§ Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [7th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTrose—
§ Mr. McKENNAPerhaps the hon. Member would allow me. I would like to make this statement to the hon. Member. The finance of the Bill will be in accordance with his views, but this Bill cannot go through without the general consent of the House. If I do not get the general consent of the House by appropriate Amendment in Committee the Bill cannot go through. I hope the hon. Member will allow me an opportunity of endeavouring to obtain general assent to the Bill upstairs.
§ Mr. BATHURSTI should be the last person to obstruct so useful a Bill as this. My only regret is that the Second Beading has been deferred so long that it seems almost impossible to contemplate the passage of the Bill into law, bearing in mind that it contains fifty-five Clauses and two Schedules, many of which will undoubtedly require careful treatment in Committee. The only criticism I want to make now is that the Under-Secretary to the Home Office, when introducing the Second Beading of the Bill in March last, did not attempt to answer any of the many criticisms directed against this Bill when its Second Beading was last under consideration two years ago. On that occasion the Under-Secretary made a few preliminary observations which were followed by many important and detailed considerations which were not then answered by any Member of the Government and have not since been answered or attempted to be answered by the Front Bench. I only want to refer to one or two or these, particularity to the effect on local authorities. The first important question asked the Home Secretary two years ago, was, what would be the extra amount of accommodation required for confirmed inebriates? The second question put to the right hon. Gentleman was: "What is the prospective capital charge which will be thrown upon local authorities under Clause 36 of the Bill?" That is a question which has been asked by a good many local authorities and no answer has so far been vouchsafed. This expenditure may be a very heavy expenditure indeed, and it is utterly impossible on the information so far given by the Government to gauge in any way the extent of this expenditure which was to fall on the local authorities.
The third question has been partially answered. It was, "What proportion of the total cost of maintenance in connection with certified reformatories will be borne by the Treasury and what proportion will 1513 have to be borne by the authorities?" The hon. Gentleman made a statement in his speech in March last to the effect that in the case of State reformatories the whole cost would be borne by the State. In the case of certified reformatories half the cost was to be so borne. I would like to point out that the Departmental Committee which considered the question in 1898 suggested that for every 2s. contributed by the State there should be no more than 1s. per week contributed by the local authorities. That is to say that two-thirds and not one-half only ought in fairness to be contributed by the State for what is essentially a national service. To turn to two minor, but not unimportant, criticisms on which no reply was given the question was asked, I think by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick, as to who are to be the judicial guardians referred to in Clause 6 of this Bill. How are these judicial guardians to be appointed? It seemed to be assumed that persons were prepared readily to come forward.
§ Mr. McKENNAI propose to drop Clause 5 and all the consequential Clauses. The vital part of the Bill is to endeavour to secure the financial assistance of the local authorities.
§ Mr. BATHURSTIt is a little difficult to consider at a moment's notice a Bill which has been so emasculated. It is evident that the most contentious part of the Bill is not to be proceeded with at all.
§ Mr. McKENNAThat is so; not to be proceeded with.
§ Mr. BATHURSTI am glad to hear that and therefore I do not want to take up any more of the time of the House because I really cannot judge the effect of the Bill if it is reconstituted.
§ Mr. BOOTHOn a point of Order. I want to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether after the information from the Minister in charge of the Bill that all the important parts are to be dropped that we should not really adjourn this Debate and then see the Bill when it is reprinted.
§ Mr. McKENNAMy hon. Friend has not correctly reported what I said. I did not say all the most important parts. I said all the most objectionable parts.
§ Mr. BATHURSTI think it must be apparent to well-wishers as well as to 1514 opponents of this Bill that it has become extremely difficult to criticise it with important parts of it cut out.
§ Mr. BATHURSTI have bean very much pressed to move the adjournment of the Debate, but I do not propose to make myself responsible for any such course because although I do not like the way in which we have been treated in connection with this Bill I want to see the most important parts of it go through. I will say, however, that until the Government have made it much clearer than they have made at present what the actual cost is which is to fall on local authorities they will find opposition from the local authorities, and a great reluctance to carry on the Bill if it is passed.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANWe are told quite casually in the middle of a speech by my hon. Friend that five or six of the most important Clauses of the Bill are going to be dropped. As I had the honour of sitting on the Committee which considered this question very carefully some years ago I think we might at any rate have been told before we were asked to consider the Bill what the Home Secretary proposed to do. Does he propose to drop any more Clauses?
§ Mr. McKENNAI should propose in Committee upstairs that we should drop Clauses 5 to 10 and all the consequential Clauses of the Bill which would cover immediately Clauses 13, 21, and 43. That is all. As I stated in the few remarks I made I quite recognise at this period of the Session it would be impossible to carry a Bill of this kind, except by general agreement. Therefore, in Committee I shall hope to obtain general agreement as to the whole Bill before it comes back again.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANI would like to say in regard to that that I for my part very much object to having these Clauses cut out. The Committee went very carefully into this question and many of us thought these Clauses were the most useful of the whole Bill. We also felt and do feel now that if these Clauses are going to be left out there will not be any chance for years to come of bringing them in. I for my part would take the chance of getting a Bill with rather more in it than this Bill is likely to have.
§ 2.0 A.M.
§ Mr. McKENNAThe urgency of getting some agreed Bill through this Session lies in this fact. There are now a number of existing institutions, which are rapidly being closed. I am informed that they will be closed before the end of this year if they do not get some financial provision. It is, therefore, in the interests of existing institutions that I am most anxious to get an agreed Bill. In order to secure the Bill, I am willing to make such concessions as will be necessary.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANIf the right hon. Gentleman will give us some undertaking that he really seriously means, at some future time, to go on with this very useful part of the Bill, then I shall feel more satisfied. I do not in the least wish to impede what is being done now, but I do wish to have some chance of getting a very useful part of the Bill before I die.
§ Mr. JONATHAN SAMUELI will not detain the House longer than a minute, but we ought to have some information from the right hon. Gentleman, on the Second Reading of this Bill, as to the number of the homes which have been erected for the local authorities. We have had no such information. I know that some county councils, which have had these responsibilities placed on them, have not erected these homes at all, because they regard it as a very serious expense and a very serious waste of money. The right hon. Gentleman is legalising the sale of drink, on the one hand, which contributes to the making of these inebriates, whilst, on the other, he is placing a very serious cost on the ratepayers in providing homes for these people after he has permitted them to become inebriates. What we should do is to try to prevent these poor men and women becoming inebriates at all. Anyone acquainted with the administration of our asylums knows how a very large number of these men and women find their way there, and so long as the heads of the Home Office Departments will not deal thoroughly with this matter of licensing the sale of drink, so long I shall regard this expenditure on these homes as a waste of public money.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHI beg to move to leave out the word "now," and to add, at the end of the Question, the words "upon this day three months."
The right hon. Gentleman introduced this Bill in 1912, and in December, 1913, he caused a letter to be written to the 1516 London County Council, in which he said he wished to assure the council that he would spare no effort to secure the passage of an Amending Bill next Session. With this object in view, he intended to introduce it into the House of Commons as soon as possible after Parliament met. The right hon. Gentleman introduced it in March this Session, and now, in the month of August, he informs us that he is going to drop the most important part of the Bill. As a matter of fact, the part which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to drop is not that part to which I object; the part to which I object is that which remains. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] I do not often trouble the House; it is not my fault that this Bill is taken after two o'clock in the morning, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot take the Second Reading at an earlier hour on another day? If he will do that he will find the passage of the Bill through Committee will be much easier than if he forces on the Second Reading now.
As, however, I understand the right hon. Gentleman has no intention of adjourning the Debate, I have to move the Motion which stands in my name, namely, that this Bill be read a second time this day three months. This is a Bill which is supposed to be non-contentious, and to be approved in all parts of the House. I have always found that when a Bill has the approval of all sections of the House, it has been read by very few hon. Members, and, consequently, its provisions ought to be examined very carefully. We have been told by the Under-Secretary to the Home Office that this is really only a consolidating Bill, and that it makes very few, very small, and very unimportant changes in the existing law. I wish to point out to the House that this is not the case. This Bill proposes some very important, sweeping, and far-reaching changes, and contains some principles which are entirely new. Also, like all Bills which are introduced by the Home Secretary, it contains the principle of compulsion. Part I. of the Bill contains provisions relating to inebriates who are not guilty of any offence; Part II. deals with inebriates who are guilty of offences. Under the present law, as the House is aware, an inebriate who has committed no offence cannot be sent to any home or reformatory unless he himself applies to be admitted to such home or reformatory. He can only go there on his own application.
§ Mr. McKENNAThat is what I propose that the present Bill should do. I did not propose anything else.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHI am sorry the right hon. Gentleman made that interruption, as I shall have to show that he really proposes to do something quite different. It is a very interesting statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made, and I am afraid I shall have to deal with it at some length. The Under-Secretary told us that this application would be a voluntary application. I am afraid I have got to go back on what I said before. When the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me, I was saying that under the present law a person could not be admitted to a reformatory unless he applied for admission. Now the Under-Secretary tells us that such an application is not as frequently made as one would desire. I quite understand that. He said that people do not apply to be admitted to these homes, and that the real purpose of this Bill is to suggest two mild alternatives.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHOh, lord!
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHI hope that neither of those two alternatives will ever apply to the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me. I will inform him what those two alternatives really are. Now under the Bill the inebriate may enter into a written undertaking to abstain from intoxicants for an indefinite period not being less than one year, and if he fails to comply with the terms of this, that is to say if he consumes any intoxicant during the year he can be committed to a reformatory for two years. This seems to me to be one of the most absurd, and I think one of the most hypocritical proposals ever made.
Why does not the right hon. Gentleman say honestly and straightforwardly that any inebriate, any habitual drunkard, whether he has committed any offence or not can be, and shall be, committed to a home or reformatory for a period of two years; because he must know perfectly well that a promise given by an habitual drunkard to abstain from intoxicants for a year is absolutely worthless, and that before long that unfortunate man is sure to break his promise, and if he does break his promise he will become under this Bill liable to be sent for two years to a reformatory or homo for inebriates. I do not want to detain the House but this is an extremely important subject, and I am sure that any hon. Gentleman who wishes 1518 to go to bed can leave the House. I should like to point out to the House what is really going to happen. The unfortunate man or woman takes this so-called voluntary pledge, but as a matter of fact he has no desire to make such a declaration. It will probably be made under some form of strong influence or compulsion from other people, and in any case that unfortunate man, that drunkard, will not realise at the time he is giving that pledge what is really the consequence of his action. He will not realise that if he has any intoxicant during that year he is liable to what amounts to two years' imprisonment.
Let me put out to the House, and this is really of great importance, what an intoxicant really means as defined in the Bill. An intoxicant, as defined in the Bill, means not only intoxicating liquor, but any sedative, narcotic, or stimulant drug, or preparation. Therefore, if any person sees this unfortunate inebriate taking a glass of beer or a dose of aspirin, or, I suppose, even a seidlitz powder he will have him entirely in his power. He can report him, and as he has broken his pledge he will be able to be sent to what practically amounts to prison for a couple of years. This is the first of the two mild alternatives which the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Home Office (Mr. Ellis Griffith) mentioned. These two alternatives are the voluntary part of the Act, and I think the House will agree that this is an abuse of the word "voluntary."
Now we come to the second alternative, and this is still retained in the Bill. It is not the part dropped by the right hon. Gentleman. It is still part of the Bill. The second part of the alternative is that this inebriate may submit to guardianship, and that guardian may prescribe for the inebriate a place of residence, either in the house of the inebriate or elsewhere. He may deprive him of intoxicants and prevent him from obtaining them, and he may notify people dealing in intoxicants—
§ Mr. WEDGWOODOn a point of Order. I find myself absolutely unable to hear the hon. Gentleman's arguments owing to the conversation carried on on these benches. I think it would be advisable if hon. Members would exercise the usual courtesy extended to hon. Members who make speeches at this time of night.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHI was saying this guardian can deprive the inebriate of intoxicants, and can warn persons dealing 1519 in intoxicants and other persons from supplying them to the inebriate. Yet, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we have not been told by the right hon. Gentleman who is going to appoint this guardian. Is he to be paid? We have not been told what all the powers of this guardian are. I should like to point out to the House that under the first of these two alternatives, these mild alternatives, suggested by the hon. Gentleman, the inebriate is absolutely bound to get two years in a reformatory, and that under the second alternative, if the guardian so chooses, he can be sent to an inebriates' home for two years, if the guardian considers his powers over the inebriate are insufficient.
I wish to refer to one other matter, and that is the question of finance. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman that the local authorities are asking for this Bill. I believe only certain local authorities are asking for it, that is, those who have adopted the Act and are making provision under the Act, I think, of 1878. The other authorities are not asking for it, and you are placing a new financial burden on local authorities all over the country. The Under-Secretary for the Home Office told us that the Treasury was going to bear half the cost. He did not tell us whether half the cost was only for maintenance—I should like to have his attention—whether it means the capital cost, or only the maintenance cost, or whether it means both. That is a matter about which the local auhorities ought to know.
We also want to know who is going to provide these institutions. It is perfectly clear that there are not sufficient institutions in the country at the present time for all the men and women who are going to be committed by this Bill to them. Last year we passed a Mental Deficiency Act under which local authorities had to provide institutions. This year we have passed a Defective Children's Act under which the local authorities also have to provide institutions, and local authorities really will not know where these new institutions are going to end. The London County Council has already provided—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go home!"]—I can assure the House that I have every intention of finishing my arguments. I should like to have the attention of the Home Secretary for a moment because he assured me this afternoon, as he assured the House to-night, that he wishes to get the Bill and wants to do his best to get over 1520 any opposition and to drop those Clauses which are opposed. Therefore, I think those speakers who address the House tonight have the right at least to the Home Secretary listening to their arguments.
I was saying that the London County Council has provided one institute—the home at Farmfield. This home was started in 1900, and I should like to point out to the House that in this home about 110 women are treated every year. The cost of this home is £6,000 a year—that is to say, £60 a year per head—and the county council came to the conclusion that the percentage of inebriates who benefit by reformatory treatment is very low, and "in our opinion the results obtained would not justify the expenditure upon the work." That is the report of the county council, and it shows that the work which is done in these reformatories is really of no great value in the opinion of the greatest local authority in the country. But the London County Council demand that either the State should bear the whole cost of these patients, or that they should adopt the Report of the Departmental Committee, which said that the provision of certified reformatories should be entirely the duty of the State. I hope when this Bill is in Committee the right hon. Gentleman will consider the Amendments which are going to be brought forward. I am extremely sorry that he has forced the Second Reading of this Bill through at this time of the night, and if I have the support of the House I shall certainly ask the House to divide. I move that this Bill be read a second time this day three months.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI beg to second the Amendment.
I want to say first of all that I think all of us who are opposing this Bill ought to be deeply grateful to the Home Secretary for the way he has met us in this matter, and any remarks I make, I trust, will be short and to the point. The fact is I hate this Bill. It is only one of a trio of Bills—the others being the Mental Deficiency Bill and the Criminal Justice Administration Bill, all being directed to take in the unfits and misfits—those who do not fit into our civilisation—and put them into institutions in order to turn out more useful citizens to the possessing classes. I have been wondering whether civilisation is fit for men at all when it turns out results like these. But just look at this Bill, beginning with the definition of what an inebriate is. In regard to 1521 mentally defective people discussion turned to a great extent, in the year in which the Bill was introduced, on the definition of what a mentally defective person was, and in the second year they materially modified that definition.
Then look at the definition of an inebriate. The expression "inebriate" according to "Section 51 of the Bill means—I skip over the extreme form of inebriates and come down to the most moderate form to show what risks people will run—a person who habitually takes or uses any intoxicants, and while under the influence of such intoxicants or in consequence of the effects thereof is at times incapable of managing himself or his affairs. It also means a person who uses any intoxicants and is a cause of serious harm or suffering to members of his family. It does not even say whether it is mental or physical suffering. Observe what a very wide discretion this is. People are apt to believe that intoxicants mean only whisky or things of that sort. It means also morphine or aspirin. The expression "intoxicant" includes any intoxicating liquor, and any sedative, narcotic, or stimulant drug or preparation. It includes Mother Siegel's Soothing Syrup, and any person who is incapable of managing himself or his affairs is liable to be described as an inebriate. If you are an inebriate under this Bill you run a poor risk of escaping one of these institutions which the State provides for the free citizens of this country.
If you are an inebriate you may first of all voluntarily offer to go to an institution—a retreat—for a year, and you may also put yourself under the guardianship of somebody for a year, and then, should you desire to run away or have a drink, you are liable to be punished by being sent for two years compulsorily to one of these institutions. In the first place, if people voluntarily offer themselves the risks they run should be minimised, and they should not run the danger of being sent compulsorily to one of these institutions. The second danger, whch is based entirely on the Mental Deficiency Act, has fortunately been eliminated by the Home Secretary, and it is not now possible to send undesirable relatives to one of these institutions. That has been cut out in deference to the pressure of some people who still seem to have some lingering idea that the liberty of the subject is what Englishmen stand for.
1522 The second part, which I hope will be cut out in Committee, is that persons who can be described as inebriates under this wide definition, and who go before a Court of Justice, are in a very perilous state indeed. If they go before a Court of Justice in connection with any crime connected with drink and admit they are inebriates—and these poor beggars who are brought before benches of Magistrates can be made to admit anything—then they can be sent to one of these inebriate homes for six months. If, however, he is charged before the Bench with any crime for which he is liable to imprisonment, then, without any admission from the prisoner whatever, he can be sent to one of these institutions for six months for the first offence. If, however, you are charged with leaving one of these institutions, or if you do not conform to the regulations laid down in these institutions, if you take any drink or do anything of that sort, then you are liable to be kept up to three years in one of these institutions.
When you consider that these people are brought up for offences for which in some cases a fine of 5s., or in other cases imprisonment for seven days, would be considered by magistrates as ample punishment, and that the alternative to that sentence is incarceration in one of these institutions for periods which may run up to three years, and subsequently to a period of supervision for a whole year, during which you must not take drink or else you go back to a further-term of imprisonment in these institutions—I say that when you see the enormous difference between a fine of 5s. or seven days and this period of years of confinement in these institutions, I think the House will agree with me that it is extremely dangerous to give to a bench of magistrates these very wide powers over people who may be very moderate drinkers at the present time. I am told that a man has to be convicted three or four times in a year previously before he becomes describable as an inebriate, so that a man has to be a bad case indeed before he is sent to one of these homes. This seems to me to be a very dangerous widening, to take no account whatever of previous convictions and simply to say that a man who is in the habit of taking drink or taking drugs, and while under the influence of drink or drugs is incapable of managing his own affairs—that anybody of that sort is henceforth to be described 1523 as an inebriate and liable to the pains and penalties which have up to now been reserved for the worse cases.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANThey are not the worst cases.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI know that very often they are not the worst cases. The police do not get at the worst cases. Very often the worst people are the people who avoid being caught. Certainly in the case of drugs the worst drug takers are not caught by the police at all. You are giving a wide definition to a class of people who run great risks if found guilty of very minor offences. This affects men and women alike, and I think we should hesitate two or three times before passing the Second Reading of a Bill which gives dangerously wide powers to the bench of magistrates. I feel that we should be wiser not to divide the House against the Bill because the Home Secretary has promised to meet us. The definition is bad—a very dangerous definition. I believe the Home Secretary will knock this Clause out in Committee, and therefor I am content with registering my protest.
§ Mr. BOOTHI want to point out that this is a Bill of fifty-five Clauses and two Schedules, and it is proposed to give it a Second Reading after forty minutes discussion. I do not understand why friends of mine who profess to be keenly interested in this question should say that I ought not to rise. I am quite prepared to do what some hon. Members dare not do—go down to the market place in my own town and say what I think about this Bill, as I did in the case of a previous Bill, which I got a unanimous instruction to fight. In my opinion all legislation like this is mischievous. I solemnly hold the view that it will increase drinking and inebriety. The only possible way you can deal with a great problem like this is by getting hold of the young people. Once you get into the minds of people that directly they become inebriates the State will look after them, then we do not do our duty to our neighbour. I submit that this is Pagan legislation. It is entirely anti-Christian. It is as opposed as it can be to the Sermon on the Mount. Hon. Friends of mine should remember that their great spiritual Leader did not go about Judæa with his pockets full of Bills.
I am always prepared to hear opinions that are opposed to my own, and 1524 I do hear them more frequently than any other Member, but the assumption that is made that because I oppose a Bill with a good object I am in some way supporting the forces of evil—I have met that so often that I am bound to protest. When I protested against the Criminal Law Amendment Bill some people represented that I was interested in brothels. Some people will now say, I suppose, that because I oppose this Bill I am in some way interested in the trade. I submit that if you want to promote sobriety in the community what you want is constructive action and not compulsory restriction. Offer people something more attractive than drinking and then you may recover them. But to deal with the failures of life, with those who are almost irreclaimable, is a great waste of public money. Take the cost of the Inebriates' Homes. In Lancashire they cost £595 per day. That is the capital cost. In Yorkshire they cost £542 per day. It is a very serious thing to put work like this on the local authorities. It is expensive because it is not successful, and it is expensive because you are beginning at the wrong end. If individuals in the community would do their duty to those who for the first time are giving way to temptation it would be a much cheaper and more sensible way. The cost weekly, as far as I understand, and I believe it is authentic, is 18s. 9d. per head weekly. It is in a document in the possession of the Home Secretary.
§ Mr. McKENNAIt is a public document.
§ Mr. BOOTHIt is 18s. 9d. per week. A great many here have served on local authorities, and we know what it costs under differing conditions. The prices show at once the kind of people who come. It is a very expensive matter. You may think you may get value for the money expended. It is acknowledged almost all the world over that this work is an entire failure. My view is that unless there is something in the person you can appeal to, the treatment is bound to fail. You do not need these compulsory powers. I think the Government exceedingly foolish at this late stage in the Session to bring forward any Bill, however good its object, of this kind and to ask for a Second Reading. If duty is done to it in Committee it means Members attending at 11 or 11.30 in the morning, then we have to be here all day, and now we are asked to sit here all night as an extra. There is nobody more willing than I am to 1525 make sacrifices for the Government, but one of the reasons why I object to this is that the Government is courting disaster. The last snap vote that took place was on the Mental Deficiency Bill upstairs, and the following morning fourteen supporters of the Government arrived here in the afternoon.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean)I fail to see the relevancy of the remarks of the hon. Member.
§ Mr. BOOTHI think what I was saying is certainly a reason for not reading the Bill a second time. In Clause 3, Sub-section 3 you give a warning against supplying intoxicants to any inebriate. That is a revival of the "black list." Now the "black list" is a failure. That is agreed. Is there any Member in this House or any Member of the Government whose duty it is to enforce the law, who can get up and say it is being observed? Yet here it is being revived again and it will be a dead failure. I should have thought after the miserable failure we have had it would not have appeared again. Take Clause 4. There, there is a point that when a man is retained—and you are going to revive it—the magistrate shall not be required to satisfy himself that the man is an inebriate. I cannot really understand such legislation brought forward in the name of Liberalism. I thank the Home Secretary for the concessions in respect of the Clauses to be dropped, but I would point out that the Clauses left in are Clauses dealing with penalties. When you come to Part II. the punishments are more severe. There is really not much interest taken in this Bill. Last night 150 copies of the Milk and Dairies Bill were applied for. To-night hon. Members have not troubled themselves about this Bill at all.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member is dealing with Committee points.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIt is a matter for the discretion of the Chair. It is not for the hon. Member to criticise the merits of my decisions.
§ Mr. BOOTHI submit to your ruling, but it is exactly the opposite to the ruling I have had from Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] If you say I cannot criticise any of the Clauses or the Schedules I will, of course, give way.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member has been sufficiently long in this House to know that that is not a proper observation to make.
§ Mr. BOOTHI did not mean it offensively, Sir, and I withdraw it. I will only say if that is the way in which the Bill is to be discussed, and that is your ruling, which I have no doubt is perfectly right, then I do not think it will facilitate this Bill passing into law this Session.
§ Mr. CRUMLEYI think the Home Secretary is conferring a great benefit on many unfortunate folks. These people will thus be placed in a position in which they may, from being addicted to drink, become sober people. There is one difficulty to which I would call attention. These people must commit some crime before they can be sent to jail, and they may perhaps be kept waiting there some time for the Quarter Sessions to open. That being so, I think a way should be found of giving magistrates, before whom such people would be brought, power to commit them to an Inebriates Home at once. I know many cases in Ireland in which people in these homes have been cured, and I know that the homes have conferred benefits on both men and women. Therefore, I heartily support this Bill.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANI rise to appeal to my hon. Friend (Mr. Goldsmith) not to press this Motion for the rejection of the Bill. I quite sympathise with the difficulty he has suffered, in having to discuss it at this time of night, and I should like to enter my protest against the action of the Home Secretary who, without saying a word to those who had considered this question, and who had supported this Bill, has gone behind their backs, and dropped a portion of it. When an hon. Gentleman like the Member for Newcastle-under Lyme, who has not studied the subject at all—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI think the hon. Gentleman has exhausted his rights.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANI am speaking on the Motion for the rejection, Sir. I do protest very much that, after a Committee has sat for months considering this question, and has received very little help from the Government that this Bill should be brought in at an impossible moment for its being passed. Also that, without approaching any of the people really interested in it, the Home Secretary should go behind their backs and should make an arrangement to drop part of the Bill in 1527 the hope of getting what would only be a miserable measure, and which could not possibly be properly debated or considered either here or upstairs. I do think we have got a great grievance, but I would ask my hon. Friend not to press his Motion for the rejection.
| Division No. 206.] | AYES. | [2.53 a.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | O'Shee, James John |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | Illingworth, Percy H. | Pratt, J. W. |
| Boland, John Pius | John, Edward Thomas | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Reddy, Michael |
| Cawley, Harold T, (Lancs., Heywood) | Joyce, Michael | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Kenyon, Barnet | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | King, Joseph | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| Clough, William | Lardner, James C. R. | Robinson, Sidney |
| Crumley, Patrick | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th) | Rowlands, James |
| Cullinan, John | Levy, Sir Maurice | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Lundon, Thomas | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B. |
| Doris, William | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Sheehy, David |
| Duffy, William J. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Shortt, Edward |
| Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) |
| Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Millar, James Duncan | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Molloy, Michael | Waring, Walter |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred | Webb, Henry |
| France, Geraid Ashburner | Muldoon, John | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.) |
| Gilmour, Captain John | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth) |
| Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones | Nolan, Joseph | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.) |
| Gulland, John William | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Gwynn, Stehen Lucius (Galway) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Hackett, John | O'Doherty, Philip | Yeo, Alfred William |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Donnell, Thomas | |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | O'Dowd, John | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Hazleton, Richard | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | William Jones and Captain Guest. |
| Higham, John Sharp |
| NOES. | ||
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) | Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading) |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Pollard, Sir George H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Goldsmith and Mr. Booth. |
| Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. |
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHI beg to move, "That the Bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House."
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERDoes the hon. Member desire to withdraw his Motion?
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHNo.
§ Question proposed, That the word "now" stand part of the Question.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 10.
§ Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 12; Noes, 94.
| Dawes, James Arthur | Kilbride, Denis | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Doris, William | Lardner, James C. R. | Reddy, Michael |
| Duffy, William J. | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th) | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Lundon, Thomas | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Robinson, Sidney |
| Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Macveagh, Jeremiah | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Ffrench, Peter | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Gilmour, Captain John | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) | Sheehy, David |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | Millar, James Duncan | Shortt, Edward |
| Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones | Molloy, Michael | Smith, Albert (Lanes, Clitheroe) |
| Gulland, John William | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) |
| Hackett, John | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Nolan, Joseph | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Hazleton, Richard | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Waring, Walter |
| Higham, John Sharp | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Webb, H. |
| Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | O'Doherty, Philip | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Donnell, Thomas | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.) |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | O'Dowd, John | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| John, Edward Thomas | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | O'Shee, James John | Yeo, Alfred William |
| Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | O'Sullivan, Timothy | |
| Jones, Leil (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Pratt, J. W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Joyce, Michael | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | William Jones and Captain Guest. |
| Kenyon, Barnet |
§ Bill committed to a Standing Committee.
§ The remaining Orders were read and postponed.