power should be taken to place them under some form of restraint. The suggestion has been made that, with the reduction in the number of persons in workhouses, there is a great deal of property which is not being used, and that a portion of this property should be utilised for such persons as these women who have been frequently convicted. The cost of the probation officers, I understand, is placed on the local authorities. I think that it should be borne by the State, because in many cases the local authorities appoint too few. Speaking generally, I am particularly grateful, so far as Scotland is concerned, that this Bill has been introduced.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member referred to certain sentences which he thought too severe, and others which he thought too light. I gather from his speech that these cases occurred in Scotland. I also gathered that the hon. Member objects to the unpaid magistracy. I am not quite sure what happens in Scotland, but I thought that in Scotland the magistrates were mostly paid.
  Mr. PRINGLE: No, you are wrong.
  Sir F. BANBURY: There seems to be some doubt about it; but to point out to the House cases in which it was stated that such and such things happened, and such and such punishment was inflicted, is no evidence to go upon, because, unless we heard in Court what actually had taken place, we could not form a judgment on any ex-parte statement as to what happened on a given occasion. The hon. Member also appeared to share the fear expressed by the hon. Member for Merthyr that the majority of people in this country were not sufficiently acquainted with the legislation of the party opposite during the last six; or seven years. The hon. Member suggested that, as tons of literature had been sent out to let the country know what was the actual effect of the Insurance Act, tons of literature might be sent out to let the country know what was the effect of the various Acts which had been passed in reference to children and other matters during the last four or five years. I would not object to that. On the contrary, I should be greatly pleased, because the result would be that there would be very many fewer Radicals in the country than there are at the present moment. I do not wish to criticise the Bill, because it has been very ably criticised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University, who has a great knowledge of these subjects. But I may say a few words upon certain portions of the Bill, of which I have personal experience. I am a magistrate in the country, and when the Government will allow me to be absent from this House I invariably attend all the sittings at my Court, and I must say that I have certain objections to the provisions which relate to fines. In the Court in which I sit we nearly always give the offender time to pay the fine, if he asks for it, when he is convicted and fined, and the occasions when we do not give time are so rare that they are impressed on my memory. Only a short time ago I remember that we refused time to a man who asked for it. He said he could not help it, and that he could not pay. We then said, "Fourteen days' hard labour." He then put his hand in his pocket and drew out a handful of money and paid the fine. Under this Bill, as I understand it, we shall not be able to say that.
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes; you can search him.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I had forgotten that provision, but I am afraid I do not agree with all the sentiments expressed on both sides of the House as to the great virtue of these people who are brought up and convicted of having committed a crime. They will very soon know that the power to search has been given, and they will be very careful, if they can manage it before their arrest, not to have very much money on them. They are very artful, and very often some of the old offenders know quite as much about the law as the magistrate. Though I think that the power of search is a proper one, I am not at all sure that it is going to be successful. I suppose, after all, that when a man is convicted of a crime—I am supposing that the magistrates have done right in convicting him—if he cannot or will not pay he ought to be punished, and I am very much afraid, if you cannot say to him, "Well, if you do not pay you will receive so many days' hard labour," that he will certainly not pay and that he will practically go free. I do not understand the explanation of the Home Secretary as to the difference between the sentences in the third division and with hard labour, I was always under the impression that hard labour was the severest form of punishment which you could give to a prisoner, and that two years' hard labour was such a severe penalty that it was rarely inflicted by any Court that had the power of imposing it.
  Mr. McKENNA: There is no difference after the first twenty-eight days.
  Sir F. BANBURY: But in the majority of cases which come before Petty Sessions Courts the punishment inflicted, if it is imprisonment, does not last more than twenty-eight days. Seven, fourteen, and twenty-eight days are the ordinary periods of punishment which are inflicted by these Courts. I think, therefore, that I am right in saying that there is a difference between hard labour and the third division, though whether it is solitary confinement or something else I am not quite sure. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should consider this point and allow punishment with hard labour to be inflicted in the event of a fine not being paid. There is nothing in the principle of the Bill to prevent such an alteration being made in Committee. On the question of confinement for five days, so far as we are concerned, we hardly ever give a prisoner five days. We may give one day—which means, practically, that

  245
  he goes free at once—or give seven days, if we give imprisonment at all. My hon. Friend on this side said that there are no proper cells in the rural districts where these prisoners could be confined, and it is quite clear that to incur the expense of sending a man to the county gaol on one day and keeping him there for two days, and paying his expenses back again on the fourth day, would be a very foolish proceeding; while, on the other hand, these cells, if built, would probably cost the county a great deal more, because they must be effective for their purpose. Therefore, I fail to see the point of the provision in reference to the five days. I am not sure that I agree with the proposal to expend further money on probation officers. The Bill authorises the Home Secretary to subscribe out of moneys provided by Parliament to certain societies who are doing certain work. In my own experience we have a probation officer. I am not sure who pays for him, but he is there. I really think that it is not right for us to spend so much money as we are doing at present. Every Bill which the present Government introduces always involves increased expenditure by the ratepayers, or out of moneys provided by Parliament. I really do not think we ought to give this money to private institutions, philanthropic or not, in order to attain these objects. The Home Secretary said that the result of it would be to establish a network of philanthropy over the country. That is all very well, but you have got to count the cost of this network of philanthropy, and my own belief is that to a considerable extent we shall be wasting our money. I hope the Home Secretary will take the advice which has been given with regard to the payment of fines by those Members of the House who sit as magistrates in Court of Petty Sessions, and who have some experience of what goes on. My hon. Friend the Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst) says that on the whole the unpaid magistrates do their work fairly well. I myself think that on the whole they do. Of course they all make errors, the same as everybody else, but on the whole they are desirous of carrying out their work in a proper manner, and as far as my experience goes where they err they err upon the side of leniency.
  In regard to the appointment of magistrates' clerks, the hon. Member for Wilton stated that there is very often nepotism in the making of those appointments.
  246
  I am afraid that very frequently a magistrate's clerk is appointed for a variety of reasons, not always unconnected with political claims. I have heard of cases where in the appointment of magistrate's clerk—I do not say whether Tory or Radical—political belief had considerable influence. Of course that is wrong; I should like to see that sort of thing stopped. But for the life of me I cannot see what the Home Office has got to do with it. Surely the right hon. Gentleman has enough to do without interfering in the appointment of magistrates' clerks. I agree with hon. Members who do not want to see the powers of Cabinet Ministers increased. I think their powers are large enough at the present moment. I do not know, however, that I should support the Motion of which notice was given by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) to bring in a measure to reduce the autocracy of the Cabinet. I am not sure that I should go quite so far as that. Still, I do not approve of a measure such as this which gives increased power to a Cabinet Minister. The Home Secretary did not tell us in his speech why he put in this Clause, giving himself this power. I hope in Committee, unless he can give us some more excellent reason for giving this power to himself, that he will consent to an Amendment which will leave the law in a state in which it is in at the present moment. I do not see any great harm in this Bill, and I think that that is a very great measure of praise of the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I do not know that I have ever been quite able to say that of any Bill which has been brought in by Members of the Front Bench opposite; therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that I am sincere in my endeavour to pour praise upon him, and I trust that when the Bill comes to be dealt with upstairs he will consider some of the suggestions which have been made for the improvement of the measure.
  Mr. O'SHEE(who was indistinctly heard): I want to say a few words upon this Bill in regard to its application to Ireland. Members in all parts of the House have spoken in terms of praise of this measure, and certainly it is distinct praise when the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) says he sees "no great harm in it." In other quarters of the House, the praise of the Bill has been of a more positive character than that of the hon. Baronet.

  247
  The greater part of Clause 5 of the Bill is not applicable to Ireland, but the first part of it is applicable, and I do not know the reason why that portion of the Clause does not apply to Ireland just as it applies to England and Scotland. The Clause says at the beginning:—
  "A Court of Summary Jurisdiction in fixing the amount of any fine to be imposed on an offender shall take into consideration, among other things, the means of the offender so far as they appear or are known to the Court."
  I think that very desirable principle should be applied in Ireland as well as in this country, and I hope that in Committee it may be possible to apply that part of Clause 5 to Ireland. I agree with the criticism of Sub-section (2) of Clause 27, which was made by the hon. and learned Member for East Islington (Mr. Radford) Sub-section (2) says:—
  "The provisions of Section 30 of the Children Act, 1908 (which enables the evidence of a child of tender years to be received though not given on oath), shall apply to proceedings against persons for offences not mentioned in that Section, in like manner as they apply in respect of proceedings against persons for offences mentioned in that Section."
  That is a very vague and general statement, as it really covers all other offences known to the criminal law of the country, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the force of the criticism of the hon. and learned Member. If there is to be an extension with regard to the evidence against prisoners it ought to be strictly defined in the provisions of the Bill itself. My principal reason for rising is to make reference to the Borstal institutions. I find that in Clauses 7, 8, and 9 there is power to recognise and subsidise societies for the care of youthful offenders on probation, and to provide towards their expenses incurred. Clause 7 says:—
  "If a society is formed having as its object or amongst its objects the care and control of persons under the age of twenty-one whilst on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, or of persons whilst placed out on licence from a reformatory or industrial school or Borstal institution, or under supervision after the determination of the period of their detention in such a school or institution, or under supervision in pursuance of this Act, the
  248
  society may apply to the Secretary of State for recognition, and the Secretary of State, if he approves of the constitution of the society, and is satisfied as to the means adopted by the society for securing such objects as aforesaid, may grant his recognition to the society."
  Then money may be provided to help that society to carry out its work. As regards the Clauses dealing with the Borstal institutions, I think there is a good deal to be said for the criticism of the hon. and learned Member above the Gangway on this side of the House, that it is rather a serious thing when a person is brought before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction under Clause 10 that he should be committed to prison until the next Quarter Sessions. That means that he would remain in prison three months, and in some instances four months, until the Quarter Sessions. This deals with juvenile offenders, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible to send the person to a Borstal institution for that period rather than to prison? As regards the Borstal system generally, in Ireland we have only one Borstal institution, and the number of inmates at present averages about eighty. I suggest that if more money is to be found, as this Bill proposes, for the reclamation of juvenile offenders, the first object to which it ought to be devoted in Ireland should be for the extension of the Borstal institution itself. I would just give one or two figures from the last Report. The number of juvenile offenders committed in the past two years was, for each of those years, sixty-six. The total accommodation is for eighty, or not more than eighty. The Report says:—
  "Of the total number of offenders received during the year in local prisons under sentences of imprisonment, 1.164 mules and 478 females were juvenile adults between sixteen and twenty-one years of age. The majority of these were dealt with by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, which have no power, under the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1908, of sentencing juvenile adults convicted of crime to the Borstal institution. Of these juvenile adults such hoys as were sentenced to four months' imprisonment or upwards were collected in Mountjoy, Belfast, and Cork prisons, and there subjected to modified Borstal treatment. Male juvenile adults, sentenced to less than four months, were segregated from adult prisoners in the prisons to which they were committed, and received physical drill, special instruction from the chaplains, and special care was extended to them on their discharge. The Board feel that these efforts to give exceptional treatment to juvenile adult" cannot bring about the beneficial results upon character or give the desirable industrial training which juvenile adults receive who are committed to the Borstal institution for an adequate period."
  The figures show that annually sixty-six persons were committed to the Borstal institution, and the others had to be

  249
  treated in the ordinary prisons under a modified system. An extension of the Borstal system is urgently necessary in Ireland since out of about 1,600 juvenile offenders only 66 were sent to the Borstal institution. The great difficulty with regard to the existing Borstal institution in Ireland is that at the present time there they have not, as they have in this country, a farm for the inmates. Eighty per cent., or probably 90 per cent., of the inmates are drawn from the agricultural population of the country, and there is nowhere to train them in agriculture, and they can only be trained in carpentry, shoemaking or tailoring. The Prisons Board of Ireland have reported very strongly in favour of the acquisition of a farm for the purpose of enabling the boys to be trained in agricultural work. The Borstal Association in Ireland, which has been formed for the purpose of dealing with these boys when they leave the Institution, at their last annual meeting, held in June, 1913, reported as follows:—
  "The number of applications from persons willing to employ inmates on discharge are so numerous that the association have no difficulty in finding situations for them, but there is this enormous disadvantage to the boys, that they are not trained and cannot be possibly trained in the institution for the only class of employment available for them, namely, the agricultural. The knowledge of carpentry, tailoring, etc., acquired by the boys while in detention can seldom be of real value to them when discharged, though probably of some advantage in a few instances. To make the Borstal system successful in Ireland to its fullest extent, sufficient land should be provided to teach the inmates farm work. But with only two and a half acres available, of which one acre is inside the walls of the institution, it is out of the question that proper training can be given to the boys in detention."
  The Report of the Borstal Association of England of 1912 says:—
  "The object of the Borstal institution is to accustom their inmates to self control and hard work, and the day's work is laid out to prepare them for a workman's day in the open. Farm hands learn milking, care of farm stock, hedging, ditching, thatching and ploughing."
  The Irish Committee state that they feel that the Irish Borstal institution should be placed on equal terms with those in England at least in the matter of farm work training, and trust that the Government will do all that may be necessary in that direction. The Irish Prisons Board, in quoting from this Report, state that they concur in those views. The Borstal institution has made vigorous efforts to get land acquired in order to train these boys, and it is desirable if money is to be found in connection with this Bill and in connection with juvenile offenders that the money should be found chiefly for the extension of the Borstal system. In Ireland you cannot have an extension of the
  250
  Borstal system on a proper foundation unless you enable the inmates of the Borstal institution to be trained to farm work so-that when they leave they may be able to find employment in what is the great avenue of employment in the greater part of Ireland. I regret that the Chief Secretary is not in his place, because I believe he takes an interest in this question. I trust that something may be done under the Bill to secure an extension of the Borstal system in Ireland. Since 1908 another change for the better has been made in dealing with habitual criminals. In Ireland, we have no professional criminal class. As a matter of fact, according to this Report of the Prisons Board, there were only twenty habitual criminals in the prisons of Ireland in 1912, which proves that in Ireland the professional criminal class really does not exist. The preventive-detention system established in 190S is necessary in Ireland, but land should be provided in order to enable it to be carried out. There is one prison, that of Maryborough, in which that system is being applied. There is very great necessity to find land to enable those habitual criminals to be trained to farm work during their period of imprisonment. I trust that this Bill will get a Second Reading unanimously, and that in Committee necessary amendments indicated by hon. Members will be made. I especially hope that amendments will be made to secure an extension of the Borstal system, the principle of which means the greatest advance that has been made for many years in this country with regard to the treatment of offenders.
  Mr. BARNES: I desire to join in the chorus of approval and of welcome for this Bill which has come from both sides of the House. I cannot say that I can join in the Debate in the category of an expert, such as an hon. Member behind me claimed, because I have had no such experience. I gather there is a note of humanity about the Bill, especially in regard to the young, and a recognition of the fact that you should deal with them in a moderate way and in a spirit of guidance, rather than to put them to prison and possibly demoralise them. I think it is worthy of commendation that there is to be an extension of the principle with regard to probationary officers. I think that the probationary system is, altogether good. I have seen it in operation in Glasgow, and have been highly struck with it. I have seen young persons

  251
  put under the care of probationary officers, and I have made inquiries into the way in which the system has worked, and I have heard nothing but good of it. I am glad, therefore, to find that its extension is proposed. The only objection made to it has come from the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London on the score of expense. He objected to this Bill, in common with many other Bills, for which ho said the Government had been responsible, because they increased the number of Government officials and therefore the cost to the taxpayer. I suggest he is only looking at one side, and the least important side, of this question. If a young person is sent to prison he is surrounded by prison officers, and has to be maintained and clothed, so that even from the point of view of expense there is a set-off provided by this Bill as against the additional cost, if there be any, in maintaining probationary officers. Therefore, I think there is nothing in the objection from that point of view.
  With regard to fines, so far as I can see and from all I have gathered in Glasgow and elsewhere, the principle proposed in this Bill is altogether a good one. I think there have been numerous cases in which men have been taken to the police station on Saturday night, and have been brought up in Court on Monday morning, charged with being drunk, and have had to go to prison for a week, whereas if they had the chance of paying the fine they would have been at work, at all events for part of the week. I am glad to learn that not only a week, but a little longer, is to be given so as to enable people to escape imprisonment, and possibly for the first time. I am not so sure about the provision as to the five days' imprisonment, and if the right hon. Gentleman had been present I should have liked to have heard more about it. The provision seems to me that they are either not to go to prison at all or are to be taken to the police cells. So far as I have had any chance of observation in regard to police cells, they appear to me to be the worst of all possible places to take a man, even for one day, let alone five days. I remember in Glasgow looking at some through the bars of the cells, and it occurred to me that if a man was not brutal, or a woman was not brutal, before being taken to that hole, the probability is that they would be brutal when they came out of it. I never saw a more un-suitable place in which to put any man or
  252
  woman. I gathered from an interjection of the right hon. Gentleman that the objection to the five days' detention is mainly a matter of expense, and that it is considered not worth while to send people to prison for that period of time. If that is the only reason for this provision, I hope it will be knocked out. At all events, I do think the police cell is the very worst place to put a man or woman. I would rather hear of them being sent to prison, because, after all, a prison is orderly and is clean, and the police cell is dirty, and, as a rule, there is no provision for anything in the nature of discipline.
  8.0 P.M.
  The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh talked about the cases of drunkenness and of the number of convictions against the same individual. Ho did not say those cases were cases of drunkenness, but I think we may assume they were. Unfortunately it is rather, I will not say a common thing, but there have been numerous cases of prisoners in Scotland being brought before the beak a great number of times on the charge of being drunk. I think, however, we may fairly and reasonably hope that the Act which was passed in this House last year may have some effect in lessening the number of those convictions, and I gather there is another Act now contemplated which may also do something to prevent those persons repeatedly coming before the beak. I agree with my hon. Friend in his suggestion that at all events it was a waste of time and money, and altogether an unsuitable way of dealing with cases of drunkenness in which the person had been 120 times before the Court. That is a matter for further legislation, and let us hope that that legislation will be enacted if that of last year is not sufficient. I do not agree with the hon. Member as to the extension of the Procurator-fiscal system, and as to the introduction of more of the lawyer element into these matters. So far as I have knowledge of the administration of the law in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, I do not think there is a great deal of fault to be found with it. The justices, if they do not know much law, have a good deal of common sense. If they err at all in the administration of the law it is on the side of mercy, on the side of the prisoner rather than against him; and I am inclined to think that if we adopted the suggestion of my hon. Friend and introduced into England the system of Procurators-fiscal that we have in Scotland and, speaking generally, more of the

  253
  lawyer element, it would work out, not in favour of the prisoner, but rather against him. My hon. Friend mentioned an instance in Edinburgh where a very light sentence was passed in a particularly atrocious case. But there, I suppose, a lawyer was the judge. A case of that sort would not be tried in a Summary Court, and not even in a Sheriffs Court; it would have to be taken to Edinburgh. There-fore that particular case has no bearing on this Bill, which provides only for short sentences and Summary Courts. On the whole I welcome the Bill, because it seems to me to be a step, even though a short one, in the direction of treating these forlorn creatures, as most of them are, in a spirit of humanity and kindness, and of recognising the fact that environment, after all, has a great deal to do with bringing them to a position in which they find themselves.
  Mr. PRATT: My hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh made a reference which I think was hardly seriously intended, but which passed a certain censure on the magistrates in Scotland. The magistrates of Scotland are an entirely unpaid body—I believe there is only one stipendiary police magistrate in the whole of Scotland—but I think that an examination of their conduct would lead to the conclusion that they carried out their duties with a great deal of humanity and common sense. On the question of law the magistrate is assisted by the legal assessor, whose advice and presence he has all the time. I am sorry my hon. Friend gave that impression to the House, because really valuable work is done by the police magistrates in Scotland, and it is done with a great deal of humanity. Another point to which my hon. Friend referred might well be emphasised. I am glad that even at this late stage of the discussion a Member of the Government (Mr. Gulland) is now seated on the Treasury Bench. We have not had that pleasant sight until the last few minutes. The early Clauses of this Bill deal with a matter of really grave concern to us in Scotland. For several years the percentage of persons who have gone to prison in consequence of failure to pay their fines has been more than twice as large in Scotland as in England. For the last year for which figures are available—to March, 1912—the figure for England was 17.12, while for Scotland it was 41.1. When we remember that last year 10,041 people went to prison in Scotland for the
  254
  first time, and that four out of every five of those went to prison because they did not pay their fines, I think the Clauses that deal with this question are a matter of very grave concern to the people of Scotland.
  Under the new proposal it will become general for fines to be paid by instalments. I do not know that that is done anywhere in Scotland at the present time; if it is done at all, it is very occasionally and in very few places. On that point I should hope that it might be possible in Committee to make it obligatory upon the magistrates to take into consideration the financial and domestic circumstances of the offender. I do not know how it has come about, but I am afraid it is true that the fines for drunkenness and for offences arising out of drunkenness are somewhat heavier in Scotland than in England. I do not know whether that arises from the fact that the magistrate in Scotland is always a member of the local authority who reap benefit from the fines received, or whether it is because the people on the North side of the Border are not quite so anxious to pay their fines as on this side. The fact remains that the fines are heavier in Scotland than in England, and it seems to me that the time has come when that position should be reviewed. When sitting on the bench you may have before you two men charged with the same offence, perhaps that of being drunk and disorderly, but the fine in one case is an infinitely greater punishment than in the other. To a man with a larger income and a smaller family it would be a much smaller punishment than in the case of a man where the conditions were reversed. With regard to children, I quite agree with the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare). Those of us who have had any opportunity of coming into close association with the Police Courts on either side of the Border must be disappointed at the very limited extent to which the law in regard to Children's Courts has been carried out. It seems to me that if that law is to be carried out in the spirit as well as in the letter, Children's Courts should not merely be hold at a different hour—an hour which very often immediately precedes or immediately follows the holding of the Adult Court—but they ought to be held at quite a different hour. That is the case with Mr. Chapman's Court in London, which is carried on on very humane and excellent lines. Not only that, but I think the spirit of the

  255
  Act demands that children should not be taken into the atmosphere of the Police Court at all. We ought to look forward to going as far as that in the near future. I would welcome proposals which would leave the question of dealing with all young offenders, children not more than fourteen years of age, in the hands, not of the police, but of the education authorities.
  Another point to which I wish to refer has reference to the probation officers. The Home Office, or the Scottish Office, whichever is responsible in this matter on the other side of the Border, might well pay more attention to the conditions under which the probation officers serve. I will put in a special plea for the women probation officers. I think it will be found, on inquiry, that very often they work longer hours, do far more work, and in some respects more excellent work, and yet the pay they receive is much less than the pay given to the male probation officers. I hope it will be possible to deal with this point in Committee. I will not refer to the Borstal system. I think a great deal may be said in its favour; but, after all, so far as young offenders are concerned, the real hope for them is not in sending them to any institution, however excellent, but in acquainting thorn in one way or another with some real home and family life. It is proposed to give monetary grants to carry on this probation work. There are cases where the parents might be assisted in some financial way to do that very work of probation, which very often they could do best of all. Where there is no home and where there are no parents it seems to me that, if the young offenders or young persons up to sixteen years of age could be boarded out in some home, it would be infinitely better than adding to the number of institutions. We shall only get to the root of this matter when it is possible for all young people to have the chance of a sound and healthy home life. In this Bill we are dealing with the question of youthful offenders and offenders generally. Is any Member blind to the fact that the housing question has a great deal to do with this particular matter? I hope that these suggestions will be borne in mind when the Bill is in Committee.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DEFECTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I beg to move, "That the Bill be recommitted in respect of Clause 1."
  I wish to call the attention of the House to the want of consideration with which its own Committee upstairs was treated in regard to this Bill. Everyone who took part in the discussions upstairs will agree that those discussions would have taken a very different course indeed if at the time we embarked upon them we had been furnished with a copy of the Regulations which were subsequently issued. Certain important Regulations were issued under the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913—Regulations which had a most important bearing upon the deliberations of the Committee. Those Regulations were not issued until 30th March. I submit that it would have been perfectly possible, without any difficulty at all, for the Government to have issued them five or six weeks earlier, so that the Committee might have been apprised of their purpose. Those Regulations were issued on 30th March. They came into force two days later, and, after thirty days—that is, at the end of the current month—they have the force of an Act of Parliament under Section 18 of the Mental Deficiency Act, and can only—
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. U. A. Pease): They are only provisional Regulations.
  Lord A. THYNNE: They are only provisional Regulations for the present month. At the end of the current month, as I am saying, under Section 18, they get the full force of law.
  It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

  TRAWL FISHERMEN (START BAY).
  Colonel BURN: I beg to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient, in the interests of the trawl fishermen of Brixham and Dartmouth, to appoint a Committee to inquire into the existing conditions governing the fishing industry in Start Bay, with a view to the

  257
  opening of a portion of the bay to the trawl fishermen while retaining existing rights in the other portion for the crab fishermen of Hall Sands and Bee Sands."
  I wish to thank the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) for withdrawing his Blocking Motion and giving me the opportunity of bringing forward my Motion. This is a question of Start Bay in South Devonshire. There are two other bays, Torbay and Teignmouth Bay. These three bays are under the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee. In 1893 that committee issued an order that these three bays were to be closed to trawlers on account of their bays being nurseries for young fish. The committee claimed that if trawling went on in the bays the immature fish would be caught in the nets, and the stock would be depleted. That was held to be a reason for closing the bays. That continued for some time, until the specialists and scientists went thoroughly into the matter and gave it as their opinion that the trawling did not spoil the fish, or, rather, that it did not kill the young fish; that really when the trawlers plied their trade in the bays the fishing was improved, because it prevented the bays from getting foul, food for the fishes was in greater abundance, and instead of the operations being detrimental to the fish supply it really improved it. The contention of the Brixham fishermen, whom I represent, is that trawling should be allowed in a portion of the bay; that there is suiffcient ground for both parties, not only for the Brixham fisherman, but for those who represent the crab industry of the two villages of Hall Sands and Bee Sands of Start Bay. The contention of Hall Sands and Bee Sands men is that if the trawlers ply their trade in Start Bay they suffer severe damage; they lose their crab-pots, and it spoils their means of livelihood.
  The bay is of considerable extent. There is ample room for the trawlers in the north portion of the bay to use their trawls and for the crabbers to have secured to them the ground round about the Skerries, which are rocks in the south of the bay, where the crabs are caught. The trawlers do not desire to go near that ground, because it is rocky and rough, and they would lose their trawls by doing so. What I am going to ask this House to do is to appoint a Committee to inquire into the conditions existing there in regard to the crabbers and the trawlers, to weigh all the evidence on both sides,
  258
  and to decide whether it is not advisable that my contention should be carried out—that a portion of the bay should be given over to the trawlers, while securing the other portion to those who fish for crabs. The contention of the Brixham men is that they are being deprived of a portion of their livelihood by not being able to put down their trawls in Start Bay. I do not say that they would occupy the bay on a great many occasions, but it is at their very door, so to speak, the door of the Dartmouth and Brixham men, and when the weather is bad, and they cannot get away to their proper trawling grounds, which are many miles distant, they could lay down their trawls there, and it would add very materially to their welfare, and the possibility of making a livelihood out of their trade. Recently the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee held an inquiry into this matter at the villages of Hall Sands and Bee Sands. The reason that was urged for keeping Start Bay closed was that the crabbers' business would be ruined, and their means of livelihood taken away if the trawlers were permitted to ply their trade in that bay. It was not contended at all that this was a nursery for fish, and that thereby the supply of fish was being depleted. What was claimed was to have the other portion of the bay in order that they might catch fish as bait for their crab-pots. If their trade is that of the catching of crabs I think it is rather hard that the entire bay should be reserved to them for this, and that the northern portion, which is very good fishing ground, should be kept for them simply that they may get bait for their crab-pots.
  The committee subsequently continued their inquiry at Brixham. It was suggested on behalf of the Brixham fishermen that as the original object of closing the bays was to protect the fish, and as that theory was now proved to be an exploded theory, the only reason apparently for keeping the bay closed was to protect the men who fish for crabs at Hall Sands and Bee Sands. It was also contended on behalf of the Brixham fishermen that the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee had really no power to keep the bay closed for such a reason. I may add that at the inquiry Mr. Prior, who represented the Chief Inspector of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, put questions to the witnesses which certainly showed that he was of the opinion that the committee were justified in keeping the by-law in force to prevent the crab-pots being damaged

  259
  by the trawlers. The whole of the evidence at that inquiry, and the whole of the discussion of the members of the committee, was directed to one point, namely, the protection of the crab-pots belonging to the men at Hall Sands and Bee Sands, while on behalf of the Brixham fishermen it was demonstrated to the committee—and it was not seriously contested—that from the scientific point of view the closing of the bay was not sound. That the destruction of immature fish was a failure and that no protection was given to the fishing industry by closing this bay, and at that inquiry opinions were read from experts and from gentlemen of the Marine Biological Association from 1896 to 1893—all eminent scientists who gave us their opinion definitely that the immature fish were not being hurt by the trawls being put down there. Then the other bays, Teignmouth Bay and for Bay had also been closed by an order of the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee, and these two bays were opened and the only one that remained closed was Start Bay, and I ask that this House should decree that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the conditions and to decide thereon whether the trawling shall take place or not. Subsequently a sub-committee was appointed by the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee to make inquiries and to draw up a report, which they did, and which was recently brought before a meeting of the full committee. I should just like to give the House the result of that sub-committee's inquiries and what they decided. The report that they brought before the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee was:—
  "(1) That the petitioners the crabbers have undoubtedly sustained serious loss through the destruction of their crab-pot and gear, which destruction has been alleged to have been caused by the illegal trawling carried on in Start Bay by the Brixham trawlers, but in the opinion of the committee such losses are not entirely due to such cause, as they considered the petitioners have also lost gear from passing steamboats and through bad weather conditions.
  (2) The closing of Start Bay is not necessary or required from a scientific point of view in the interest of the preservation or the breeding of immature fish. That on general grounds it is unwise in the interests of the whole public that valuable fishing grounds should be closed to trawlers; that a comparatively small portion of Start Bay is used by the crabbers of Hall Sands and Bee Sands except for the purpose of catching bait for their crab-pots, which is principally done by senis.
  (3) That Start Bay afford." very productive fishing grounds and that the opening of part of it to trawlers would be au immense boon to the smaller class of trawlers, enabling them to fish there when prevented by stress of weather from going further out to sea. That the committee consider the opening of a portion of the bay to trawling will tend to promote a better feeling between the two classes of fishermen as it would remove
  260
  a long-standing grievance by the trawling industry, and the Brixham fishermen would, it is believed, in that event loyally respect an area set aside for the sole use-of the crabbers, as in fact at the inquiry held at Brixham the fishermen definitely pledged themselves to do. That the area proposed can be easily patrolled and watched and the interests of the crabbers protected by the committee."
  That, I contend, is just and fair. The Report of that Sub-Committee puts the case in the best way, and what I ask this House to do is not to give any hasty decision about this question, but to appoint a Committee to weigh the pros and cons and to see what right and justice there is on both sides. I think if we consider the number of people employed in Brixham and in Hall Sands and Bee Sands Bay, this House-will come to the conclusion that there is justice on the side of the Brixham and Dartmouth men. In Start Bay and in the villages of Hall Sands and Bee Sands there are some sixty or seventy men who make their living by crab-fishing. They have twenty boats, and it is a fair value, and, indeed, a liberal calculation, to put the boats as being worth £30 apiece, making a total of £600. Now, at Brixham, which is really the home of the trawling industry, there are 210 fishing smacks, employing 800 hands, and I think there is a capital of not less than £128,000, which, with the insurable value of the steam apparatus on board amounting to another £20,000, makes a total of £148,000 invested in the industry at Brixham. If you consider the number of men employed—sixty or seventy—at Hall Sands and Bee Sands, and 800 at Brixham, and add the Dartmouth men, this House will agree that the Brixham and Dartmouth men have a fair and just case. I do not want in any sense to wipe out the crabbing industry. I wish them to have absolutely fair play and to have a ground where they can put down their crab-pots apportioned to them, and marked in a way by old anchors, or anything of that sort, so as to secure their ground from trawlers. If that limit is clearly defined, then it will be on the heads of the fishermen at Brixham and Dartmouth if they infringe the Order or move over the boundary. They will thon suffer the penalty of the law, and they will deserve it.
  I think everyone will admit that the fishermen have a very hard life. They are constantly exposed to all weathers, and on many occasions to great danger. I do not suppose that a month or a week passes where there are not deeds of gallantry performed by these brave men. Surely of all men the fisherman justly earns his living, and many of us think and feel that

  261
  he does not get his real reward even under present conditions. Trawling ground is not to be found everywhere. They have to go many, many miles on many occasions in order to get to the ground, and only recently some of the best trawling ground was for a time almost out of bounds on account of the sinking of the wreck, the "Empress of India"—the ship that was sunk as an experiment to see the result of certain gunfire on a battleship. She was sunk in the middle of the best trawling ground. I am very grateful to the Admiralty for putting up a gas-buoy in order to mark that spot, but it was not done before four or five trawlers were seriously damaged and had lost their gear through the wreck. That is a thing of the past, however, and now the buoy exists. Trawlers have a very hard time to earn their livelihood. They have so much to compete with in the way of bad weather, and in getting their fish back to market, and the chance so often of being becalmed and unable to bring their catch in, that I say it would be of the very greatest advantage to these men, in certain conditions of weather, to be able to put down their trawls in the northern part of Start Bay; and, while I do not desire to hurt the industry of the Hall Sands and Bee Sands men, at the same time the ground that they have to put their crab-pots down—the ground about Skerries—is proper ground for them, and although the loss of gear and damage to gear is invariably put down to the trawler, it must be remembered that in the summer time, when steamers ply between these Devonshire ports, very often indeed, in crossing the ground where the crab-pots are—because the crabbers very often put their crab pots down outside the Skerries and almost in the fairway—these steamers have certainly on more than one occasion cut up the crab-pots. I think, at any rate, this House will agree that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into this matter. All that the Brixham and Dartmouth men desire is that this question should be thoroughly gone into, that everything should be weighed and put into the balance, and then I feel certain this House will conclude that the Brixham and Dartmouth men ought to have a portion of the bay reserved to them, while the Southern portion should be resented for the crab fishermen of Hall Sands and Bee Sands.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: I rise to second the Motion.
  262
  No one can deny that the crabbers have rights in Start Bay, but we think that the remainder of the bay ought to be open not only to the trawlers of Brixham and Dartmouth, but also to the trawlers of Plymouth. In Plymouth we have a number of fishermen who are law-abiding citizens who have not been accused of illegal trawling, and who have not tasted the sweets of Start Bay for a great many years. Start Bay is noted as a great place for fish, more especially plaice and sole. This bay was closed in 1893, the reason being that it was then thought not only that it was a nursery for young fish, but it was supposed to be the place where the fish came into to spawn. That theory has, however, been exploded, because it is now known that the fish spawn in deep water. The Devon Sea Fisheries Committee passed by-laws which have been approved by the Board of Trade prohibiting trawling near the coast, but many complaints were made by the crabbers. In 1904 there was an inquiry, and in 1905 the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee opened the other bays but not Start Bay. The trawlers tried to get Start Bay opened, and they claimed that a certain portion should be allotted to the crabbers and the remainder to the trawlers. Two gentlemen from the Fisheries Board decided that it would not do to have Start Bay partially opened, because it would be more costly and more difficult to police it. It is not necessary to keep Start Bay closed merely for the fish preservation question, because the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee reported in February last as follows:—
  "We do not consider that the closing of Start Bay is required from a scientific point of view in the interests of the preservation of fish."
  Knowing that I hope the House will see fit to appoint a Committee to examine into the rights of the crabbers and the trawlers, and they will find it will be a great deal better for the crabbers that their position shall be protected, that the place should be better policed, and that the trawlers should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of Start Bay.
  Mr. MILDMAY: I beg to move to leave out the words "expedient, in the interests of the Trawl Fishermen of Brixham and Dartmouth, to appoint a Committee to inquire into the existing conditions governing the fishing industry in Start Bay, with a view to the opening of a portion of the bay to the Trawl Fishermen while retaining existing rights in the other portion for the crab fishermen of Hall Sands and Bee

  263
  Sands," and to insert instead thereof the word?, "inexpedient to interfere with the discretion of the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee, the Local Statutory body entrusted with responsibility in these matters, or with the ultimate authority of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, especially in view of the fact that the question of the validity of the excluding bylaw is sub judice at the present moment in the Court of Appeal."
  It is not unnatural that as Start Bay, the bone of contention, is situated in my Constituency, I should be very deeply interested in this matter. However, I cannot quite agree with the views put forward by the proposer and seconder, although I have no fault to find with the tone of their speeches. I am really surprised that the hon. Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn) should move this Resolution at this moment, when by his own action and the action of the Brixham fishermen whom he represents, the question of whether or not the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee have power to make this bylaw at all is sub judice in the Court of Appeal. Of course, if he is successful in the Court of Appeal he gets his own way, but it would seem that he has not much confidence in his case. It is really childish to suggest that the Sea Fisheries Committees all around our coast have for years past been passing bylaws which they are not legally entitled to do.
  What extraordinary procedure does he suggest? He asks that a Committee, and I presume he means a Committee of this House, should be appointed to over-ride the decisions of the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee with ail their local knowledge, and also to over-ride the view of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, which Board invariably, before confirming the by-law, holds an inquiry at every spot concerned and hears everything that is to be said against that by-law. This Committee is presumably to dictate to the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee and the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. I think the representative of the Government here this evening will have something to say on that point. I wish to say a few words upon the merits of this question. The villages on the shores of Start Bay are inhabited by very poor families, the men of which have the greatest difficulty in gaining a living, some as longshore fishermen, others by fishing, especially for crabs and lobsters, their crab-pots being
  264
  mainly set on the Skerries Bank, a spit of sand within the confines of the Start Bay. They are very poor men, they live at a great distance from the railroad, their means of communication with the market is very poor, and at the best of times they had great difficulty in earning a livelihood. Let me say here that Start Bay is a breeding ground for dabs, and a nursery for plaice, soles, and other sea fish; and I cannot understand on what authority the proposer and seconder have taken upon themselves to contend that trawling in this bay would do no harm to it as a nursery. I assert in the strongest possible way that the exact contrary is the fact.
  I will not detain the House at any length. It suffices to say that a great many of the fishermen for years past have had to complain of the destruction of their crab-pots by trawlers. To cut a long story short, the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee some years ago, with the double object of protecting a spawning ground and nursery for sea fish and of safeguarding the fishing ground of the longshore fishermen, passed By-law No. 7, excluding trawlers from Start Bay, which by-law was approved and confirmed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries after an inquiry on the spot at which all objections were heard. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Shirley Benn) said that Plymouth was law-abiding, and that they had not been caught in any illegal action in Start Bay. No, I do not think they go there to any extent. Plymouth is a long way off; it is the action of the Brixham men of which complaint has been made. Ever since that by-law excluding them from Start Bay has been in force it has been disregarded by certain trawlers to an ever-increasing extent, so that now it is no exaggeration to say that there is a real reign of terror in Start Bay. Emboldened by their immunity from punishment, they have ceaselessly harried the longshore fishing grounds, and they would seem of set purpose to trawl over this very ground where the crab-pots are set. The consequence has been, to quote a passage from the Harmsworth Committee Report, that from 900 to 1,000 crab-pots were destroyed in the season before last. Mr. Ford, the clerk of the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee, in prosecuting offenders recently, said that there was a loss of 1,000 crab-pots in one quarter of the previous season, so that the fishermen had no gear with which to go on fishing.
  An HON. MEMBER: Is that in Start Bay?
  Mr. MILDMAY: Yes, that is in Start Bay. When it is remembered that each crab-pot costs 6s. 6d. in raw material, it can be seen what distress this means. I went to the bay last Whitsuntide, and I find considerable difficulty in adequately picturing to the House the state of affairs I found there. Many of the families were absolutely destitute. The men work hard, but work as they may, they cannot get a living, if day after day their stock-in-trade is continuously destroyed. There are many cases of hardship I could give to the House, but I will only take two at random. Thomas Steer, seventy-five years of age, and fifty years a fisherman in Start Bay, had in the previous season when I was there, lost more than sixty crab-pots at a loss to himself of over £16; and having lost his all, and deeply indebted himself to local tradesmen for new gear, he had at the very beginning of the new season already lost ten of his new crab-pots through destruction by trawlers. This man was a hard worker. He did not know which way to turn, and he was in despair at having to look on day after day at the destruction of all he had in the world by trawlers, without having the power to interfere. He said with truth, for his story was confirmed by ministers o£ religion, both Church of England and Nonconformist, that in the previous winter he and his family knew for the first time what it was to lack bread. He gave evidence in Court, and he was cross-examined, and it came out that between 6th July and Christmas he had lost fifty-five crab-pots at a cost of £16 4s. in gear to himself, without counting the loss he had sustained through not being able to catch the fish.
  There was another case of a fisherman, who had been in the Navy, who was suffering from consumption, and who for many years had supported a mother between seventy and eighty years of age. He had lost the whole of his gear, and he was absolutely destitute. Every boat in these villages starts with something like 120 crab-pots. I found when I was there that there was one boat which had lost all but thirty crab-pots already, and expected to find those gone when they next went. I was appalled at the state of affairs there. The men were at their wits' end to know what to do. They were nearly all in debt to local tradesmen for new gear, and many families in the previous winter had known
  266
  what it was to want for the necessaries of life. While I was there it was stormy and they could not get out, and they had to watch the trawlers raking the Skerries Bank. A week afterwards, when the weather was better, they all went out and recovered part of their gear. They found it floating about cut to pieces and completely useless. On one occasion two dozen fishermen suffered a loss of £30. This sort of thing repeated again and again means starvation for these men. Let me say that I am no partisan in these matters. I have, as the hon. Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn) will admit, co-operated with him and worked hard for an improvement in the past in the interests of these Brixham trawlers, although they are outside my Constituency. I have done my best to help them to get better harbour accommodation and to provide themselves with auxiliary motor craft. I have for twenty-nine years past co-operated with other Members for Torquay when they have not been of the same political persuasion as myself.
  I am not a partisan, but I do want to see justice done in this matter, and it is with a full sense of my responsibility in saying it that I declare that this damage by trawlers has been wilful and deliberate. All the information which comes to me, and I have taken a great deal of trouble to sift it, shows me that the trawlers, knowing that something like 1,500 crab-pots are set upon the Skerries Bank, deliberately trawl over that ground with a view to raking up crab-pots, abstracting the contents, and cutting them adrift. How is it possible that the losses are due to easterly gales when the record damage was done at a time when there had been no gales from that quarter for many months? Moreover, the condition of the rope attached to the cork, when picked up, shows that it has not parted through stress of weather, but has been deliberately cut by a knife. Let me say here that, in consequence of the complaints which reached the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee after my visit to Start Ray, they appointed the sub-committee which has been referred to. I have some complaint to make of the constitution of that committee. Its constitution of necessity caused it to lean in a certain direction. I do not say that the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee intended that, because I have the greatest respect for the committee, with which I have long worked, but on the subcommittee was the most militant advocate

  267
  of the trawlers, a gentleman known to my hon. Friend, and a gentleman for whom I have the greatest respect and with whom I have frequently worked, and there was no representative of the Start Bay men. While I am not finding fault with this, I do say that it was rather hard on the Start Bay men. The sub-committee sat at Bee Sands and heard the longshore fishermen's complaint, and they sat at Brixham and heard the trawlers' complaint. Witness after witness at Brixham said that 80 per cent. of the crab-pots are set outside the limits of Start Bay. That is not so. A few may be set outside in a part called the "Baltic," which is so rocky that it cannot be trawled over; but nobody who knows the circumstances—and I have been studying them for years—can deny that the bulk of the crab-pots are set within Start Bay. Moreover, the Start Bay men know well enough that if they set their pots outside the Start Bay they do so at their own risk, and cannot complain of losses. How can it be pretended that pots have been destroyed by passing ships? The only steamers which enter the bay are pleasure steamers. These do not enter after 1st October, and it is after 1st October that the great bulk of the damage is done. It was at Brixham, out of the mouth of a trawler witness, that we had confirmation of the Start Bay men's contention that the damage by the trawlers has been wilful and deliberate. What said Thomas Bellett, a trawler witness? "Crabbers will tell you that they never lost so many crab-pots as since the bay has been closed. Start Bay men have lost a hundred for every one they lost before." Mr. Ford, the clerk of the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee, then said, "So they destroy them wilfully now?" Bellett replied, "They must do so. They have got to make a living, and if you put twenty bogey-men "—that is, police officers—"there, you won't keep them out." Up jumps Mr. Hutchins, the legal representative of the trawlers, to say, "I repudiate him entirely," but Bellett was his own witness, called by the trawlers themselves. He had quite given their case away, and had made it clear how fully justified are we in contending that the damage is wilful and deliberate.
  9.0 P.M.
  These trawlers coolly defy the law and treat it with contempt. We have it in evidence over and over again that they have habitually trawled without lights in
  268
  Start Bay, to the danger of all other shipping, and covered over their identification numbers with canvas. Does that not show that they know they are acting illegally and doing what they ought not to do? The by-law is a dead-letter. It is not the fault of the fisheries police officer, who has got no motor boat, and who can only hire a small type of tug boat from Dartmouth. The captain of that boat may refuse to go out if he does not like the climatic conditions, and it may take some time to get up steam. The trawlers know when he is going out. They have a system of prearranged signals, flares are lit, and, of course, the trawlers clear out of the Bay. It is difficult to catch these gentlemen in the act. Many of them carry on the deck an old trawl, and when they are caught, which does not often happen, and the police officer boards the trawler they slip the trawl with the corks upon it, and point to the old trawl upon the deck, saying, "How can you say we have been trawling? "They are willing to run the sporting risk of capture in view of the valuable return. On such days as trawlers are brought into Court by the fisheries officer the other trawlers have a good time; they know he will not be in the Bay, and they do incalculable damage. Here let me say how sorry I am that the President of the Board (Mr. Runciman) is not here, especially on account of the cause which keeps him away. He has always met me with the greatest sympathy, and he knows a great deal with regard to this question. I have always represented to him that as the Board confirmed this by-law they cannot say they have no responsibility for its enforcement. They ought not to acquiesce in its being set at bought and ignored in the way it is. After the Report of the Sub-committee of the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee which has been referred to, the Committee, which has fishermen and representatives of all kinds, came to the conclusion that the bay ought not to be further opened, and from that moment the Brixham people set to work to fight the decision of the Committee. They appealed, and they tried to make out that the Committee have no power to make by-laws. They made it quite clear in other ways that they intended to defy the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee. The "Western Daily Mercury," of Plymouth, has weekly fishing notes, and many of these are inspired from

  269
  Brixham, and this paragraph appeared in these notes:—
  "There would be a determined effort to evade the by-law, and the fishery officers will find their hands pretty full as a result, and it will be followed by the infliction of a lot of damage to crabbers gear. Smacks dodging about on moonlight nights without lights cannot see crab-pot fleeters nor probably, if they could, would they be particularly careful to avoid them."
  Now, I ask, is the House going to abet this lawlessness? What does my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn) suggest? He suggests, I think, that trawlers should be admitted to the bay, so far as a line between Bell Buoy and the shore, a line so near to the spot where the crab-pots are set that it would be 500 times easier in the future to slip over it, especially in the dark, and to inflict incalculable damage with impunity. There is no light on the Bell Buoy, and there would be no possibility of knowing where the line would be at night when most of the damage is done; so that if the trawlers have chastised the crabbers with whips in the past, they will chastise them with scorpions in the future. And this is to be the reward of the trawlers for all the damage, all the suffering, all the misery that has been caused by them in Start Bay in the past. All I say is that if the House facilitates such action it would complete the ruin of these men. Who are these men? They have a great claim upon the State and the regard of this House, because they furnish so many men to the Army and Navy. They send more men—these two villages of Hall Sands and Bee Sands—to the Navy and the Army than any villages of similar size in the United Kingdom. Many sons of these fishermen have attained high rank in the Navy as war-rant officers and even in commissioned rank.
  My hon. Friend compared the money which is invested in the two industries, and he argued that the capital involved in an industry representing £1,000 should not receive preference over one with £148,000. Without endorsing these very disputable figures, I would point out that the trawlers of Brixham have the wide seas in which to fish, whereas all the capital, all the stock-in-trade of Hall Sands and Bee Sands is deposited in the Bay. These men are the small holders of the sea, and at a time when we have done so much to protect small holders of land, surely it would be cruel to take this protection away from them and to leave defenceless the small holders of the sea. These men require protection a hundred times more than the trawling syndicates. The
  270
  real question is whether or not the trawlers are to be given facilities in future to trawl illegally over the Skerries Bank and thus completely to destroy the means of livelihood of these Start Bay crabbers? If only hon. Members could have heard, as I did, these men at a meeting on the shores of Start Bay, as the sun was sinking down, recounting in their own language the sufferings and losses in the past and their fears for the future, I am certain they would have been deeply moved to espouse their cause. They have nobody to look after them. There is no man with much money within miles. These men have faced their misfortunes with a reticence and self-restraint which has been quite admirable, and with a patience which has been all the more pathetic in that it would seem to have been the patience of despair. A fund was raised to tide them over the winter and help them with new gear, but they do not ask for charity. All that they want is that they should be allowed some glimmering of hope, some possibility of earning by their own hard work a living for themselves and those dependent upon them. I am really ashamed at having troubled the House at such length, but I hope I may be forgiven, for these Start Bay men move one's pity in an extraordinary degree, so wonderfully patient are they and yet so absolutely hopeless with regard to the future. The new season is just beginning. If they have to go through again what they went through last season, and if, indeed, this House is to consent to any course which would increase their difficulties, then they will be completely done for.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: I rise to second the Amendment. I am comforted by the opportunity, limited though it is, of discussing the interests of a body of men who have just as much claim as the industrial operatives of the country to the consideration of this House, but who, because they are unorganised, get very little satisfaction. I have some diffidence, not being a Devonshire Member, in intervening in this domestic controversy. I am desirous of making it perfectly clear that I have the fullest sympathy with the Devonshire men. I recollect that a few months ago I was upbraided by the hon. Member for the Totnes Division (Mr. Mild-may) in his local Press because, as he thought, doubtless under a misapprehension, I was endeavouring to stop his friends from getting money out of the

  271
  Treasury. Nothing was further from my thoughts. I was very glad that the President of the Board of Agriculture has considered the case of the Devonshire fishermen, and my only anxiety was that their Scottish brethren should have equal success. The Devonshire men have obtained in the matter of the installation of motor power in fishing vessels the sympathetic consideration of the Board of Agriculture, and they have got thousands of pounds from the Development Commission, while we have not got a single penny for similar purposes in Scotland.
  With special reference to the matter put down for consideration to-night, though some hon. Members may have been inclined to think that the very interesting Debate to which we have listened furnishes, perhaps, the best argument to which the House of Commons ever listened for the institution of an English local Parliament, yet the matter has a somewhat wider application. I desire to say this about trawling—it is the special reason for which I have risen—that, as the hon. Member for the Totnes Division said, I do not think the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn) who introduced this Motion had the slightest warrant for saying that trawling does not very seriously damage the spawning grounds and nurseries for young fish. We who have argued this rather technical question over and over again in this House on, perhaps, more suitable occasions, have maintained, and I believe have proved, that the practice of trawling is gradually depleting the inshore fishing grounds, that it is destroying the spawning beds and the nurseries, and that it is eating up what I would call our capital of national fish supplies.
  Colonel BURN: All the scientists admit that Start Bay is not the breeding ground of the fish and that trawling does not hurt it. The Devon Sea Fisheries Committee themselves admitted it, and they opened two other bays in consequence. They do not claim that these are breeding grounds or that immature fish are caught in the trawls.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: I must naturally bow to the local knowledge of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I have already stated my diffidence in intervening in a purely local Debate, which, I am afraid, cannot be allowed to remain a purely local Debate, because we, who represent Scottish
  272
  line fishermen in these matters, are extremely reluctant to let these opportunities pass and perhaps see these matters made into precedents. We think that this method of trawling is wasteful and destructive, and should be very closely watched, because we have established by long usage a three-mile limit inshore, and, what is more, the closing of bays which are not more than six miles in width. Beyond that there is a very considerable body of opinion which wants a larger limit of territorial waters, and also a wider definition of what is a bay. It appeared to me on reading the Resolution of the hon. and gallant Member that he was trying to extend the principle of the opening of bays, to which we are firmly opposed. I have had a little experience of this matter in conversation with Scottish fishermen, and the general opinion is that this case of limiting the operation of trawling is, as the hon. Member for the Totnes Division well put it, the case of the small men against the more fortunate capitalist organisations. We find that the trawlers are continually encroaching upon the existing limits of trawling. Many hon. Members of this House have introduced' Bills for exacting penalties from the trawlers, and, while we wish well to the fishermen of Devon, on behalf of the line fishermen of Scotland and the consuming population generally we have to say that we cannot agree to any extension of the area of trawling in Home waters, as we believe it would mean an increase in the depletion of the fishing beds at Home which, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman who introduced the Motion said, has driven the trawlers further and further abroad to fish in foreign waters, and that pending further international agreement we must maintain our attitude of confining trawling within existing limits, because it is a method of fishing which we believe to be wasteful and destructive.
  Mr. DAWES: I rise to support the Motion proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay. I can claim to know something about this matter, because since I was a very small boy I have been out both in the crabbers and trawlers and with most sorts of fishermen. I cannot see any justification for continuing to keep the whole of Start Bay closed against trawlers. We have heard a good deal about spawning beds, the spoiling of young fish, and so on. If that is any argument at all, it is this: That it is unfair, while in other places trawlers are allowed to come in and spoil

  273
  the fish, that in one particular part, and that part very near a very important centre of the trawling industry, they should be barred. If you are going to bar bays altogether, that is one thing. If you are going to bar one particular bay and spoil the fishing of a very deserving body of men, I say that is not fair. If you are going to do it at all it should be done in a systematic and wholesale way. The hon. Member (Mr. Mildmay) has drawn a very moving picture of the sufferings and so on of the fishermen of Hall Sands and Bee Sands. It is very well known indeed, and not only in Start Bay, but all over the coast, that by far the larger number of crab-pots are lost by bad weather. The hon. Member himself said that by far the greater number of crab-pots are lost during the time of year after 1st October, when the pleasure steamers have stopped running. I am quite aware that there are pleasure steamers running there, but surely the hon. Member knows that a very large number of steamers are continually going in and out of Dartmouth.
  Mr. MILDMAY: They do not go in over Skerries Bank.
  Mr. DAWES: That is exactly what they do. I have done it myself. They go inside Skerries Bank. There is a well known passage, and any ordinary steamboat can and would find its way there rather than go round. We also have heard a good deal about the experience of the Devon Sea Fisheries. I should be very glad if the hon. Member could tell us how many representatives of fishermen there are actually on the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee. I have heard the complaint over and over again that the fishermen are not properly represented there, for the reason that they meet at Newton Abbot, which is quite inaccessible to a large number of fishermen. From that point of view it is quite impossible.
  Mr. MILDMAY: It applies to both sides.
  Mr. DAWES: Quite so. The hon. Member said that the fishermen were amply represented on the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee.
  Mr. MILDMAY: No.
  Mr. DAWES: At any rate he said that the fishermen were represented, and I say they are not sufficiently represented. He also made a great point of the capitalists
  274
  of Brixham against the very poor crabbers of Hall Sands and Bee Sands. The hon. Member (Mr. Harcourt) was probably quite correct when talking about capitalists, because I believe in Scotland, and certainly on the East Coast, the trawlers are very largely owned by companies, but, unless I am very greatly mistaken and unless things have altered very much, the Brixham trawlers are very largely owned by the men themselves, and they are no more capitalists than the crabbers of Hall Sands and Bee Sands. Really it is not a case in the least of capital against labour, or anything of that sort, but it is all one class of men who are earning their livelihood in different ways. I know that district pretty well, and I know that there is a considerable demand for the opening of part of this bay to the trawlers, and I should like to support what the hon. Member (Mr. Shirley Benn) said about Plymouth men having a right to go to Start Bay. I do not know whether the House understands that the Brixham trawlers have now to go perhaps 30, 40, or 50 miles before they can get to-a trawling ground, and in Plymouth, where things have been extremely bad for many years past in the fisheries, it would be a very great boon indeed if Start Bay could at any rate in part be opened. I know something about it, and I cannot see why a portion should not be reserved for the crabbers. No one wants to interfere With the crabbers, and no one wants to destroy their livelihood. Losing pots, I am afraid, is part of the incident of putting down pots at all.
  We have also heard from the hon. Member (Mr. Mildmay) how, when the bogey-man was at Plymouth prosecuting someone or other, these trawlers descended like wolves on the fold and filled Start Bay. But, of course, that is absolutely impossible. The Hall Sands men are not blind. The trawlers do not only carry their numbers on their bows; they have them on their sails, and they have their names under their counters, and if there was wholesale poaching in the bay they would be caught. I do not know what kind of slow tug the hon. Member refers to, but the tug which used to be used by this policeman has lately been sold to Constantinople, so perhaps the police gentleman will be able to get a fast tug from Dartmouth or elsewhere. One would imagine that there was an extensive use of signals, lanterns, flares and bonfires whenever this man goes out, but really I can

  275
  not conceive that I should have lived for some time at Dartmouth and not heard of these flares and bonfires. I have never heard a word of them, and I do not believe they exist. On the whole, I hope the House will allow the Motion to go through. An inquiry can do no harm. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Burn) has asked for nothing more than an inquiry, and I cannot help thinking that in common justice, both to the trawlers and to the crab men, this inquiry should be held.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): We have had a very interesting Debate from the protagonists on both sides, and we all listened with pleasure to the hon. Member's (Mr. Mild-may) eloquent defence of those whose interests he represents. I share with him to the full the regret that he expressed at the absence of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Runciman). The hon. Member who brought forward this question has asked the House to condemn a by-law to which he referred, and to set up a Committee, and he has asked the House to recommend very specifically indeed to that Committee what its decision should be. I have seen a great many terms of reference in the course of my life, but I have never seen terms of reference quite so specific and precise as those which the hon. Gentleman suggested that the House should pass this evening. The administrative machinery which has already been set up by this House exists for the purpose of deciding questions like that which has been brought forward by the hon. Member. Under the Sea Fisheries Act of 1888 sea fishery districts were constituted all over the country and committees were appointed to administer to those districts. One such committee was appointed for the coast of Devon on the side of the English Channel and on the side of the Bristol Channel. It was a very large and representative committee, consisting of forty-two members, appointed by the County Council of Devonshire, by Plymouth, by Devonport, and by other places, and a number of members were also added, and were very carefully selected indeed, to represent the various interests by the Board of Agriculture.
  Mr. DAWES: How many representatives of fishermen serve on the committee?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I cannot say the exact number on the committee itself.
  276
  They are representatives of the county of Devon as a whole, and of both coasts, and a committee appointed in that way must be regarded as one which would not deal in a local and partial way in a matter of this kind, but in a judicial way and on broad principles. That is the committee set up in pursuance of action taken by this House with which this House is asked to interfere, and I am going to ask the House not to set up a Select Committee of its own for the purpose of dealing with this purely local question, but to allow the local machinery to work as it was intended to work by this House. That committee has full power, if it thinks fit, to pass a new by-law repealing the by-law which already exists. They may pass a by-law proposing the opening of the whole or of a part of Start Bay to trawlers, and if such a by-law should be made in the future, and it is not by any means impossible that a new by-law may be proposed in the future—I understand that the Fisheries Committee were fairly evenly divided on the question on the last occasion when it came before them—then it will be for the Board of Agriculture to confirm, with or without modification, such modification as may be assented to by the local fisheries committee, or to withhold their confirmation as in their judgment the facts of the case may require. I ought to explain that there is absolutely no power for the Board to initiate in this matter. The initiative must come from the local committee. I am wholly unable, even if I wished to do so, to enter into the merits of the question brought before us this evening. I am unable to do so because it is the function of the Board of Agriculture to act, at any rate, in a semi-judicial spirit. They have to consider in a judicial spirit the facts of the case when presented to them, or the form of a proposal of a new by-law. That being the case, it would be quite impossible for me to enter into the relative merits of the trawlers' case on the one hand, or the crabbers' case on the other. It is the function of the Board of Agriculture to hold the scale evenly and impartially between them, and to make such local inquiries as may be necessary. It is my concern to ask the House not to interfere with the machinery set up, and I would appeal very strongly indeed to the House not to set up a Select Committee to decide this purely local question. Generally the trawling question has been referred to. May I remind my hon. Friend who raised

  277
  it that a Departmental Committee under the presidency of the present Postmaster-General has been appointed for the purpose of considering that question in all its aspects.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: Can my hon. Friend find it convenient to tell the House how many Committees have been set up?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: My point is that a Committee is actually considering the question at the present moment, and, that being so, it would really seem absurd for the House of Commons to set up another Select Committee for the purpose of considering a very small portion indeed of the general question that is under consideration. There is another matter to which I am free to refer, and that is the fact, as stated by the hon. Member for the Totnes Division, that this question is now sub judice. It is now engaging the attention of the Courts, and under these circumstances, I think it would be quite improper to pass a Motion of this character. May I also say that a Departmental Committee—I hope I shall carry my hon. Friend with me on this particular point—has been appointed to consider the question of inshore fisheries, and to advise the Board of Agriculture as to the steps that can be taken with advantage for their preservation and development. That is not the Hobhouse Committee. The Report of that Committee is, I understand, on the verge of being published at the present time, and that I think is another reason why the House of Commons should not proceed to the appointment of a special Select Committee for the consideration of this local question which has been raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He has had the opportunity of bringing before the House the grievances of those whom he represents. The hon. Member for the Totnes Division has spoken in reply, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution, having done that, will not put the House to the trouble of a Division on this question. The time is not propitious at the present moment for the appointment of another Select Committee to deal with this matter.
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
  Colonel BURN: I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): An Amendment is now before the House which was moved by the hon. Member for the Totnes Division. The hon. Member cannot withdraw the Motion unless the Amendment be first withdrawn.
  Mr. MILDMAY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Colonel BURN: I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS: LENGTH OF SPEECHES.
  Mr. LEACH: I beg to move, "That in future no Member shall, except by leave, speak in this House for more than twenty minutes, or for more than fifteen minutes in Committee of the Whole House, Ministers, ex-Ministers, and Movers of Bills and Resolutions excepted."
  I desire, in the first place, to express my gratitude to the hon. Members who have withdrawn the Motion and the Amendment in regard to trawl fishermen at Start Bay, for by their action I have the opportunity of saying a few words in support of my Resolution. In moving it I will not occupy the time of the House for more than a few moments, for, whatever my shortcomings since I have been a Member of this House, the making of long speeches has not been my failing. The length at which some Members speak in this House, to say the least, is not a little trying to those hon. Members who have to listen to speeches and to grasp as well as we can the business that comes on in the House. On the very day on which I had the fortune of the ballot for this Motion two Members of the House occupied no less than three hours in making the speeches they delivered. I notice too—though this may not be true of the two hon. Members to whom I have referred—that the less a Member has to say, and the less it is worth saying and hearing, the longer time he takes to say it. My remarks apply to both sides of the House. Perhaps on this side we have the best example that could be set to a body like that which sits here in the case of our Prime Minister. While some of us would gladly listen to him at greater length, and oftener, than we have the privilege of doing, he himself never speaks at very great length. He does not hesitate or

  279
  stammer, or repeat his sentences over and over again. He goes straight on to the finish, and, though he rarely speaks long, he says much when he does speak. Most of us, most ordinary men at any rate, can say what they desire to say, if it is well prepared and thought out, in twenty minutes. After that it is mostly padding.
  Not only are many Members guilty of speaking at very great length, which tries the patience of some of us who have been speaking for forty years, but some Members of this House speak very frequently. It seems to me that some Members think that nothing can pass through this House except they have a share in passing it by their voice. No matter what the subject is, or how often the subject is changed during the day, they seem ready and anxious to speak on it, and to be able to talk at equal length on all things in the heavens above, on the earth beneath, and in the waters under the earth, and when they have sat down sometimes one wonders what they have been saying and what it all meant. It would be out of order, I suppose, to mention hon. Members by name. If I were in a lecture room, instead of being in the House of Commons, this evening, I would endeavour to instruct my hearers by giving them examples of several styles of speaking that I have noticed during my stay in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"] It would be quite out of order to attempt that, and so I will keep to the object to which I rose. My Resolution allows twenty minutes to a speaker in the House and fifteen minutes in Committee of the Whole House. It also provides for exceptions—Ministers and ex-Ministers and Movers and Seconders of Resolutions. While I am not willing to make these exceptions, I have made them for the purpose of trying to make my Resolution more acceptable to the House.
  There are Members on both sides of the House, and even on the Front Benches, who certainly have not received their present honours and distinctions because of their oratory and eloquence, and I am very unwilling in my Resolution to allow them to exceed the limit of twenty minutes. Still I make these exceptions because I fear that the House might be opposed to passing my Resolution without them, and if carried the Resolution would allow the Speaker and the Deputy-Speaker to permit Members to exceed the limits of twenty minutes and fifteen minutes—to
  280
  what extent would depend on the discretion of the Speaker or the Chairman. This Resolution makes it possible for those who desire to do so, by leave of the Chair, to exceed the limits which I have laid down, and if I were the Speaker I should be very chary of allowing the talkative Members to exceed these limits. But if an hon. Member or a right hon. Gentleman felt it impossible to do justice to the exuberance of his own verbosity in one-third of an hour, he could ask leave from the long-suffering Speaker, or the Deputy-Speaker, to exceed that limit. I do not wish to speak long lest I should be held up as an example against my own Resolution, but I may remind hon. Members that since I became a Member of this House in January, 1910, I have not spoken more than fifteen minutes at any one time in this House, and very seldom have I taken up the time of the House. I content myself now with simply moving the Resolution.
  Sir J. D. REES: I beg to second the Motion.
  I am glad, indeed, that I have not spoken to-day, so that the hon. Member who paid me the compliment of asking me to second his Motion, cannot be pointing to me as one of the two speakers who have already transgressed to-day. As I have not transgressed up to now, I will be careful not to trangress during the remainder of the day. I have no doubt that I was asked to second this Motion because I was the Mover of the last Motion to the same effect. Though I am very glad, because I agree in spirit with the hon. Gentleman, to second the Motion, I do think that it requires some Amendment, which I believe it is likely to receive before this Debate closes. In the first place, it does not say by whom leave to exceed the limit is to be given I do not know whether it means the leave of the Chair or of the House. My Motion was that the leave of the House could be obtained, and that would certainly relieve the Chair of a very invidious duty, which I gather would be thrown upon it, though that is a matter of inference by this Motion. Nor do I knew whether this Motion if passed will amount to a Sessional Order and would take effect at once. It does no run in the same terms as the Order to which I have referred, so as to become; Standing Order if passed by this House I do not know what would be the effect o the acceptance of this Motion.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The effect would be that the Chair would be very glad to take the opportunity of putting the Resolution into force.
  Sir J. D. REES: Any change of this kind is desirable, because the object in view is that as many constituencies as possible should speak through their Members. For instance, there must have been many occasions during the Home Rule Debate— I speak without feeling here, because I did not attempt to speak—when hon. Members were extremely desirous to speak, and got no chance whatever of giving expression to the views of their constituents. That seems to be obviously a wrong thing to happen on any very great occasion when every constituency probably wonders why its own Member has not said anything, or thinks that he has not tried, or attended regularly, whereas, the fact is probably that a very large mass of Members have cried to speak but have not had an opportunity of catching the Speaker's eye. I confess that since the time when the hon. Member for the City of London lescribed me as a young Member, low about eight years ago, my views have somewhat altered, because there s really a merit in verbosity and prolixity to this extent, that it does hinder he accumulation of legislation which is the of the evils from which the country uffers. In taking steps to promote legisation it is very doubtful often whether he House will really be conferring a benefit. I submit in all seriousness that bat is a consideration which is worthy if the attention of the House, because; is not that subjects come up on account if any pressing need in the country, but is because there is a programme made, and once that programme is made there a feeling of responsibility on the part E hon. Members on that side of the house which is in power for the me being to carry out that programme even in regard to that most important easure, the National Insurance Bill, we the Minister in charge of it actually it through the House, and afterards confessing that if the judgment of the country had been taken at the time the ct would never have become law. I think;at proves very clearly, more clearly than anything I could say, and also perhaps ore acceptably to hon. Gentlemen opponte, who are more numerous here to-night;an we are—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—I believe, however, that evidence to be weighed, and I do not suggest
  282
  that right rests on the side of the more numerous to-night—I do suggest that the circumstances to which I have just referred is a proof that at the present moment it is doubtful whether any greater facilities should be given for carrying through an avalanche of legislation. Bill after Bill, law after law, until we reach that stage described by the old Roman historian, where "the more numerous the laws the more corrupt the republic." That is a state of things which is not unlikely to occur.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: Is it in order, Sir, that an hon. Member seconding the Resolution should devote the whole of his speech to adducing arguments against the Motion?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is somewhat unusual, but I regret I had not the good fortune to hear all that the hon. Member has said, or I would be in a better position to judge.
  Sir J. D. REES: I am sure that if Mr. Speaker had heard me ho would have acquitted me of any such enormity. There is a feeling in all quarters of the House, if possible, that speeches should be reduced in length, and, in point of fact, it is a feeling apparent not only within the House but outside. I should like to refer to the case of the last resolution upon this subject which I introduced. The then Home Secretary, now Lord Gladstone, said he hoped that I would be content with a committee to consider this subject. I said I would be content, for I had no choice in the matter. The fact is, however, as soon as I approached Ministers and asked for a Committee, they with one accord made excuses, and they did not seem to me very anxious to set; up the Committee which they offered on that occasion. I do not know whether the offer is going to be renewed to-night, but I will confess that, having got that promise on the previous occasion, I was perhaps not as insistent upon having it carried out as I ought to have been as the Mover of the Motion. I do not know whether the offer of the Committee is likely to be the solution to-night, but it would be an act of tardy justice if the Government do offer a Committee, and really proceed to set it up to consider the question, instead of merely offering it and not setting it up, as they did on the last occasion. The hon. Member's Motion allows twenty minutes as the duration of a speech; my Motion allowed thirty minutes, though his Motion is probably better than mine. But I do not quite understand what

  283
  is going to happen if the privilege which it is proposed to give to Members of the late Administration and to Members of the present Administration is to be accorded to them. Suppose a junior Member of the late Administration claims the privilege of a longer speech, would that be cheerfully accorded by the House of Commons? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, certainly not!"] I confess I think that it is extremely doubtful. No doubt great virtue attaches to the affectation, at any rate, of complete equality between all Members of this Assembly.
  The hon. Member's Motion, unless it says clearly that the leave is to be the leave of the House or the leave of the Chair, will be open to some objection. For instance, if it was the leave of the House, a Member might be rather unfairly treated if he had lately taken some action which made him unpopular in sonic quarter of the House. Supposing he was so unfortunate as to incur the resentment of the Irish Members, it would be extremely difficult for him to get a hearing unless the leave required Was the leave of the Chair. Similarly, if any Member incurred the displeasure of Labour Members he would find some difficulty in obtaining a quiet hearing during the fifteen minutes he was entitled to speak. I think the hon. Member's Motion should be made more clear in that respect, and I understand the hon. Baronet opposite is about to introduce an Amendment which may have that effect. Another point I wish to refer to is that under existing circumstances it is exceedingly difficult for private Members to get a word in upon occasions when I think it is extremely desirable that they should be heard. For instance, take the case the other night when there was a very important Motion, on which we had eloquent and statesmanlike speeches by my hon. Friends the Member for South Somerset and the Member for Hull. That was a very important occasion, but when those two hon. Members and Members of the Front Benches had spoken at length, there was really no further time for private Members to speak. Unfortunately, it happens that important subjects connected with foreign affairs mostly come up for discussion on the Motions of private Members, and there are very few other opportunities. There are occasions when I feel that I have a claim to speak, as I feel very acutely the unjust impression which may be given of
  284
  the feelings of this country in regard to Belgium and the Congo or the affairs of Turkey, which have recently come before the House of Commons. On those occasions a very great advantage would arise from shortening of speeches, and private Members would have an opportunity of expressing other views. Another occasion to which I might refer was the discussion of the conduct of Lord Milner. On that occasion only Members on the Front Benches spoke, with the one single exception of an hon. Member who sat where-the hon. Member for Wolverhampton is now sitting, and who soon afterwards became Solicitor - General, Attorney-General, and then Lord Chief Justice of England. In his case, therefore, the exception was not very great in regard to the case I put, that private Members have not an opportunity of speaking on those occasions under existing circumstances. Then there was another case, that of the Colonial Secretary's Vote, which was quite recently under consideration, and, out of the whole of the time, one hour out of three was taken by one Member— [HON. MEMBERS: "Time!"]—I will not delay the proceedings any longer, save to simply second my hon. Friend's Motion.
  Sir HARRY VERNEY: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to insert instead thereof the words, "any hon. Member wishing to make a short speech may signify to the Chair the length of time during which he wishes to speak, and if he exceeds that time the Chair shall thereupon call his attention to the fact."
  After a very short experience of this House I cannot help thinking that it is: matter of importance that private Members should try and do something to curtail the length of speeches. The hon Baronet the Member for the City of Lon don (Sir F. Banbury), who has just com in, would, of course, be able to speak for the remainder of the time on this Motion I must say in this matter, I sympathis with him in some degree, because clearl a speech of twenty minutes in the dinne hour would be all too short, and it would mean that three Members would have? go without dinner, go that instead of being as at present the hon. Baronet or the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees it would mean both hon. Members. I d not know what the hon. Member for New castle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) would do, or what the late Prime Minister for

  285
  one of the provinces of Canada (Mr. Martin) would do unless he was able to extend his speech over a longer time. Therefore, with a real desire that something should be done, I move the Amendment. It is extremely mild and very harmless, and will not apply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh or to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City, or anyone who does not wish it to apply. It will have this advantage, that if there is a Member who wishes in our long Second Reading Debates to make a short speech before the Leader of the Opposition gets up to reply, he can then guarantee to Mr. Speaker that he would speak for ten minutes, and Mr. Speaker would call him on that understanding and call his attention to the fact when that ten minutes had expired. I hope that this modification of my hon. Friend's Motion will be allowed even by the hon. Baronet to pass before eleven o'clock. It is purely an optional matter and to see whether we can do anything to curtail the length of the speeches to which we have now to listen.
  I cannot help thinking that there is possibly one objection to this, in that it is clearly necessary for those in opposition to learn to be able to make long speeches. We cannot all make long speeches, and we have to learn. Hon. Members opposite are quite certain that after the next General Election, which will certainly take place by August, 1915, they will be on this side, and that all necessity for making long speeches will therefore be at an end for them. We are equally certain that we shall be on this side, and therefore all necessity for us to learn to make long speeches will be unnecessary. I think, therefore, if there is no Opposition, as we frankly expect, after the next General Election, then none of us will have to make long speeches, and perhaps something may be done to curtail them. I believe it is out of order to refer to the presence of strangers in the Gallery, but I venture to say that strangers in the Gallery would rather hear six hon. Members speak for ten minutes each than one hon. Member for an hour. I believe the same remark would apply to the sergeant-at-arms, and to the clerks, and to you, Mr. Speaker. It is most distressing to hear the one voice continuing throughout the dinner-hour. I think this extremely mild Amendment will do something to curtail the length of speeches, and by that means those of us who love making speeches, and who never seem to be able to get in, would be
  286
  allowed rather more often to deliver our souls to an expectant and crowded House.
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  10.0 P.M.
  I doubt whether the subject of to-night's Debate would have arisen if it had been humanly possible for you. Sir, strictly to apply Standing Order No. 19. I find that that Order was passed on the 27th of November, 1882, and on the 28th of February, 1888. That is a Standing Order referring to irrelevance or repetition. It does not require a very long Session in this House or a long experience of Debate in this House for Members to realise that in nine eases out of ten the length of speeches depends not upon the amount of matter with which any given speaker has to deal, but upon his desire that debate should be prolonged. We-are all quite well aware that many speeches at all-night sittings consist of prolonged and persistent violation of Standing Order No. 19. That may appear to be a reflection upon the powers of the Chairman of Committee, but I venture to suggest in that respect that the difficulty of applying the Order rests in this, that after a very short period so many delinquents would have come under the censure of the Chair that there would be very few persons in this House who would dare-to rise. That might be a very laudable result to aim at, but it is in the so far distant future that we are driven to adopt other means for shortening speeches in this House, though I have no doubt Mr. Speaker and Mr. Chairman of Committees will bear in mind that this Debate deals as much with Standing Order No. 19 as. with the actual Motion before the House, and, believing that they will do so, I need not press that particular point any further. As I am seconding an Amendment which has as its object the curtailment of speeches, I shall add but one word more. The curtailment of speeches is like the passage of legislation in this House—it is no hardship to those who already know how to behave themselves. It will only operate as a hardship upon those who-constantly misuse and abuse the freedom of debate in this House, and who know the rules well enough in order to avoid them. I am sure that on both sides of the House the vast majority of Members will be only too willing to see the sentiments expressed, particularly in the Amendment, carried into the general and daily practice of the House of Commons.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I feel that this wholesome and virtuous cause has suffered a good deal in the past from the transgressions of its advocates. Most of those who have spoken in favour of such a Resolution as is before the House have been either habitual offenders or reformed rakes. My hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees), who seconded this Motion, brought forward the question in the year 1908. Although I was not in the House then, I have read the Debate, and I think that he made perhaps the longest speech in all the unfortunate years of that unfortunate Parliament that was made on any subject. And so it has always been. There is no question as to the extent of the disease, but the question is as to the efficacy of the remedies proposed. I do not know that we gain much through plunging the Debate into history, but there can be no doubt that the speeches are not of the exceptional or average length they used to be. We have never heard anything like Lord Palmer-ston's five hours' speech on Dom Pacifico and Civis Romanus Sum. We have not had even a speech as long as that of Lord John Russell, on the Second Reading of the Reform Act, when he spoke for three hours, not getting up until two o'clock in the morning. Those things belong to the past and therefore are very far away, but to that extent there has been a great improvement, if it be an improvement, in the direction of shortening speeches. Neither the average nor the exceptional speech is as long as it used to be. I do not know that very much is to be learnt from the example and practice of foreign Legislature,;. The whole of their procedure and rules is so different from ours that there is not much comparison. For example, I believe that in America, in Congress, speeches are limited to an hour. That would not be any very great safeguard here. Over and above that, many members hand in their speeches for entry in the Congressional Record without their having been delivered in the House; they are taken as read. That might be a good principle to introduce into this House, but it is so foreign to the whole of its precedents and historical procedure that I doubt whether it would be accepted, or whether the conditions hero are in the least likely to render it acceptable.
  Therefore, we have to judge for ourselves, looking at the past and present conditions of our Legislature. I am afraid there is no doubt that a rule of
  288
  procedure of this sort must be compulsory or it will be of no avail. In the London County Council, of which I was a member of ten years, the rule was compulsory, and it was enforced. Although, I believe, in only one case has leave ever been refused to a member to continue his speech beyond the fifteen minutes' limit allowed by the Standing Order there, still the spirit of the rule is always observed, and members frame their speeches with a view to the fifteen minutes' limit. If Members here would think a little more about what they are going to say—I do not say this as a superior person—if there was a little more condensation, there would be less need for a Resolution of this sort. But let us ask if it is likely to be effective. For two years I was Chairman of a Committee which considered this subject, and I was asked to approach the authorities of the House in order to establish the exact rule which the hon. Baronet opposite wishes to put in force by his Amendment. The authorities of the House received the proposition with high favour. It was proposed that every Member wishing to speak should enter his name on a card together with the length to which he would confine his remarks. One of the first of my hon. Friends—I will not mention his name—who proposed to speak for ten minutes, spoke for fifty-five minutes. He was called partly upon the strength of his professions, and that was his performance. Against that there is no guard. Therefore I do not believe that a voluntary rule of this sort would be of any effect. It might bind those who are either too conscientious or not conscientious enough—I mean those who were thinking more of the rule or more of the subject on which they wished to address the House. Hon. Members are not often carried away by their own eloquence, but they are often carried away by the strength of their case, and they are not satisfied until they have had a full opportunity of stating its merits, and the House or public which listens to them is likely to be convinced.
  Therefore I submit that you either have to have compulsion absolute and universal, or it is no use to pass a Resolution which I suppose you, Mr. Speaker, would treat as being the formal opinion of the House, and therefore having almost the validity of a Sessional Order. I think that the suggestion originally made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham is a good

  289
  one. I cannot see why a Select Committee—not a voluntary Committee—should not once more consider this subject. It has the light of many Debates to go by, because this subject has been introduced into almost every Parliament in one form or another. It was annually brought up by Sir Came Rasche during the many years he was a Member of this House. Therefore, considering that the conditions have somewhat changed, and that it is now a greater hardship than ever that so small a number of Members have an opportunity of addressing the House on the many important subjects that come up—and, after all, the projects of legislation were never so large or so deep-rooted as they are now—I think the question well merits reconsideration. It might be well worth the while of the hon. Member who speaks for the Government to consent to the appointment of a Select Committee, the terms of reference to which could be settled between the First Lord of the Treasury and the authorities of the House. Such a course is far more practicable, and likely to be of far more value than the acceptance of any such well-meant but meaningless Resolution as that which has been proposed, or the Amendment which has been suggested. I strongly urge the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the question.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGE: I do not think that the discussion of this subject in this Parliament is likely to take us very far. I believe personally that it is a conspiracy on the part of the hon. Member for North Bucks (Sir H. Verney) to stifle all discussion; because I very well recollect on one occasion on which you yourself, Sir, were appealed to as to the length of speeches, you replied—and I think we all agreed—that your desire was to hear as little debate as possible. The hon. Member for North Bucks proposes that we should come to you and state the length of time we are going to speak. Assuming that that rule held good, and you desired to hear as little as possible of any of us, obviously you would choose those Members who did not want to speak at all, and all discussion would be stifled. As a matter of fact, many other things militate against speeches being short, and it seems to me that, instead of this subject being discussed on the floor of the House of Commons, it ought to be discussed within the confines of the Procedure Committee. For instance, I myself have over and over
  290
  again noticed Members being called to speak who themselves have not heard the previous two or three hours of the Debate. They have had their speeches with them in the Library; I have seen them preparing them there, and I have followed them into the House and heard the speeches delivered. Very frequently they have no great relevance to the speeches which have preceded them, and the Members would probably be called to order for irrelevance but for the fact that physical necessity requires that you yourself must occasionally leave the Chair and somebody else take your place for a time. The hon. Member who happens to catch the eye of the Deputy-Speaker when you have left the Chair has an ample chance to be fairly irrelevant. Those of us who listen to those speeches agree that that is so.
  A notice of Motion has been handed in dealing with the growing autocracy of the Cabinet, which has a great bearing on this subject. After all, the Cabinet determine what is to be considered in this House. Any great question considered here is discussed first of all by four Gentlemen, one representing the Government, one the Opposition, one the Irish party, and one the Labour party. Every one of those four Gentlemen speaks, on an average, for an hour. We have from four o'clock until eleven to discuss these questions, and when we have listened to those four Gentlemen for an hour apiece, we need a long rest. The dinner hour intervenes. We all come back about 9.15, and after that the time allowed for speakers to rise on either side of the Table allows no room for any private Member, and what really happens is a series of long speeches. For curiosity I was looking up the Debates on the Irish Home Rule Bill, and I find that the same hon. Members of this House have delivered the same speeches for the last two years on that particular topic. The composition has varied, and so have the illustrations, but the speeches have been practically the same. Despite that fact, we discussed the Bill again this year for four days. We had to have a week-end rest between the Thursday and the Monday before we came to a decision, because the speeches on the first three days had been so stodgy. You see how that affects those of us who are not interested in Governments, or Oppositions, or parties in this House I mean when a question arises such as the question discussed tonight previous to this Motion, a question when Mr. Deputy-Speaker was in the

  291
  Chair, concerning the people of England. It was something about the comparative values of soles and plaice in Start Bay, and crab-pots on the Skerries, and if a Scottish Member desires to know what an English Home Rule Parliament would be like, and the questions that would be discussed in it, he had only to come in and listen to those very interesting and entertaining speeches. I came in. There were only five other English Members present. No English Member, who is supremely interested, for instance, in Irish Home Rule, had the courage to come in and to listen to the English fish! That is the view of one who sits and watches what takes place in these Debates.
  There are a great many other questions like that. I remember that over a week ago we discussed one of these questions for a whole day. I think it had something to do with some recent happenings in the Army or the Navy. Nobody else wanted to talk about anything else until the close of the Debate, and I then wanted to discuss the Scottish crofters who were in Calton Gaol. I got up and attempted to make a speech, and nobody would listen to me. Nobody wanted to. Hon. Members cried, "Divide, divide!" and they had no idea what I wanted to say. They would not even let me make a short speech, The worst of it was that I was closured for attempting to make no speech. Obviously, therefore, this Resolution would not make any material difference to the length of speeches. I would rather, Mr. Speaker, that we should be asked to submit to you the arguments that we are about to use, and that you should call upon us according to the strength and value of our argument. After all, on the Second or Third Reading of the Irish Home Rule Bill, for instance, there were only so many arguments that could be used, and if the first man whom you called upon used so many of the arguments the next man would have great difficulty in finding more arguments than those that were left. Joking on one side, this subject would be very much better discussed in the Procedure Committee. The nature of the speeches delivered in this House depends upon other circumstances than those that have been raised in this Debate. They depend upon certain forms of the House, some modern and some ancient, which have rendered it necessary for some of us never to speak, and others to speak all the time.
  Mr. GEORGE THORNE: As one of the Members of this House who does not often inflict a speech upon it, and who therefore has the larger opportunity of studying the observations of his colleagues, I have on many occasions realised their very great capacity for loquacity. I should like to make one reference which I do not think has been made in this discussion, and that is that though the question may be looked at from the standpoint of the individual Member of this House, it ought to be looked at still more from the standpoint of the constituencies. This is a representative Assembly, not an aggregation of individual men, and the constituencies are interested in what takes place here. I know, as I expect every other Member knows by experience, they desire that there shall be larger opportunities for the constituencies as a whole to make their voices felt in this House. That being the case, it seems to me we want practically to face this question as to how that very desirable end may be achieved. I agree with my hon. Friend that this possibly is hardly the method that will achieve it, though it might tend in that direction. The Procedure Committee may be able far better to understand what is necessary, though I for one would like in regard to this matter to hear the views of Mr. Speaker himself more than any Member of this House. He has inflicted upon him all the speeches made here, and he knows more than we know the necessity for greater distribution of speeches as representing the constituencies. I sincerely hope his views will be heard, and potently heard, before the Procedure Committee, so that we may have some practical proposal in this direction.
  May I venture by a fact to indicate what I recognise as the difficulty of the constituencies not being fairly heard in this House? All of us who have had an opportunity of approaching you, Mr. Speaker, know your intense desire to have every aspect of thought in the House represented in our Debates, and, if there is any difficulty at all, it never is due to yon, but to the Members themselves. But in order to show how far constituencies are not represented in our great Debates, I took the opportunity of analysing the last Home Rule Debate, which occupied four days. I venture to put forward these facts, and only refer to them from the standpoint of the sincere desire that the constituencies in this country should be

  293
  better represented in this House. The result I discovered of that four days' Debate was this; Forty-five Members spoke altogether; of these twenty-one were Unionists, sixteen were Liberals, three were Labour Members, and five were Irish Members. Of Liberals there were five Front Bench Members, there was one ex-Minister, one Parliamentary Secretary, five Scottish Members, and four unofficial English Liberal Members. Of the four unofficial English Members, one voted against the Bill, being one of the two dissentient English Members. Therefore, so far as I can make out on an analysis of that important Debate, the net result was of the unofficial Liberal Members only four English Members took part in the Debate. What I feel about the matter is this: It is not a matter of very great importance, to my mind, what individual Member should speak in this House, but what is important is that the constituencies should have their voices heard here. From the standpoint of the representation of the constituencies in the House of Commons, it is vitally necessary, if representative institutions are to maintain their hold upon the country, that this House shall not be continually used as a sounding board for a few men to make great reputations, but that the constituencies shall themselves be heard and make their influence felt. We want to deal with the matter in some practical way. I do not believe that the Motion is quite practical, and I am inclined to think that the Amendment is even better than the Resolution, but I have grave doubts whether either of them is the right method. I therefore contend that we should submit the whole matter to the Procedure Committee, in order that we may have the whole question decided in such a way that this House may be made thoroughly representative of the nation in its speeches. When we get more Members speaking the constituencies and the country will be more interested, and Members themselves will be more interested. We know by experience that an bon. Member may attend here for four days and four nights and wait in vain for an opportunity to speak during "the whole of that time, and yet he realises that any Member of the Front Bench can just seize the psychological moment to speak without any waiting. Other "hon. Members may have to wait and wait, and when they do come on to speak they find that all they wanted to say has been said already. When there is not a proper
  294
  moment to speak it robs the Debate of interest, and our constituencies do not take the same interest in what takes place. Therefore, from the practical standpoint, and not merely in the interests of individual Members, but in the interests of the constituencies as a whole, and in order that the constituencies may have a better chance of making their voices felt, I support the Amendment so far as it goes. I hope the Procedure Committee will be able to do something in the direction of securing by speech a greater representation of the constituencies in this representative House.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): I expect there are very few hon. Members who do not sympathise with the object of this Resolution. Certainly I sympathise with it myself. One of the best rhetorical displays I ever heard was an occasion when the names of twenty-eight persons appeared on a toast list to propose or respond, and they were limited in time to one minute each. The result was a most successful display of rhetoric and humour. There are times during Second Reading Debates when hon. Members think it their duty to cover the whole ground each in turn, when really what is wanted is short, vigorous speeches, and a long repetition of the same arguments is the last thing the House wants. There is another time to which allusion has not been made when long speeches are very much to be regretted, and that is on the few private Members' days that still remain, especially on Fridays when private Members' Bills are brought in, when that rare opportunity is often spoiled by long speeches, sometimes made even in support of a Bill. Of course, on those occasions the longest speeches are perhaps more often deliberate. For my own part I would not lay very much stress upon the value of this Motion for the purpose of accelerating Government business. I have my doubts whether long speeches are ever a real instrument of obstruction except perhaps on Friday when the promoters of Bills have no power of getting more time for them. I do not think that the shortening of speeches can be hoped for as a great advantage by the Government or need be feared as a great restriction by the Opposition. To my mind the shortening of speeches would be an improvement in our important Debates. I am perfectly certain that in the majority

  295
  of cases a discursive and diffused speech is a sign of little thought beforehand, and if hon. Members were forced by the knowledge that they were expected to make shorter speeches to think "what are my best arguments, and how can I put them shortly," I am bound to say that I think the speeches would be improved by that necessity.
  I am not quite certain whether the difficulty under which we labour is not largely a matter of tradition. In old times speeches were always long, because there were very few speakers. They dealt with the whole subject, and they were expected to deal with it. The ordinary private Member two or three generations ago was a much more silent person than at present. He had fewer opportunities, because of the custom of the House. The custom of the House was that only practised and recognised protagonists should speak in the big debates. Nowadays there is so much speaking power and fluency in the House that the speaking is done by hundreds where it used to be done by scores. What has happened is this: While the protagonists in this generation have not very much shortened their speeches—it is true that they take an hour where in the old days they took an hour and a half or two hours, but they still constantly take an hour—the private Members are now, in spite of all that has been said, coming into their own more and more, and they imitate the long speeches of the leaders and speak for half an hour or three-quarters. I do not know whether any such stimulus as this proposal will supply will be efficacious. Perhaps the more potent influence on our generation will be the example of the brevity of the Prime Minister, because there there is proof that even Members of the Front Bench can say a lot of effective things in twenty minutes or half an hour.
  I want to say with regard to the Motion before the House that the Government, of course, is quite sympathetic to it, but I doubt if the House should be prepared to accept it in its present form and at the present time. The Resolution as it stands is not merely a pious opinion, and is not merely a Resolution of the House which would have no effect, but it would become a Sessional Order, and it would be rather a strong thing, I think, at the end of a day like this, when this Motion was not expected, for the House to pass a Sessional Order of this importance. There are, moreover,
  296
  certain minor objections to it which are none the less serious. I will only point out two. It is perfectly clear to the House that if shorter speeches are to become the rule there must be some method of extending the opportunity to a speaker whom a large number of Members want to hear. Supposing this Motion was passed as it stands, you might have the spokesman of a party whom the majority of the House wanted to hear, refused by his opponents, a minority of the House, indignant perhaps at something he might have said a few moments before. As I read this Motion, "except by leave" would mean except by leave of the House. I have asked advice, and I am told that as it stands it would probably mean by leave of the House, and the leave of the House could presumably be refused by one person. Even on the interpretation of the hon. Member, it seems to put a rather invidious duty upon the Speaker of saying whether he should allow a Member to continue or not.
  Another minor objection which I think is rather serious, is that there is a limitation to fifteen minutes in Committee of the Whole House. What does that mean? Does it mean fifteen minutes for each speech in Committee, or does it mean fifteen minutes for all the speeches which a Member chooses to make in Committee? Is it going to bar the immemorial and rather convenient tradition of Members being able to speak over and over again in Committee, if necessary? That is a detail which it is absolutely necessary to decide. It would certainly be extremely difficult for the Chairman of Committee to count up—supposing a Minister were replying twice upon a point—whether that Minister, or any other Member, who wanted to speak twice, had spoken five minutes on one occasion and ten minutes on another. I think the propositions in the Motion are too difficult for the House to adopt on this occasion. I suggest that my hon. Friend should be content with the discussion that has taken place, and that he should withdraw the Motion to-night. There is a Committee sitting at the present moment, the Procedure Committee, presided over by the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker), and I understand it has actually considered this question, which is well worth the reference to the Committee. I have asked, and I understand that they have actually been taking evidence and

  297
  have considered the question actively. Therefore I do not think there is any reason for the House to suppose that the matter is going to be neglected, and I think it would be far better that it should be treated by a Committee of that kind and dealt with in connection with other expedients for making our Debates more valuable in the future. I think the Amendment of my Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir H. Verney) is harmless. I would suggest that the whole question should be left to the Committee, although with regard to the Amendment I do not think the House can do any harm in passing it, and I do not think it would be of any great value.
  Mr. LYNCH: As a partisan of short speeches I hope to keep my remarks within sixty seconds. To do so I must apply a parable or figure. A cricket match took place at the Antipodes. Barlow, the stone-waller, had been batting for a couple of hours, and after a run the wicketkeeper knocked down the wicket and appealed to the umpire, who said, "Run out!" Barlow in walking away, passed the umpire and protested: "Why, I was two yards behind the wicket!" The umpire replied, "That is all right, but we have had enough of you. We want to see the other fellows." It is a great advantage to have a resourceful umpire. Perhaps it would be too invidious to ask the occupant of the Chair to assume that function, but the House in a corporate capacity might do so.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I think the discussion has proved that there is a universal or almost universal desire in all parts of the House that speeches should be generally shortened; but I confess to sharing the view expressed by the Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Trevelyan) and the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) as to the wisdom of the expedient put forward either in the Motion or the Amendment. I think the main proposal of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Leach) goes needlessly far. It lays down an arbitrary and artificial rule, which could only be applied with a good deal of disadvantage to our discussions. After all, there are many Members to whom an allowance of fifteen or twenty minutes would be far too long, and it would encourage a speaker in whose case fifteen or twenty minutes would be out of proportion to the value of what he would contribute to the Debate to take up the extreme limit of the time provided for him. For that reason I think an
  298
  arbitrary time limit would not be to the advantage of our discussions. On the other hand, there are many speeches, even from Members who cannot lay claim to the dignity of Ministers or ex-Ministers, which could well be extended beyond the limit mentioned in the Resolution. The Amendment, it is true, is free from the objections to the original Motion, but, at the same time, it appears to be innocuous, and because it is innocuous it would be largely ineffective and would merely be the expression of a pious opinion. We must remember that at the present moment a Committee is sitting which is considering the question of the procedure of the House. In these circumstances it would be well that that Committee should take evidence from Members of the House of long experience on this very question and that one of its most important functions should be to make a special report upon the question of the length of speeches, and whether any practical expedient could be devised which would improve our discussions. I do not know whether at this stage it would be possible to propose an Amendment in the sense in which I have been arguing. If the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Verney) would withdraw his Amendment it would be possible to propose an Amendment asking for a special report from the Procedure Committee on this question.
  Sir H. VERNEY: I would suggest to my hon. Friend that we should pass my Amendment, which is innocuous, and then he could move his own. Then he would get both.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I do not understand the anxiety of my hon. Friend to have an innocuous Motion placed on the Records of the House. The substantial point is that we should get a special Report from the Procedure Committee on this question, and the important thing that can be gained from this Debate would be gained. Nothing at all can be achieved by passing the hon. Baronet's innocuous and futile Amendment. As, however, he is wedded to his Amendment, I am therefore to assume that there is no possibility of attaining the object I have suggested. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education entered into a very interesting disquisition, not only as to the chances which have come over our Debates, but as to the causes of the present situation which we deplore. I must confess to sharing the view of my hon. Friend the

  299
  Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. J. Hogge), that our Debates are considerably deteriorating because of the fact that Members, instead of making debating contributions, practically deliver long essays which have absolutely no relation either to what goes before or comes after. If there was real debating and Members dealt with the subjects under discussion, and if they contented themselves with putting a single point, they would contribute to the Debate without repeating arguments which had been gone over ad nauseam by others, and there would be no need for a Standing Order at all. Another reason for the tendency to long speeches is the facilities which Members of the House have of getting verbatim reports of their speeches in all the local papers in their constituencies, and undoubtedly that has a great deal to do with the prolixity of speeches and the loquacity of Members. If there were not these facilities I think speeches would not only be shortened, but would be a great deal more to the point and would have more relevance to the subject under discussion. I am sorry the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Verney) does not see his way to withdraw the ineffective and innocuous Amendment which he has moved, and to make way for a more effective and more practical proposition, namely, that we should ask for a special Report on the question from the Committee on Procedure.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It has fallen to my lot twice this day to congratulate the Government, first of all, on having brought in a more or less harmless Bill, and, secondly, on having made a more or less harmless speech in answer to what I think would be a very harmful Motion. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) pointed out that it would be very difficult for the Chairmen of Committees to decide whether or not a Member had spoken for fifteen minutes. That shows the disadvantage of a private Member bringing in a short Motion of this sort at a time when it was not expected to be considered, and when the House is empty—a Motion which is going to upset the rules which have existed in this House certainly for the last 400 years. Of course, the hon. Member finds himself met with very many serious difficulties, and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) pointed out that the Chairmen of Committees would have to add up in the Committee stage the number of times each Member has spoken,
  300
  and then supposing a Member had spoken four or five times, even if he has only spoken four minutes each time, he might find himself stopped upon an important Amendment, on which it was very necessary in the interests of his constituents, or in the interests of the country, that he should have an opportunity of expressing his opinion.-I do not suppose that that is the intention of the hon. Gentleman, but that is the actual effect of his Motion. Then the hon. Gentleman pointed out that the question whether or not a Member should speak for more than twenty minutes would be decided by the House, though in an aside he said it would be you, Sir, who would have to decide. That is not the Motion. That shows again—I do not wish to say anything offensive—the absurdity of a private Member with no very great experience of the House attempting to alter these old forms of procedure in this way. I venture to say it is putting on you, Sir, a very invidious task to say whether or not a certain Member should discontinue his speech. I have been twenty-two years a Member of this House, and I think everyone will admit that I have been a fairly regular attender. Whether I have benefited by that or not I do not know, but still I have learnt a great many of the weaknesses, also the great faculties and great good sense which a great many hon. Members have. I know that a great many hon. Members are very angry if they are not called upon to speak. Consider what the feelings of hon. Members would be if, after they had prepared a speech in the Library, which is going to be reported at full length in all the local papers, and which they think is going to send a thrill through their constituency, the whole thread of their argument is cut off, and that particular Member is not allowed to speak any longer. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire who, if I may say so, is distinguished for the length of his speeches—and for their good sense. He would probably be allowed to go on for half an hour. I can imagine a Member speaking for twenty minutes, and sitting here fuming because the hon. Member for Wiltshire was allowed to go on for thirty minutes, and was not stopped. I really think it would be absurd that such a state of things should continue any length of time. That is one of the difficulties which I think would happen if this Motion was carried. There is another

  301
  thing which the hon. Gentleman pointed out—this is not an ordinary Wednesday evening Motion. The effect of it would be that it would at once become a Sessional Order. I think I may say that there are not more than 150 of the 670 Members of the House here at present. Would it be right that a Sessional Order should be proposed by a private Member against the will of the Government on an occasion like this? I think everybody knows that it would not be right. There was one point in the speech of the hon. Gentleman with which I most thoroughly disagree. He said it would be very much better if Members would sit down and think out their arguments. I disagree with him, and I will say why. After all, what is the duty of a Member who is making a speech in this House? Of course, if he is proposing or introducing a Bill or moving the Second Reading, he has no doubt to think out his arguments. But the ordinary Member, even the Member of the Government, in the Debate; which follows has got to answer the arguments put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House. If a Member; goes into the Library and sits down and prepares a speech he does not hear the arguments which have been going on in the House, and he makes a speech which has probably very little to do with the line of argument which has been followed in the House. We know that the First Lord of the Admiralty on one occasion prepared a speech which he contributed to the papers when, owing to a variety of circumstances, he did not rise to make his speech until seven o'clock, though he had understood that he was to begin it at four; o'clock, and that speech was actually published in New York before the right hon. Gentleman had got up to make it.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: And in Germany also.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That shows the disadvantage of having a set speech made up. Therefore, on that point, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. When I first came
  302
  to this House speeches were very much longer than they are now. I remember Mr. Gladstone getting up and making a speech on bimetallism. He was not prepared for it, and he only came into the House by accident, but he made an interesting speech, which lasted over an hour. All Members on both Front Benches in those days used to make very long speeches. These right hon. Gentlemen will not be touched by the Motion of the hon. Member. The worst offenders, the Ministers, are going to be left out, and it is only the private Member who is penalised.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: And there are ex-Ministers.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is another difficulty. An hon. Member sitting perhaps three Benches behind may be called to order for having spoken twenty-one minutes, and he may reply, "I am an ex-Minister and therefore have the right to go on as long as I like." The hon. Member has not sufficiently considered this particular Motion—
  Sir HARRY VERNEYrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The worst offenders will not be affected under this Motion. The only reason I can see why it is advocated by a certain number of hon. Members is that on great set occasions they are not able to make the speeches which they would like to make. I never find any difficulty in making speeches.
  It being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Adjourned at Three minutes after Eleven o'clock.