Lords Sitting of 11 August 1913

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
SCOTTISH INSURANCE COMPANIES (SUPERANNUATION FUND) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a(The Earl of Craven), and reported from the Committee. (No. 172.)
KIRKCALDY AND DYSART WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment to be considered To-morrow.

METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
BARRY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS (RAILLESS TRACTION) BILL.
SILLOTH GAS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Select Committee to meet To-morrow, at Three o'clock: Leave given to the Committee to report from time to time.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 18) BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL BILL.
WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) RAILLESS ELECTRIC TRACTION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

EAST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 22nd of April last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 19th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2aaccordingly and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, in moving the Motion that stands in my name in reference to the East Ham Corporation Bill I think I ought to explain very shortly the circumstances. The Bill has just been read a second time by your Lordships to-day. It was considerably delayed in the House of Commons, but I have satisfied myself that that delay was not the fault of the promoters. It was due to certain procedure in the House of Commons. The Bill has been very much discussed and very much disputed. It will be fought here, and it obviously, for reasons into which I need not enter, requires very careful consideration. It will take, I am advised, several days in Committee, and for all I know your Lordships might desire to discuss it on Report and Third Reading. Therefore I think it is essentially a Bill which, in accordance with precedent, might well he carried over until next session, when there will be more time for its consideration. The Bill having originated in another place it will be necessary to communicate your Lordships' decision to the other House, and I will see that that is done this evening if your Lordships agree to this Motion.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than three

1737
o'clock on the day prior to the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period be paid:
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session:
That the proceedings on such Bill shall be pro formâonly in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages:
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.— (The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly: Ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them with the said Resolution, and to desire their concurrence.
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
IPSWICH DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
READING CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
1. Provisional Regulations made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Welsh insurance Commissioners acting jointly, amending the National Health Insurance (Outworkers) Regulations (Wales), 1913;
2. National Insurance (Joint Committee) Amendment Regulations—Provisional Regulations, dated the 7th August, 1913, made by the Treasury under section 83 of the Act;
3. Regulations, dated 6th August, 1913, made by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Scilly Isles Insurance Committee) Regulations, 1913:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 173.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal I beg to move the Motion which stands in his name. It is the Motion which is usually moved at this period of the session, but it is only made use of, of course, with the assent of noble Lords opposite.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be suspended for the remainder of the Session.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 12) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Conunittee.—(The Earl of Craven.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I would ask, if it is not inconvenient to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, that the Committee stage should be postponed until to-morrow. Certain verbal Amendments will be necessary as the result of consultations that were taking place when your Lordships met this afternoon. The Amendments are little more than drafting, and I think it would be more convenient that they should be made in Committee.
Committee of the Whole House put off till To-morrow.

TRADE BOARDS ACT PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 15) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3aTo-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 22) BILL.
RIBBLE FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.

POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Craven.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): I wish to make a statement regarding the supply of electrical energy. The Select Committee struck out a clause which appeared in the Bill as it came up here from the other House. I will tell your Lordships what it was, but not with a view to moving an Amendment now, because we want to have the clause as we desire to see it restored printed so that your Lordships may consider it on Report. The point is this. The Post Office have their own generating station for electricity. This privilege was given to the Department in the time of the late Government, when Mr. Austen Chamberlain was Postmaster-General, and the central Post Office buildings are supplied with electricity from this source. This is a Bill to enable the Postmaster-General to construct, for the purposes of the Post Office, an underground railway or tube for conveying letters and parcels from the east to the west of London and vice versa, and the Department have always contemplated working the line with their own electricity plant. That was so settled in another place, but the Select Committee of your Lordships' House, under the impression, I presume, that this was a case of municipal trading or something of that kind, struck this provision out, and the position now is that the Post Office are precluded from using their own generating station. I only mention the matter now so that your Lordships may know that it is our intention on Report to put down an Amendment to restore the clause as it was in the Bill when it came from the House of Commons.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I am sorry that Lord Newton, who was Chairman of the Committee by whom this Bill was
1740
considered, is not in his place to-day. That is, of course, pardonable, as the noble Lord did not know that it was the intention of the Government to raise the matter. I am bound to say, having read the evidence which the Post Office gave in support of the clause, that in my opinion the Committee could not possibly have come to any other conclusion than that at which they arrived. It is not that the Post Office are going to use their existing plant; they are going to greatly increase their plant. They are not proposing to increase their station, it is true, but they are proposing to put in more machinery at a substantial cost of public money. I understand that we are to discuss the matter to-morrow, but I thought it well to enter this caveat. I do not think that the Committee were frightened by any proposal regarding municipal trading, but were convinced by the evidence that the desired permission should not be given.
LORD MONK BRETTON: There is a much graver question involved in the extension of the Post Office electricity scheme than would at first sight appear, because it would affect the position of the London County Council and their powers in 1931, when they become the electric light authority. I am not prepared to say more at the moment, but I know that very strong exception was taken in the London County Council to the position in which they and the public would be placed by the creation of another electricity undertaking in London. The clause in question was opposed by the companies, and I believe it would be opposed by the boroughs which run electric light undertakings in London. I hope that before any action is taken regarding the decision arrived at by Lord Newton's Committee sufficient time will be given for us to consider the matter and to consult with those who are interested.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not wish to discuss the matter now. An Amendment will be put down for tomorrow. I am informed by the Post Office that their desire is to work their own line and to use their existing generating station, thus reducing the standing charges in respect of that station. It is not a case of wasting public money, but of reducing the standing charges which the Post Office already have. No doubt this would necessitate a greater output of electricity for the purpose, but the standing charges are there.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I understand that the suggestion of the noble and learned Viscount is that the House should reserve judgment on the point until we have seen the clause on the Paper to-morrow. I think that would be convenient.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I would remind the House that there are only four or five days remaining of this session. Surely it is a serious matter to dispute the finding of a Committee without any notice being given to the Chairman of the Committee to be present. I know nothing about what the Committee did; but as the Lord Chairman has stated that in his opinion the Committee arrived at a right decision, surely an Amendment should not be moved to upset that decision without adequate notice being given.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Compensation for damage by working.
18.—(1) In addition to the provisions of the enactments incorporated with this Act with respect to compensation for lands taken or injuriously affected, the Postmaster-General shall make compensation to the owner, lessee, and occupier of any land, house, or building which is injuriously affected by reason of the working of the railway (including the working of lifts and any other works in connection with the railway), notwithstanding that no part of the property of such owner, lessee, or occupier is taken by the Postmaster-General:
Provided that all claims for compensation under this section shall be made within two years from the commencement of the working of the railway, or within two years from the time when any substantial change is made in the weight or size of the rolling stock used on or in the method of the working of that part of the railway where the injurious affection is alleged to have arisen, and all such claims shall be settled by arbitration.
(2) An arbitrator under this section may with the consent of all parties concerned hear together any class or group of claims under this section.
(3) For the purposes of this section the expression "land house or building" shall be deemed to include mains pipes valves plugs syphons and other apparatus of the Metropolitan Water Board and of the Gas Light and Coke Company.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I should like to know whether there is any explanation why the period of two years is inserted in the proviso to subsection (1) of this clause. Two years from the commencement of the work is a very short period in which to decide whether or not the electric railway is going to do damage to your house. It
1742
so happens that I may be personally affected by one of these railways, but it may take two years from the commencement of the work before the railway gets anywhere near my house, or two years might expire before any trains run upon it.
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: It is not a line for trains, but a 9 ft. tube for conveying parcels.
THE EARL OF DERBY: As I understand, the proposal is to have a small train. There will not be a man on the train, but if will be an electric train to convey parcels. It seems to me that two years from the commencement of the work is a very short time in which to find out whether or not, the scheme is doing damage to your property, and I therefore move that "five years" be substituted for "two years."
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 30, leave out ("two") and insert ("five").—(The Earl of Derby.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It would be more convenient to take this Amendment to-morrow with the other Amendment of which I have given notice.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I am afraid I shall not be here to-morrow. As the Government are taking the Committee stage of this Bill to-day perhaps I may be allowed to move the Amendment now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would remind the noble Earl that I have had no notice at all of his Amendment. The Home had been given no notice of my Amendment, and therefore I did not press it to-day. I hope the noble Earl will also consent to postpone his Amendment.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Very well. I will get one of my noble friends on the Front Bench to move the Amendment for me to-morrow.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 and remaining clauses agreed to.
The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 178.)

UNDEVELOPED LAND DUTY.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN rose to ask whether it is the fact that in many cases where land is liable to Undeveloped Land Duty, the duty amounts to 50 per cent. or upwards of the highest income obtainable for the present time; also to ask whether the Government is aware that while in town planning schemes the use of the land is restricted to certain classes of building, the Undeveloped Land Duty on such land is based on a site value calculated on the unrestricted use of the land; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: The Undeveloped Land Duty is, I think, the heaviest and the most unjust of all the land taxes under the Budget of 1909–10. Undeveloped Land Duty is imposed on the difference between the value of land for agricultural purposes and the assessable site value of the same land. In order to meet this duty the owner of the land has only the income which he is at the time receiving, but he is taxed upon the capital value of what the land is assessed at. In saying that this duty amounts to 50 per cent. or upwards of the highest income obtainable at the present time I have put it at a very moderate figure, because in a great many cases it amounts to a great deal more than 100 per cent. I will give your Lordships a few instances to show how this tax operates. I may say that the instances are innumerable; they exist all over the country in the neighbourhood of every town, but I am taking some in the neighbourhood of Birmingham, because Birmingham is also under the town planning scheme.
Here is one case. It concerns three acres of land. The present income is£7 10 s.; the capital value on which the duty is assessed is£2,490, and the amount of the duty is£5 4s. As against£7 10 s. income the owner has to pay£5 4s. duty, and it is calculated that in fifteen years that land may be developed. That is not the only hardship, because five years hence this land will be revalued. It may not have been developed—indeed, the valuer does not expect that it will be developed for fifteen years—but at that time the capital value may be considerably increased, and therefore the duty payable would be also considerably increased. The owner of this property has to pay£5 4s.in duty out of an income of£7 10 s. until such time as the land is developed, and
1744
when it is developed, if it is found to be of a higher value than it is assessed at—if the owner receives more for the land than it is assessed at at the end of those fifteen years—he will be liable to Increment Duty on the difference.
Here are other cases. Three acres of land, present income£6 10 s., duty£4 13 s. 9d.; 13½acres, present income£20, duty £9 5s. 7d.; eight acres, present income£12, duty£3 13 s. 4d.; six acres, present income£18, duty£10 13 s. 6d.; five acres, present income£11, duty£5 10 s. There are not only hundreds but thousands of such cases. Here is a particularly hard case. It is an estate called the Little Aston estate, near Sutton Cold-field, eight miles from Birmingham. It consists of rough heath land of no value at the present time, but£5 is got for it for rabbit shooting. The duty on that is no less than£20, so that the owner has to pay every year four times the amount that he derives from that land. That might go on for fifteen or twenty years. Suppose that the land is then not developed, what is the result to the owner? Really his whole property has been confiscated. I have been told since arriving at the House this afternoon of a noble Lord who also has to pay in respect of a certain portion of his property Undeveloped Land Duty to the extent of four times the amount of the annual income he receives. How can a charge of that sort be justified?
Now I come to my second Question. This is a much harder case than those which I have just laid before your Lordships. When a town planning scheme is made—and a town planning scheme has just been made in Birmingham, which is the case I have in mind at the moment—it is usual to set apart certain portions of the land for certain purposes. For instance, houses are to be erected on one portion and factories are not permitted; on another portion factories are permitted and houses are excluded; and so on. So that the purposes to which the owner may put his land are restricted. Owners contend that in many cases this restriction of the purposes to which they may put their land is a very great hardship to them, and they will incur very great loss thereby. How does Undeveloped Land Duty tell in that particular case? They are taxed on the value of the land as available for purposes without any restriction whatsoever. There is,

1745
therefore, a double hardship. It is all very well to call this a tax. It is not a tax; it is an extortion. It is such a tax as would be imposed by a Turkish or Bulgarian tax-gatherer or somebody of that sort. Surely in this country we have a right to expect that the taxing authorities shall have some regard to justice and to fairness. I beg to ask the two Questions standing in my name, and to move for Papers.
Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to Undeveloped Land Duty.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): My Lords, the answer to the first Question is in the affirmative if an owner lets land for agricultural purposes at a rent which is less than its value for building or trade purposes. In answer to the second Question, Undeveloped Land Duty is charged on a valuation of the land as on April 30, 1909; and, following the precedent of the Metropolitan Valuation Act, 1869, the valuation cannot be reviewed for five years. Accordingly no restrictions imposed since 1909 which depreciate the value of the land can be taken into account until the next periodical valuation.
The noble Earl will not expect me, of course, to deal with the details of particular cases of which I have had no notice, but I will deal broadly with his statement as regards the Undeveloped Land Duty being a ridiculous one. That may be one point of view; but there is another. The object of the Undeveloped Land Duty is to prevent land in or adjoining great towns from being "held up" by the owners when it is ripe for building purposes. The noble Earl quoted a case where land valued at£2,490 was let for£7 10 s., and upon which Undeveloped Land Duty of£5 4s. was charged. But if the value of this land is£2,490—and apparently the valuation has not been appealed against—surely that land ought to be let at more than£7 10 s. a year. It is much more likely that it could be let at£100 a year.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Lord will remember that fifteen years hence was the time stated by the valuer as that at which it might be developed.
LORD STRACHIE: When laud is "held up" and used for agricultural purposes when it might be used for more beneficial purposes the taxpayer loses in consequence. Land is not subject to the Undeveloped Land Duty unless it can be used for a better purpose than agricultural purposes, and if it can be used for better purposes and is being "held up" by the owner it is only right that the general taxpayer should not suffer. As regards the restrictions under town planning schemes, these restrictions were imposed since April 30, 1909, and, as I have explained, there are only quinquennial valuations, and nothing can be done to increase or decrease the valuation in the meantime. But this cuts both ways. It is quite possible that the restrictions may have the effect of actually increasing the value of the land. The restriction, for instance, that no public-house should be put on the land might have the effect of increasing the value, and people might be more likely to purchase land in that district. There is the question both of appreciation and depreciation, which, under the Act, cannot be settled under the five years.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Does not the noble Lord beg the whole question when he talks of land being "held up"? Does the noble Lord contend that all the land which is subjected to Undeveloped Land Duty could be built upon at the present moment if the owners wished it? The noble Lord knows perfectly well that for one case of an owner deliberately "holding up" his land there are ten cases where the owner could not get his land built over whatever efforts he made to let it for the purpose. Therefore the noble Lord's explanation has no justification at all. He may think it an equitable mode of raising money. That is a wholly different question. But to try and explain the position away by saying that land is being "held up" is really throwing dust in the eyes of the public. Then as regards the reply to the second Question. A man may have land available for building at a future date, and which he intends to put into the market for that purpose. That has been valued at a certain rate, and he is paying the duty upon it. But when the land is included within a town planning scheme and all the plans which he had previously made for the development of his property are altered, it may be that the value for development has depreciated.

1747
Yet we are asked to think it is just that he should be called upon to continue to pay a tax based on the supposition of a future development which has since become impossible owing to the operation of another Act of Parliament, because another man might have an adjoining property on which the Town Planning Act would have had a contrary effect.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I do not know whether I correctly gathered the answer which the noble Lord gave me, but what I think he said was this. He spoke of land being let for agricultural purposes which might be used for other purposes. Does he mean that if a man can prove that he cannot use the land for any purposes other than agriculture he will be freed from the Undeveloped Land Duty? There are plenty such cases. The noble Lord talks of land being "held up." Lord Selborne has just exposed the absurdity of that answer. I know instances in which the valuer has said that the land may not be developed for forty years, and yet the duty is charged upon that land. The Chancellor of the Exchequer refers to this duty as "only a half-penny in the£." "Who can grudge," he asks, "a halfpenny in the£?" That is a mis-statement of the facts. This is a tax upon capital, and I confess that of all these land taxes this one appears to me to be by far the most unjust.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, it seems to me that two things are being somewhat confused—in the first place, whether, as the noble Earl on the Front Bench put it, this is a fair and reasonable way of raising money; and, in the second place, whether in particular cases the Act is being fairly and properly administered. Those are two entirely different questions, but they seemed to suffer a certain confusion in the noble Earl's speech.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I did not say anything as to the Act being unfairly administered. What I said was that the Act itself was unfair.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: That is to say, the noble Earl does not think that this is a proper and reasonable way of raising money. It has never been contended on this side of the House that this particular tax is only to be applied to
1748
cases in which it could be shown that land which might be profitably built on tomorrow is being by deliberation kept out of the market. There are no doubt a certain number of cases where land which might be sold or let for building is "held up" because people think that the building estate as a whole will increase in value, and that the revenue which they sacrifice by postponement will be more than made up to them by the enhanced price or rent which they may get in a certain number of years. There are cases of that kind. But there are also cases in which land would not be considered to be what a speculative builder would call "ripe for building," but at the same time, as we venture to think, an impost of this kind might very properly be charged on it. On the other hand, suppose the owner of the land can show that it is definitely impossible for him to obtain more than an agricultural rent or more than the price of agricultural land if the land actually is put up, then in such a case, if he were to appeal, he would, I have no doubt, be excused the sum which might mistakenly have been charged. It cannot be denied that in a conceivable or isolated case a mistake is liable to be made, but such a mistake, we hope, would be corrected on appeal. I have no desire to renew the old Budget argument of whether this tax on undeveloped land is a reasonable or an unreasonable one. I confess, so far as my recollection goes back, I had thought that of the various taxes proposed in the Budget of 1909–10 this one was considered by noble Lords opposite to be the least objectionable as compared with the Increment Duty, or in some cases, perhaps, the Mineral Rights Duty. I was under the impression that this particular placing of a tax on what is called in a somewhat vague expression "building land" was considered by noble Lords opposite to be in the main not unreasonable.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I would remind the noble Marquess that the operation of the Town Planning Act on the Undeveloped Land Duty was not part of the original discussion. That Act was passed subsequently.
LORD STRACHIE: If before 1909 the land had been laid out for a garden city and the restrictions had already been imposed, then it would not have come under valuation without restrictions.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My point was that the noble Marquess did not think we should reargue the question of the Budget of 1909–10, and I ventured to remind him that the effect of the Town Planning Act was subsequent to that and could not then have been foreseen.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: That is quite true; but, as my noble friend Lord Strachie has said, land which was actually laid out at that time for building development in the character of a garden suburb or a garden city was given a large measure of freedom from these particular imposts.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I hope the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill. It is the same Bill as that which was introduced into your Lordships' House last session by Lord Ashby St. Ledgers. In the Bill as introduced into the House of Commons this session there were provisions as to a limit of holdings of shares and also as to exemption from Stamp Duty, but strong objection was taken to both of these clauses in the House of Commons and as a result both have been dropped out of the Bill. The Bill, therefore, is once more in the shape in which your Lordships passed it last session. It has been taken up by His Majesty's Government at the request of the Co-operative Union, Limited, which numbers 1,550 societies with a membership of nearly 3,000,000, and has been drafted in consultation with and has been approved by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies.
The chief alterations made by this Bill, alterations which were accepted by your Lordships last year, have reference to, first, the auditing of accounts. In future one of the auditors must be a public auditor, so that there shall be a proper audit under public control. Clause 4 provides that there shall be a list of shareholders made triennially. The most important clause is Clause 5, which amends the principal Act as to nominations. It is provided that a member of a registered
1750
society may nominate any person or persons to or among whom there shall be transferred at his decease such property in the society as may be his at the time of his decease, but if on the death of the nominator the amount of his property in the society comprised in the nomination exceeds£100, the nomination shall be valid to the extent of£100 but not further or otherwise. This clause sanctions the practice which has been adopted by co-operative societies of treating the nomination as taking effect, not when the nomination was made, but when the person making the nomination died.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, this is the annual Bill for the ratification of certain taxes imposed by the Isle of Man. I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Bill is exactly the same in its principles as the English Bill, but there are variations owing to the local authorities and other institutions in Scotland being different. Instead of a new Board of Control as in England, the existing Lunacy Board in Scotland, which is a large Board differently constituted from the English Commission, will be taken and additions will be made to it. Otherwise there is no substantial difference between the two

1751
Bills, and unless your Lordships desire me to do so I do not think it necessary to trouble you by going into the minutiœ of the clauses. I have been through the Bill and to the best of my judgment there is no departure from what I have stated, and I venture to recommend it to your Lordships as a thoroughly good and useful measure.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I am bound to say that the explanation which the noble and learned Viscount has given us is one of unusual brevity. Probably he is right in saying that it is not necessary to go into the details of the Bill, but I wish to point out that, though the duty is imposed upon a district board or parish council to provide for these defectives, there are no means of enforcing it. If the noble and learned Viscount will look at Clause 26 he will see this proviso—
"Provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed as imposing any obligation on a district board of control or a parish council or a school board to contribute towards the maintenance of defectives in institutions or under guardianship where the contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament under this Act is less than one-half of the net amount of the cost of such maintenance."
And further on in Clause 37 there is a proviso to the effect that—
"Unless Parliament otherwise determines, the aggregate amount so paid"—
that is by the Treasury—
"in any financial year shall not exceed£20,000."
Therefore if the whole cost of these defectives exceeds£40,000 there is nothing to oblige the district board or the parish council to carry out the Bill. I should like an explanation of that, because it seems rather to go to the root of the Bill and to prove that it will not be of much value if those clauses remain as they are.
"THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The proviso in Clause 26 which the noble Earl has quoted is only a limitation where the contribution out of moneys provided by Parliament is less than half of the net amount of the cost of maintenance. When the State contributes half, the obligation attaches. As to the other point, it is calculated on a similar ratio. Although the machinery of this Bill is, of course, different, the principles are just the same as in the English Bill.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It amounts to this, that neither under the English Bill nor under the Scottish Bill is there any obligation to carry out the purposes of the Bill if the amount exceeds in the one case£150,000 and in the other case£20,000.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not say that. The£150,000 and the£20,000 are just to carry on with. It is the intention of Parliament to supply more money as and when it is required.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: This is the first time we have received that piece of information.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.

MISDESCRIPTION OF FABRICS BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, this Bill originated in the House of Commons as a Private Member's Bill. It was then described as the Fabrics Misdescription Bill, and had for its object the dealing with flannelette. This question was taken up by Mr. Theodore Taylor in another place in consequence of the many accidents, especially to children, through their flannelette clothing catching fire. A Home Office Departmental Committee was appointed to inquire into the matter. The only recommendation that the Committee made was that the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 should be amended making it penal to describe as non-inflammable material which was not non-inflammable; but the Board of Trade, under whose province it would have come had it been desirable to amend the Merchandise Marks Act in that direction, pointed out that they did not think that that Act could be used for this purpose, because the Act only dealt with false trade description, and to describe flannelette as non-inflammable and safe in other ways was not a misdescription under that Act. Therefore it became necessary either for the Home Office to take this question up or for some private Member to deal with it. As I have explained, this Bill was brought into the House of Commons by Mr. Theodore

1753
Taylor and passed through that House, and is now sent up to your Lordships by the Government and comes before you as a Home Office Bill.
The Bill is modelled on the Rag Flock Act of 1907. It prohibits the sale of any textile fabric described as non-inflammable unless such textile fabric conforms to such standard of non-inflammability as may be prescribed by regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. There was strong opposition on the part of traders in the House of Commons until the Bill was altered to apply not only to flannelette but to all textile fabrics. The Manchester Chamber of Commerce, which represents the trades interested, pointed out that it would be very unfair to prejudice the sale of one particular article, flannelette, when there were many other textile articles that ought to be treated in the same way; but they withdrew their objection after the Bill had been turned into one dealing not with flannelette only but with textile fabrics. There was another objection taken—namely, that if this Bill passed into law it would give a very unfair preference to the firm of Messrs. Whipp Brothers and Tod, who have a "non-inflam" flannelette which is treated by a special process found by tests made by the Home Office Committee to be, as they stated, non-inflammable. But in order to facilitate the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons the owners of this valuable patent wrote to Mr. McKenna saving that they were ready to give up their patents, and they trusted that the result of their so doing would be a speedy diminution in the number of accidents in which children have been the chief sufferers through their flannelette clothing catching fire. Great praise is due to this firm for their willingness to revoke their patents in order that the Bill might pass through the House of Commons. I hope that your Lordships will have the same feeling as the House of Commons had, the matter being put on the ground of being fair all round to traders, and that you will pass the Bill in the interests of the children, and so help to diminish to a considerable extent accidents to children due to their flannelette clothing catching fire. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. (Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

PUBLIC HEALTH (PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF DISEASE) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, this Bill is an amendment of the Public Health Act, 1875, Section 281, under which joint boards can be created. It was not thought at the time what the effect of the creation of these joint boards would be. When a joint board has been created which joins up one or more sanitary authorities for some such purpose as, for instance, an infectious hospital to serve one or two authorities, the effect is that those particular areas under the joint board are themselves unable to deal with any of the matters dealt with by that joint board. For example, where there is a joint area for the purpose of an infectious hospital, one of the areas under the joint board might think it desirable to set up a dispensary for the treatment of tuberculosis. Under the Act at the present moment they would be debarred from doing so, and the object of this Bill is to make it possible for that particular area if they think fit, notwithstanding that they are under the joint board for hospital purposes, to set up a hospital or dispensary in their own area which would not be used in common by the rest of the other areas. There is also a provision for regulations being made under the Act of 1875 as regards the treatment of cholera or any other epidemic, and these regulations are to be sent out to the local authorities. That Act was, of course, in force before the passing of the Local Government Act of 1888. County councils did not exist then, and there is no power for the Local Government Board to enforce their regulations upon county councils to deal with this question. But county councils are protected under this Bill, and are not required except in cases of great emergency to act in this matter. There is also power given to county councils for the treatment of tuberculosis, or any sanitary authority may provide for it if they are sanctioned to do so by the Local Government Board. I beg to move the Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The noble Lord has given an interesting account of a Bill on a subject which is of the utmost concern to us all. But I think there is something almost as important as the subject-matter of the Bill—I refer to the form of Clause 3. I am surprised that the noble Lord did not dwell at rather greater length on Clause 3, which says—
"It shall be lawful for the council of any county or for any sanitary authority to make any such arrangements as may be sanctioned by the Local Government Board for the treatment of tuberculosis."
That is quite a new method of legislation. It is only an example of how the real control of these matters is passing from Parliament to Government Departments. I think this Bill might be correctly described as a Bill for making Mr. John Burns a national dictator in respect to the treatment of tuberculosis. I am not at all sure that that is not a wise thing to do, but it is a new departure, and I ask your Lordships to mark how these things are put before us at the end of the session without any explanation of the reason -for this action or where it may lead to. I am not sure that Mr. John Burns is not one of the few people I should be rather pleased to live under as a dictator, still I should like to know a little beforehand what is involved in the dictatorship. What effect does this clause have on the existing powers of county councils and all the other county authorities, and to what extent does it supersede the health authorities as existing at present? There is another very important question, How does it affect the rates? All we are told is that the council of any county or any sanitary authority may do anything it likes with respect to the treatment of tuberculosis providing that it gets the approval of Mr. John Burns. I submit to your Lordships that that is a new method of legislation, and that it deserves rather more explanation than we have received from the noble Lord. As I said at first, it is only one further stage in the process through which we are going of transferring to the Public Departments, through the means of by-laws and regulations, the control of legislation winch has been hitherto reserved by Parliament to itself.
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, the noble Lord who introduced this Bill stated what was its scope, but he did not state what its scope was as it was introduced in another place. Its scope in another place
1756
was far wider. Instead of the word "tuberculosis" in Clause 3, the word was "disease." The County Councils Association considered the clause as it stood with the word "disease" and heartily approved of that word and of the clause as it then stood. They thought that it was desirable that county councils should have that power. When it came up in another place Mr. Hayes Fisher raised a very important matter. He said, "Supposing the London County Council got tins power as regards disease, and got the power, therefore, of creating hospitals in London on the rates, it might eventually lead to a revolution in the London hospitals which are supported on voluntary terms." On that, Mr. John Burns accepted an Amendment and put in "tuberculosis" instead of "disease." I am instructed to say, on behalf of the County Councils Association, that they are very sorry that the word "disease" could not stand. Of course, every one will concede that it is impossible to do anything which will affect the administration of the voluntary hospitals of London.
The object of my remarks is to ask His Majesty's Government whether before this Bill gets to the Committee stage it would not be possible for the noble Lord, who is himself in sympathy with the County-Councils Association, to bring forward an Amendment which would safeguard hospitals in the great cities and enable rural county councils to have these powers as regards disease in rural districts. It would be a very valuable power in certain counties. There are places in out of the way parts of England where it would be a great advantage if the local authorities could create a hospital other than for tuberculosis only, and put it upon the rates. It is a purely enabling thing, and it is also a thing which is under the control of the Local Government Board. As the County Councils Association are very much disappointed at the change which was made in another place I hope His Majesty's Government will consider as to whether they cannot again broaden the scope of the Bill while safeguarding hospitals in towns like London.
LORD STRACHIE: I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, did not think that I went at sufficient length into this Bill. My reason for not going more into detail was that there are so many Bills before your Lordships at the present moment that I wanted to be as brief as I

1757
possibly could. With regard to the point raised by the noble Earl on Clause 3, I would point out that it is not the President of the Local Government Board who initiates the request for these powers. He merely has the right to sanction or not to sanction the application for these powers by the various local authorities. If the local authorities like to spend their own money they have a perfect right to do so. They are elected by the ratepayers, and the ratepayers are the proper persons to direct them if they do not approve of the expenditure.
As regards the question raised by Lord Monk Bretton, the vice-chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the County Councils Association, of which it is true I am also a member, I would point out the difficulty, which he himself must be aware of. This Amendment was moved by Mr. Hayes Fisher, as the noble Lord very truly told us, but I would remind him that Mr. Hayes Fisher sits on the Front Opposition Bench in another place as an ex-Minister, and when an Amendment is so moved it naturally looks as if it came from the Opposition. The President of the Local Government Board thought that if he could accept the Amendment it might mean a safe passage for the Bill, and that if he had not accepted it the Bill would not have gone through the House as practically an unopposed Bill I will certainly take an opportunity of consulting the Local Government Board as regards this matter, and see if anything can be done to meet the wishes of the noble Lord and the County Councils Association.
On Question, Bill lead 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I think I am not alone among your Lordships in having been somewhat appalled to read, not this morning but this afternoon, because it was not obtainable this morning, the
1758
Marshalled List of Amendments we are now asked to consider. When a few days ago the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, criticised the drafting and the nature of some of the clauses of this Bill, and especially the confusion which some of the wording seemed to involve, we were told by the noble and learned Viscount that great care had been given to it, and that if there was any error it was that it had been considered too much rather than too little, and he thought that the bill was exceedingly well drawn. I see that the noble and learned Viscount has no less than 91 Amendments to this Bill, which is his own; yet he told us that the Bill had received too much rather than too little consideration. I find it very difficult to understand the position of the proposer of the Bill, who first tells us "Do not amend the Bill because great care has been taken over it," and then places on the Paper 91 Amendments for our consideration to-night, in addition to any others which may be moved from other quarters. It is hard enough to expect the House to consider Amendments of this kind, which, as I say, were only obtainable this afternoon, even if there were no other questions in the background; but when to that there is added a strong injunction upon us not to amend the Bill because Amendments will involve discussion in the other place and the Bill may be lost, I find myself in a position of some perplexity as to what it is that we are practically expected or desired to do. Of this I am quite sure, that the country at large ought to realise the position in which this House, which we are constantly told is a House of revision, is placed in a matter of this kind.
This House, whose duties were to be to revise carefully Bills sent up, is now handed this afternoon, within a day or two, one may almost say within a limited number of hours, from the time when the Bill must leave this House if it is to pass at all, a series of Amendments such as this, and I see no way at all of holding the Executive Government responsible for this situation. Of course, we all realise what the difficulty is now. It is all very well to appeal ad misericordiam to us now and say, "You ought to help to get this Bill through in this difficulty." I think it is the right appeal to make. But how did it arise? This Bill was before Parliament last session and it was withdrawn, to the distress of very many of us, and we at

1759
once set to work to press upon the Government that the Bill ought to be reintroduced at the earliest possible moment in order that, being properly considered, it might become law this session. All through the present session we have been urging the Government to go forward with this matter. Some little time ago I was urged to head a deputation to the Prime Minister on the subject of pressing for this Bill to be pushed forward. I had already written, along with many others, a published letter pressing that the Bill should not be delayed, and we were informed unofficially that the deputation was really not necessary because the matter was in hand and well forward. The Bill has gone forward, no doubt, in a way. But it comes to us within a day or two of the end of the session in a condition which requires the amount of amendment that I have referred to in the view of its own promoters. It also requires, and I think justly, on the part of some others who are members of this House a good deal of handling and treatment if it is to be the kind of measure that we should desire to see. That is not the position in which we were led to understand that tins House, with its powers of revision so markedly reserved to it and, if I may say it without disrespect, almost boasted of as having been reserved to it, ought to be placed.
Having said all that, and I fear I could say a great deal more about what I feel to be the wrongness of the position, I venture to appeal to those who have Amendments —including the noble and learned Viscount himself—to realise the gravity of the Lord Chancellor's statement the other night as to what might happen if opportunity is given for a full reconsideration of this Bill in its details in the other House of Parliament. It would be, in my judgment, a disaster of the very gravest kind if a second disappointment were to be given to the country as regards the passing of a Bill which all workers for the public good, all philanthropists, medical men, Poor Law officers, the clergy, and other people who have to do with the homes and the lives of the pool: every day have been crying out for for years past. It was a grave and terrible disappointment to us when this Bill was withdrawn last year, and if we are to be told now that it is to be withdrawn again because of difficulties in the other House of Parliament, let us realise on whom the responsibility rests. It
1760
cannot be said to rest upon this House. It has come here at this time with a request that we should consider it. The details have been put before us, and I am perfectly certain that any noble Lord in this House wherever he is sitting, the occupants of the Front Government Bench as clearly as any one else, will realise that the position is simply- a gross wrong to us and to the country as regards the powers which we are supposed to exercise and the responsibility which, whether we exercise those powers or not, will afterwards be regarded as resting upon us. I still venture to hope that very many of the Amendments will not be pressed, because from what we were told the other night, and from our information from other sources, we have been led to believe that the result might be the loss a second time of this Bill. Therefore I do, before we go into Committee upon the Bill, appeal respectfully to noble Lords, including the noble and learned Viscount himself, to remember the position in which we are at this moment placed, and to do nothing that will imperil the Bill, which I am quite certain is urgently called for by all those who care most about and understand best what are the needs of the country in this respect.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the most rev. Primate has made an appeal to me, and I thoroughly appreciate the spirit in which he has made it. But there is a real difficulty here. Of course, we all feel that it is very undesirable that a Bill of this kind should come before your Lordships with so little time for revision, but I am afraid there will always be a risk of that happening. Whatever Government is in power it will naturally take up its time with the measure it is most anxious to get through. Might I take this as an example, that a Tariff Reform schedule happened to be taking up the time of the House of Commons. I venture to assert that in those circumstances we should find ourselves squeezed for time with such a measure as we have now got before us, however important it might be.
The situation to-day is this. The other House has only two or three days more of working time. It is all very well to say you might sit longer. Theoretically you might, but practically you cannot. There is so much to be got through in the House of Commons that it is only by sitting on till the small hours of the morning that the

1761
work can be done, and under the rules of the House a certain number of Members must be present and it is important to get business expeditiously transacted. Therefore if the Bill is to go back to be again dealt with, it will, under these conditions, be imperilled, because there is a small element in the other House who regard this Bill with great hostility based on principle, but a hostility which causes them to resort to every means in their power to wreck its progress. I think that we should be running very serious risks if we sent this Bill back with much that is debatable.
The most rev. Primate has spoken of the number of Amendments. I agree that the number is very formidable. What this Bill has suffered from has been excessive zeal on the part of the people interested in it. They have pressed Amendments and alterations, and the business of the draftsman—who originally drew this Bill, I think, admirably, and I have some experience of these things—has been to get into shape what was in an unshapely form. Still, it is by no means the fault of the draftsman that we are pressed at this time. I think it is a case for great forbearance on all sides. As the most rev. Primate has appealed to me, I will say this. I have on the Paper a number of Amendments which are nearly all drafting ones. If they could be carried they would improve the Bill, but I had already thought of what the most rev. Primate said, and I have been through the Amendments with the draftsman and will undertake to move alone that are not necessary. I can cut them down to about a half. There is nothing in them that is contentious or more than putting into shape compromises and arrangements agreed upon in another place. I have also been carefully through the Amendments of the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) and the other Amendments, and I will accept such as I can in order to save the Bill. There are sonic which I think he will see when I put the case to him ought not to be accepted, for substantial reasons; but there are some which I can accept and I will try to meet him as much as I can. I hope this House will unite in making the necessary effort, and I think it is an effort, of forbearance to save this Bill from the jeopardy of which the most rev. Primate has spoken and which one cannot but recognise as a real jeopardy in the last week of the session.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think yon must have listened to the speech of the noble and learned Viscount with feelings of surprise. If I rightly interpreted the speech of the most rev. Primate, it was to the effect that he thought some sort of explanation was due from the noble and learned Viscount, for the very strong line he took on Second Reading when the particular character of this Bill and of its present draftsmanship was criticised. He took a very high and indignant line then, and was very angry with the critic, the humble individual who now has the honour of addressing your Lordships. Of course it is not the fault of the draftsman. We know that the Government draftsmen, who faithfully serve all Governments, are as good as they can be, awl we have no complaint whatever from that point of view. But the present draftsmanship of this Bill as passed under the leadership of the Government through the House of Commons is abominable. That is the plain fact, and that is what I ventured to tell your Lordships and the Government last Thursday when -NC were denounced for the language we used.
The most rev. Primate has now called attention to the real state of things, and the noble and learned Viscount, instead of saying anything in the nature of an apology, said with a smile that this sort of thing always must occur, and that the House of Commons must always in these matters, which vitally concern the liberty of the subject, pass bad Bills; and a little humorous twinkle in the eye of the Lord Chancellor is to suffice for us!It is a scandal that the noble and learned Viscount, knowing that the Bill is badly drafted, should intend that it should remain badly drafted because of the difficulties of the Government in another place, when it is really, after all, only a question of keeping the House of Commons and your Lordships sitting for a few days longer. That, I venture to say, is nothing short of a scandal. The noble and learned Viscount did not notice a great deal of what was said by the most rev. Primate. He did not seem to remember that this Government, of which he is a distinguished ornament, have deprived your Lordships of all power except the power of delay and revision. If we delay a Bill we are held up to obloquy be the noble Viscount's colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

1763
and if we want to revise a Bill we are told, "It is too late, because there are difficulties in the House of Commons; it is a very important Bill and it is badly drafted, but that is not the fault of the Government; it is the fault of the House of Commons." Your Lordships observe they always throw the blame on the House of Commons. So much the worse for the country. A bad Bill must be passed into law, and your Lordships are deprived of the power which resides in you still of revising the Bill.
I do not intend to use what small influence I have in this House in order to induce your Lordships to put in a number of Amendments which may wreck the Bill. That is not my intention. But we must do our best to put the Bill into shape in the time we have at our disposal. That is our elementary duty. We are trustees for the country and are bound to do our work; and if the Government cannot manage the House of Commons let them make way for another Government which can. That is the proper answer to the kind of argument which the noble and learned Viscount has addressed to us from the, Woolsack. I earnestly hope that the Bill may not fail, but I also hope that the Government will not withdraw their drafting Amendments. We should put the Bill into as good a shape as we can without pressing too much points of difference between us. I cannot ask your Lordships to believe that our proper duty at a moment like this is to abrogate absolutely our place in the Constitution and the obligations which we owe to the public.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the conciliatory tone which was adopted by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has not, I observe, had the result of mollifying the noble Marquess opposite. I confess that of the two criticisms which have been made I prefer that form of complaint which the most rev. Primate thought it necessary to utter upon the manner in which this Bill has appeared before this House and the attempts which have been made on the Paper to suggest Amendments to it. When the noble Marquess challenges us by saying if we cannot manage our affairs better in the House of Commons we ought to make room for those who can, I wonder where those are to be found. My experience of previous Parliaments does not make me
1764
think that they are to be found on the Benches opposite. I can quite understand that it seems a poor excuse for the hurried procedure which we have to adopt to say that such has always been the case, and it is not an excuse on which I like to dwell, but it is an excuse which has to be made in the face of an observation such as that which fell from the noble Marquess. I have not got clearly in my mind the circumstances which surrounded the advent in this House of the Factory and Workshop Bill in 1901, but that was a measure somewhat similar in its general purport and character to the measure we now have before us—that is to say, it was not a measure which excited the feelings of the two Opposite sides of the House in a Party sense, and it was a measure of social reform. But my recollection of it is that it received practically no amendment here on the ground that time pressed. The House of Commons had dealt with the Bill late in the session, and the result was that your Lordships were not able to give full consideration to it. And we remember that in the case of the Licensing Bill of 1904, which came up hurriedly to this House and was a highly contentious Government measure, the Government of the day were obliged to withdraw their own Amendments at the last moment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think so.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: That was the case, I think the noble Marquess will find, in respect to the Licensing Act of 1904. I quite agree that a measure of this kind is one which might most fitly and to the general advantage occupy the careful and considered attention of this House, yet if we are to be singled out for special reprobation in this matter we are obliged to draw attention to what has happened in the past. We all know that the career of this measure in another place has been a troubled one, not in the sense of its having been a matter of acute Party controversy, but both last year and this certain provisions in it have aroused almost a frenzy of feelings and prejudices on the part of some worthy representatives of the people who have, as I venture to think, misconceived the object of His Majesty's Government in relation to those provisions. All that I can do, therefore, is to join in the appeal which the most rev. Primate made, an appeal which has not fallen on

1765
deaf cars in the case of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, because I am certain that he is anxious to boil down as far as possible the rather formidable roll of Amendments which he has laid on the Table. He will, I know, as far as possible, confine the changes to those which can be by general agreement treated as improvements of the form of the Bill; and so far as noble Lords opposite will be willing to act in the same spirit and to avoid anything which might imperil the ultimate passage of the Bill we shall, of course, as my noble and learned friend has said, be grateful.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Definition of defectives.
1. The following classes of persons who are mentally defective shall be deemed to be defectives within the meaning of this Act:—

(a) Idiots; that is to say, persons so deeply defective in mind from birth or from an early age as to ho unable to guard themselves against common physical dangers;

(b) Imbeciles; that is to say, persons in whose case there exists from birth or from an early age mental defectiveness not amounting to idiocy, yet so pronounced that they are incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, or, in the case of children, of being taught to do so;

(c) Feeble-minded persons; that is to say, persons in whose case there exists from birth or from an early age mental defectiveness not amounting to imbecility, yet so pronounced that they require care, supervision, and control for their own protection or for the protection of others, or, in the case of children, that they by reason of such defectiveness appear to be permanently incapable of receiving proper benefit from the instruction in ordinary schools;

(d) Moral imbeciles; that is to say, persons who from an early age display some permanent mental defect coupled with strong, vicious or criminal propensities on which punishment has had little or no deterrent effect.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have put an Amendment on the Paper to leave out from paragraph (c) the words "or for the protection of others," in order to get from the Lord Chancellor a rather clearer explanation of the exact policy of the Bill in reference to the definition of a
1766
"defective." I am afraid that I did not make myself clear to him on the last occasion. If he will look at the words which I propose to omit for the purpose of raising this point he will see that a defective is subject to the operation of this Bill if he requires "care, supervision, and control for his own protection or for the protection of others." I do not say for a moment that that is an improper provision in itself, but the effect of this definition when you take it in conjunction with Clause 2 and the other clauses of the Bill is that a defective who, according to the words of the Bill, requires control not merely for his own protection but for the protection of others may be put under guardianship, or in an institution, or be subject to any of the resources that are open to the authorities.
Let us take the case of a child who is a defective and who exercises a very deleterious effect by his example on his brothers and sisters. I take that as a moderate illustration of the case I want to put. It is thought right in a case of that kind that the defective should be taken away from his home and placed, let us say, in an institution. Shortly after that, the authorities come to consider whether he ought to be detained there. The Bill prescribes that after the first year such a consideration has to take place, and then at intervals of five years after that. I take as my concrete case after the first year, when the authorities begin to consider whether he ought to be detained there. By Clause 11 there are certain things which they are told to take into account. It is expressly laid down in the course of that clause that all they have to consider is whether the defective ought to be detained there any longer in his own interests. Nothing is said about the interests of other people in the whole length of Clause 11. The fact that he is a danger or sets a bad example to other people is not taken into consideration at all throughout that clause. It all rests, in terms, upon whether he ought to be detained in his own interests. Indeed it goes in one particular case so far as to say "in the interests of the defective alone." I shall propose as a substantive Amendment to strike out the word "alone," although I do not think that will have the desired result. The Government ought to have made up their minds, if I may say so now that we have passed from the atmosphere of heat to the calm atmosphere of the discussion of the Bill, at a much earlier

1767
stage upon which horse they intended to ride, whether the defective was to be detained simply because he was a danger to himself, or because he might be in an alternative case a danger to other people. They have not quite made up their minds and I have put down this Amendment in order to draw attention to the point and to ask the Lord Chancellor what the policy of the Government in this respect is.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 25 and 20, leave out ("or for the protection of others").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not surprised that the noble Marquess should have drawn attention to this point. But there is not really an inconsistency between Clause 11 and Clause 1. The apparent inconsistency arises from the special report which the persons who inspect the defective—I am talking now of Clause 11, subsection (4)—are to make as to whether the defective is still a proper person to be detained in his own interest. A certificate is to follow, and that subsection deals with what the certificate is to be directed to. But earlier in the clause the Board in considering whether they shall depart from the order and determine the custody of the defective, are instructed to consider the report and certificate "and the means of care and supervision which would be available if he were discharged." So that they are to take other circumstances into account. If you go back to Clause 1 you will see the meaning of it. The words in paragraph (c) are for the protection of others. There it is a definition clause which begins by saying that a mentally defective person is to be deemed a feebleminded person, and feeble-minded persons are dealt with in this paragraph (c); and you may provide for their special custody if, among other things, it is required in the case of those defectives for the protection of others. This has been very much before us in framing the words as we have framed them. We have considered the case of a family in which one of the boys is mentally defective. One of the most horrible tendencies in the case of defectives is a tendency to indecent exposure. A boy of that kind could be taken care of by his parents if they were the only persons to be considered, but there are the other children to be considered, and it is particularly degrading to them. Therefore these words are put in.
1768
But they are not inconsistent with Clause 11 where it says that the certificate and the report are to refer to the defective alone. I ask the noble Marquess, therefore, not to press his Amendment. This has been thought out, and Clause 1 has been framed in this way to enable the course which I have described to be followed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I cannot honestly pretend that I am satisfied with the explanation of the noble and learned Viscount, but that is, perhaps, because I am not a lawyer and am not qualified to follow him as accurately as a lawyer would. But I do believe that as a matter of fact there is a discordance in the Bill, although I do not think it is one of the greatest importance, and it is certainly not one on which I should press an Amendment. If the noble and learned Viscount will take the responsibility that there is no discordance between the clauses such as I have pointed out, his authority is infinitely better than mine, and I shall be willing to withdraw the Amendment. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will assure us that, even if it is considered under the provisions of Clause 11 that there is no further need to detain the defective in his own interests, it is still open to detain him for the protection of other persons.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Provision is made in the case of his being a detriment to his brothers and sisters, but there may be some other place he could be sent to where he would not be under such strict supervision as he was before. There might be a relative, for example, who would agree to take him, and that would be one of the special circumstances to be taken into account by the Board as provided for in the earlier part of Clause 11.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Circumstances rendering defectives subject to be dealt with.
2.—(1) A person who is a defective may be dealt with under this Act by being sent to or placed in an institution for defectives or placed under guardianship—

(a) at the instance of his parent or guardian, if he is an idiot or imbecile, or at the instance of his parent if he is under the age of twenty-one; or

1769

(b) if in addition to being a defective he is a person—

(i) who is found neglected, abandoned, or without visible means of support, or cruelly treated; or

(ii) who is found guilty of any criminal offence, or who ordered or found liable to be ordered to be sent to a certified industrial school;

(iii) who is undergoing imprisonment (except imprisonment under civil process), or penal servitude, or is undergoing detention in a place of detention by order of a court, or in a reformatory or industrial school, or in an inebriate reformatory or who is detained in an institution for lunatics or a criminal lunatic asylum; or

(iv) who is an habitual drunkard within the meaning of the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900; or

(v) in whose case such notice has been given by the local education authority as is herein-after in this section mentioned; or

(vi) who is in receipt of poor relief at the time of giving birth to an illegitimate child or when pregnant of such child.

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

(a) who have been ascertained to be incapable by reason of mental defect of receiving benefit or further benefit in special schools or classes, or who cannot be instructed in a special school or class without detriment to the interests of the other children, or for whom the Board of Education certify that no suitable special school or class is available;

(b) who on or before attaining the age of sixteen are about to be withdrawn or discharged from a special school or class, and in whose case the local education authority are of opinion that it would be to their benefit that they should be sent to an institution or placed under guardianship.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not move the first two Amendments standing in my name. I think they would be improvements, but I can get on without them, and I would rather not risk the perils to which they might give rise in another place. In paragraph (a) of subsection (2) I have an Amendment which I think is highly desirable and ought to be moved. It is to leave out the word "for" and insert "as respects," with a view to bringing in this consequential Amendment—namely, to leave out "no suitable special school or class is available" and to insert "there are special circumstances which render it
1770
desirable that they should be dealt with under this Act by way of supervision or guardianship." The reason is this. In the Bill as it stands the words are "or for whom the Board of Education certify that no suitable special school or class is available." There is provision in the Education Acts now for making special schools, but that provision has only been to a very slight extent made use of. Except in London and two or three large boroughs in the North of England the local education authorities have not put in force their powers under the Defective and Epileptic Children Act. The result is that the Board of Education are by no means anxious that the local education authorities should be encouraged to be more slack in that respect, and as a matter of fact there is a proposition before Parliament to furnish them with greater powers and more money for the purpose. Still they are apt to be slack and not to be too zealous. Therefore the Board of Education are anxious that the clause should run "or as respects whom the Board of Education certify that there are special circumstances which render it desirable that they should be dealt with under this Act by way of supervision or guardianship," the object of course being that they should be educated under the education authorities in schools properly provided for the purpose, and that the local education authorities should not be given an excuse finder this Bill for not fulfilling their duty of providing the schools.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 2, leave out ("for") and insert ("as respects").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 3, leave out from ("that") to the end of line 4 and insert ("there are special circumstances which render it desirable that they should be dealt with under this Act by way of supervision or guardianship").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Power to deal with defectives at instance of parent or guardian.
3.—(1) The parent or guardian of a defective who is an idiot or imbecile, or is under the age

1771
of twenty-one, may place him in an institution or under guardianship: Provided that he shall not be so placed in an institution or under guardianship, except upon certificates in the prescribed form signed by two duly qualified medical practitioners, one of whom shall be a medical practitioner approved for the purpose by the local authority, and, where the defective is not an idiot or imbecile, countersigned, after such inquiry as he shall think fit, by a judicial authority for the purposes of this Act, stating that the person to whom the certificate relates is a defective and the class of defectives to which he belongs, accompanied by a statement, signed by the parent or guardian, giving the prescribed particulars with respect to him.
(2) Where a defective has been so placed in an institution for defectives or under guardianship the managers of the institution, or the person under whose guardianship he has been placed, shall, within seven days after his reception send to the Board of Control hereinafter constituted (in this Act referred to as the Board) notice of his reception and such other particulars as may be prescribed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have an Amendment to Clause 3, to leave out the word "or" in the second line ["imbecile, or"] and to insert "and the parent of a defective who though not an idiot or imbecile," but I do not propose to move it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Bill remains absolute nonsense if the noble and learned Viscount does not move it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On what point?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that this Amendment is directed to making Clause 3 the same as Clause 2, and as Clause 2, paragraph (a), now runs, the parent or guardian may act without petition or a trial in the Court if the defective is an idiot or imbecile, and the parent can alone act if the defective is under twenty-one, a distinction being drawn between the parent or guardian and the parent alone; in other words, the guardian has not got this power in the case of a child under twenty-one. When we come to Clause 3, the corresponding amendment has not been made, and the parent or guardian stands alone and the parent or guardian there has authority if the defective is under twenty-one. The reason is that a change was made in Clause 2 in the last stage in the House of Commons, and the Government have not made Clause 3 to read with Clause 2.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is another amendment which will get over that difficulty at another stage. I do not think it is very important one way or the other, and I am anxious to avoid anything that is unnecessary. The noble Marquess will, I think, find at a subsequent stage of the Bill that that will be put in order; but I repeat I do not care about it one way or the other, and perhaps it would be a little better drafting to put this in here if the noble Marquess wishes it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes; I do wish it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Very well; I will move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 12, leave out the second ("or") and insert ("and the parent of a defective who though not an idiot or imbecile").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 17, after ("authority") insert ("or the Board").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I move to leave out from subsection (1) the word "countersigned" ["idiot or imbecile, countersigned"] and to insert "also signed." The object of this Amendment is to make the endorsement of the judicial authority more formal in this case where the parent or guardian acts without petition. As the Bill stands, all that the magistrate is called upon to do is to countersign the certificate or declaration or whatever it is of the medical officer, and only to make such inquiry as he thinks fit. The word "countersigned" is a very unsatisfactory word, because it is generally used to mean nothing more than to verify the signature and the fact that the particular certificate has been made regularly and is in order. What we want is that the magistrate who adjudicates in this case should definitely use his discretion in the matter and make up his mind, just as he would in the case of a lunatic or any other person who is to be detained by the State, as to whether the facts are true as stated. If he not only countersigns but signs the certificate, that by itself makes a difference. But I go on, as your Lordships will observe, to also

1773
provide in the consequential Amendment which follows, that the signatories of the certificate are severally satisfied, and so on. That would include the magistrate himself, and in that way we should be quite certain, not only that the magistrate had verified the signature of the medical officer, but that he himself was satisfied of the facts so far as he was able from the circumstances laid before him.
Amendment moved—
Pare 3, line 18, leave out ("countersigned") and inert ("also signed").—(The Marquess of salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot honestly say that it makes much difference in law, but I will accept the Amendment. It may be a slight improvement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 19, leave out ("such") and insert ("due").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think this Amendment makes a considerable difference, and also the consequential Amendment of the noble Marquess to line 19, to leave out "as he shall think fit." The effect of these two Amendments would be to substitute for the words "after such inquiry as he shall think fit," the words, "after due inquiry."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The insertion of the word "due" makes it something that may come under the review of a Court of Law. "Due" means whit is due according to law. The one thing that was understood was that the proceedings under Clause 3 should not partake of the nature of formal legal proceedings, but that the utmost latitude should be given to the judicial authority to do the right thing; and in Grand Committee the words which are now there were inserted in deference to a request made on Report stage by Lord Hugh Cecil and were agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No; those were different words.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am told that tie words in the Bill were accepted. There was a discussion about it and they were accepted
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I apologise to the noble and learned Viscount. I cannot honestly say that I know what passed, and I do not pretend to know.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Probably neither of us knows accurately, but I am told that the words that are here are the words that were agreed upon on Report after a discussion. But be that as it may, the substance is the important thing. The word "due" takes away the wide discretion—it is limiting as well as extending—which the judicial authority is to have, and imports into it the nature of a judicial proceeding. I hope, therefore, that the noble Marquess will not press the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope the noble and learned Viscount will let me have this Amendment. He is a great legal luminary and upon a matter of law it would not be becoming in me to say a word against his view, but there is one thing he cannot know as well as I do—namely, the kind of way in which a country magistrate would behave. The noble and learned Viscount has never had the opportunity that I have had of seeing how this is actually done, and I do not think he realises that these kind of things tend to become to the highest degree perfunctory. That is the great danger. I have not had much but I have had a certain amount of practice in the administration of the Lunacy Acts, and I know the kind of way in which doctors expect magistrates to certify a lunatic as insane and shut him up, and there is a very great risk that it should become in the highest degree a perfunctory performance. We want to avoid that. If we say to the magistrate that he is to make such inquiry as he thinks fit he is apt to pay very little attention to it. He will say, "I do not think it very much matters. The responsibility is on the doctors and not on me. As the Bill now stands I am to countersign this certificate, but it really is not of very much importance what I do; the matter is really with the doctors, and I have only to make such inquiry as I think fit." An ordinary country magistrate is liable to make a conceivable mistake in that way. Therefore you should tell him in plain language what he is to do. "You have to make due inquiry and see that no injustice is done; that is what you are there for, and that is why you are asked to act." If you mean him to make due inquiry, which is certainly what I mean him to do, you must say so.

1775
The noble and learned Viscount says that this will be reviewable in a Court of Law. By all means. Why should not everybody have justice? Let it be so reviewable. I think it is extremely unlikely to occur, but if there is an injustice done it ought to be reviewed somewhere else. I have no objection to that, and I do not believe the noble and learned Viscount has. I see no point, if he will allow me to say so, in his objection. I think it is quite proper and right in any case where you are going to shut a person up, perhaps for life, that due inquiry should be made. I believe the public will expect it, and a magistrate ought to do so. The noble and learned Viscount must realise that this Bill is a tremendous new departure and a very serious one—I believe a salutary one—and it ought to be hedged round with every precaution. It should be clearly pointed out that the magistrate whose business it is to see that justice is done should make due inquiry before he acts.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope the noble Marquess will not press the Amendment. It may be most important that the person holding the inquiry should take cognisance of circumstances which, without long notice given and preparation made, the law of evidence will not allow him to do. Supposing in the course of an inquiry something very important is to be heard from the relative of a child and the judicial authority admit it, if the word "due" is in the clause the proceedings will be Open to attack and question on the ground that something was let in which was not technically within the law of evidence. It will be open to attack on the ground that some procedure was adopted which the law did not recognise. We want to avoid proceedings of a strictly judicial character. The judicial authority may be the local County Court Judge, and a variety of persons according to circumstances. In this case the great point is that the magistrate is not merely the county justice but is the judicial authority selected. I spend a certain amount of time every week in selecting magistrates for this lunacy work.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think in some counties it is every magistrate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No; not to my knowledge. Under the Act of Parliament I have to specially designate the magistrates who are to be the judicial authority and it is to be so under this Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think they are appointed by their brother magistrates at the Court of Quarter Sessions, and, unless I am very much mistaken, in Hertfordshire every single magistrate is appointed; and in another county too.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: They are carefully selected by the Quarter Sessions, and I have full power to supplement their number where necessary, and to appoint when representations are made to me. My responsibility as regards every phase of this lunacy jurisdiction is far-reaching. Therefore I am most anxious that the noble Marquess should not press this Amendment. It is a thing over which there may be great controversy, and I think it very undesirable that we should open up controversy in another place.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 20, after ("that") insert ("the signatories of the certificate are severally satisfied that").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have an Amendment in line 21, after the word "defective" ["the certificate relates is a defective"], to insert "within the meaning of this Act." I move this to call the noble and learned Viscount's attention to the fact that sometimes we find the expression "defective" alone and sometimes "defective within the meaning of this Act." I am informed that that may lead to a great deal of trouble in subsequent interpretation. If the Government had said "defective" all through the Bill it would have been easy to interpret, but if they sometimes say "defective" and sometimes "defective within the meaning of this Act" it will lead to different interpretations. If the noble and learned Viscount looks at it and says it is all right, I have nothing more to say.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, after ("defective") insert ("within the meaning of this Act").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am relying on the definition clause in which "defectives" are defined. But I will look into it and see whether any Amendment is necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Power to deal with defectives otherwise than at instance of parent or guardian.
4. A defective subject to be dealt with under this Act otherwise than at the instance of his parent or guardian may so be dealt with—

(a) under an order made by a judicial authority on a petition presented under this Act; or

(b) under an order of a court, in the case of a defective found guilty of a criminal offence or liable to be ordered to be sent to an industrial school; or

(c) under an order of the Secretary of State, in the case of a defective detained in a prison, criminal lunatic asylum, reformatory or industrial school, place of detention, or inebriate reformatory;

but no such order shall be made except in the circumstances and in the manner herein-after specified
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Here, again, the point is not of any great importance, but I submit that the drafting of the clause is at present, very obscure, and I believe that the Government would prefer the clause in the way in which it is put by my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 32, leave out ("at the instance of his parent or guardian") and insert ("under paragraph (a) of subsection one of Section two of this Act").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS or SALISBURY: move to leave out paragraph (b). This is a substantial Amendment. As a matter of fact the important place in which paragraph (b) appears is in Clause 8. Clause 8 deals with the procedure in cases of persons guilty of offences. Where a person is convicted by a competent Court of an offence and is found also to be a defective he may be brought within the procedure of this Bill without more ado. There are two methods under which the Court may proceed. They may either direct that a petition should be brought in the usual way according to the normal procedure of the Bill and the case inquired into and certain certificates obtained, or they may dispense with the petition and all those precautions and safeguards and direct that the defective should be confined in an institution, or wherever it may be, with very much fewer safeguards. I submit to your Lordships that this paragraph (b) which allows the fewer safeguards is unnecessary, and that paragraph (a) which contains the full safeguards is the real procedure which the Court ought to adopt. The criminal offences which bring the defec-
1778
tive under the powers of the Bill May be of the most trivial description. Any offence which involves imprisonment at all brings the defective under the operation of these clauses, and the Court before which he is tried is not the High Court or any important Court, but might be an ordinary Petty Sessions Court of the humblest description. He might be convicted of the smallest possible offence, yet if found to be defective by the magistrate he would be without the precautions which the rest of the Bill stipulates for, and he might be confined in an institution practically for life. It is in the highest degree unlikely that the defective who once passes the grates of this Bill will ever be let out again.
There is one other argument I should like to address to your Lordships. A few minutes ago the noble and learned Viscount introduced a corresponding Scottish Bill. I am informed that there is no procedure corresponding to paragraph (b) in the Scottish Bill. Under the Scottish Bill they are quite content with the procedure under paragraph (a)—that is to say, the Court which is seized of the case, and which has convicted the prisoner, instead of of their own jurisdiction, as it were, ruling that the defective is to be brought within the operation of the Bill, direct a petition to be brought and the full procedure to be gone through with all the safeguards. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will realise that the safeguards are a real thing. For instance, there are to be two doctors's certificates instead of one. If the noble and learned Viscount is right that in the case of a great many counties the procedure under paragraph (a) is by a magistrate who is expert to some extent in this kind of case, then should the procedure be under paragraph (b) the magistrate will decide that the man is to be confined in an institution on his own authority, although he may not be an expert magistrate at all but an ordinary magistrate. So that the safeguards are very real which are dispensed with under paragraph (b) and which would be included if the procedure was under paragraph (a). I suggest to your Lordships that the English Bill should be assimilated in this respect to the Scottish Bill, and that we should strike out paragraph (b) from Clause 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 36 to 38, leave out paragraph (b).—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope the noble Marquess will not press this. In Scotland the judicial authority is the sheriff. The magistrates do not try cases in Scotland to anything like the extent they do here. The sheriff is also the judicial authority, and it was perfectly easy to leave it to him. The effect of accepting the noble Marquess's Amendment would be to make it necessary to have a double proceeding. If the Court thinks that there ought to be further inquiry it will refer matters to the judicial authority. I do not think this would be a good Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Presentation of petitions.
5.—(1) An order of a judicial authority under this Act shall be obtainable upon a private application by petition made by any relative or friend of the alleged defective, or by any officer of the local authority under this Act authorised in that behalf.
(2) Every petition shall be accompanied by two medical certificates, one of which shall be signed by a medical practitioner approved for the purpose by the local authority, or a certificate that a medical examination was impracticable, and by a statutory declaration signed by the petitioner and by at least one other person (who may be one of the persons who gave a medical certificate) stating—

(a) that the person to whom the petition relates is a defective within the meaning of this Act, and the class of defectives to which he is alleged to belong; and

(b) that the person is subject to be dealt with under this Act, and the circumstances which render him so subject; and

(c) whether or not a petition under this Act, or a petition for a reception order under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911, has previously been presented concerning that person, and, if such a petition has been presented, the date thereof and the result of the proceedings thereon; and

(d) if the petition is accompanied by a certificate that a medical examination was impracticable, the circumstances which rendered it impracticable.

(3) If a petition is not presented by a relative or by an officer of the local authority it shall contain a statement of the reasons why the petition is not presented by a relative, and of the connection of the petitioner with the person to whom the petition relates and the circumstances under which he presents the petition.
(4) Where the Board are satisfied that a petition under this section ought to be presented concerning any person, and that the local authority have refused or neglected to cause a petition to be presented, they may direct an inspector or other officer to present a petition, and this section shall apply accordingly.
LORD MONK BRETTON: I have an Amendment, after "authority" in subsection (2), to insert "or Board of Control." In Clause 3 the noble and learned Viscount inserted an Amendment to say that the Board of Control, or the Board as he put it, should be one of the authorities for approving the medical practitioner. I am aware that Clause 5 is not quite on all fours with Clause 3, and if the noble and learned Viscount, who is, alter all, the guardian of lunatics, gives me his assurance that he has looked into the point I will take his advice with regard to this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have no difficulty in accepting the noble Lord's Amendment if he will move to insert "or Board." You do not need to say "Board of Control." I am content to have it in that way, and it fits in with the Amendment we have already made to Clause 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 9, after ("authority") insert ("or Board").—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Procedure on hearing petitions.
6.—(1) Upon the presentation of the petition and such documents as aforesaid the judicial authority shall either visit the person to whom the petition relates or summon him to appear before him.
(2) Proceedings before the judicial authority may in any case, if the judicial authority thinks fit, and shall, if so desired by the person to whom the petition relates, be conducted in private, and in that case no one except the petitioner, the person to whom the petition relates, any two persons appointed for the purpose by the person to whom the petition relates, and the persons signing the medical certificates and the statutory declaration accompanying the petition shall, without leave of the judicial authority, be allowed to be present.
(3) If the judicial authority is satisfied that the person to whom the petition relates is a defective and is also satisfied that he is subject to be dealt with under this Act, the judicial authority may, if he thinks it desirable to do so in the interests of such person, make an order either ordering him to be sent to an institution the managers of which are willing to receive him, or appointing a suitable person to be his guardian, and the order shall state the class of defectives to which he belongs, and the circumstances which render him subject to be dealt with under this Act:
Provided that—

(a) where the petition is not presented by the parent or guardian, the order shall not be made without the consent in writing of the parent or guardian, unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the judicial authority that such consent is unreasonably withheld, or that the parent or guardian cannot be found, but consent shall not be deemed to be unreasonably withheld if withheld with the bona fide intention of benefiting the defective; and

(b) nothing in this section shall prevent an order being made, notwithstanding that the person to whom the petition relates does not appear to the judicial authority to belong to the class of defectives to which he is in the petition alleged to belong, if the judicial authority is satisfied that he is a defective.

(4) If the judicial authority is not satisfied that the person to whom the petition relates is a defective, and subject to be dealt with under this Act, or that it is desirable in the interests of such person that an order should be made, the judicial authority may, if he thinks fit, adjourn the case for a period not exceeding fourteen days for further evidence or information, and may order that the person to whom the petition relates shall submit himself to medical examination, or may dismiss the petition:
Provided that, unless the petition is dismissed, the judicial authority shall order a medical examination in any case where the petition was accompanied by a certificate that a medical examination was impracticable.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I move in subsection (2), after the word "relates" ["except the petitioner, the person to whom the petition relates"], to insert "his parents or guardians and." This is not an important Amendment, but it is one which ought to be made. The purpose is to give the parent or guardian a right to be present and to appoint persons to represent them at an inquiry held in private. I have had in view in moving this a point made by the noble Marquess in moving another Amendment. It may be well in the discretion of the Court to have that in, and therefore I propose to put it in.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, after ("relates") insert ("his parents or guardians and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 6, after ("relates") insert ("or by his parents or guardian").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope the Government will accept this Amendment to omit from the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (3) the words "if withheld with the" and to insert "unless the judicial authority is satisfied that it is withheld without a." The clause now provides that where a child is the subject of a petition, let us say by the local education authority, the order shall not be made without the consent in writing of the parent or guardian. It seems perfectly right, of course, that the children should not be shut up without the consent of the parent or guardian, unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the judicial authority that such consent is unreasonably withheld. It is almost common form that the consent which is necessary should not be unreasonably withheld. Then we have to go on and say what we mean by unreasonably withhold. That was the subject of a great deal of controversy in the House of Commons. The words now in the clause are that the consent "shall not be deemed to be unreasonably withheld if withheld with the bona fide intention of benefiting the defective." It is quite clear what the object was of those who urged the Government to put words of that kind into the Bill. It was that where the parent was evidently acting bona fide and was desiring to do his best for the child in the exercise of the discretion which is inherent in the parent, a right which must never be taken away except on great cause shown, then the refusal to give consent should be accepted by the judicial authority. That appears to be the object which those Members had who persuaded the Government to put in these words. But when you come to examine the words they are not so good as they might be, and I propose, with the leave of your Lordships, to make them a little better. It is extremely difficult to know what exactly is intended to be meant by the words "the bona fide intention," and what is meant by calling upon the parents to show that they have a bona fide intention. The judicial authority might say to the parents, "It is quite true you say with tears in your eyes that you will not part from the child, but you are allowing your emotions and affections to warp your judgment, and your intention is not really to benefit the child." If a magistrate used words of that kind the clause would become in this respect perfectly useless and meaningless, and therefore the advantage which the

1783
House of Commons intended to secure to the parent would be rendered entirely illusory. I have therefore redrafted the words and put it the other way. Unless it is quite clear to the magistrate that the parent is withholding consent with no bona fide intention of benefiting the defective then the consent should be taken as not unreasonably withheld. I believe that my words are clearer and stronger than the words in the clause, and I hope the Government will accept them.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 28, leave out ("if withheld with the") and insert ("unless the judicial authority is satisfied that it is withheld without a").(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My difficulty about the noble Marquess's Amendment is one of drafting. I do not think any difference is made in the effect of the words, and after considering them with the draftsman I have come to the conclusion that it makes no difference whether the words go in or not. But here is the difficulty. If the noble Marquess's words are accepted, the last line of the proviso will run thus, "but consent shall not be deemed to be unreasonably withheld unless the judicial authority is satisfied that it is withheld without a bona fide intention of benefiting the defective." There is already a triple negative in the proviso. The Government are responsible for that, and the noble Marquess proposes to add two more. The result is that it is almost impossible to understand it unless you give a good deal of time to it. I am satisfied that the purpose the noble Marquess desires to secure is secured by the wording as it stands, and I hope he will not press the Amendment, as it may give rise to one of those discussions in the early hours of the morning elsewhere which we wish to avoid in the case of this Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid I do not agree that it is only a drafting Amendment. I think it is an Amendment of material substance, but I agree that it is very awkward to have four or five negatives. That is one of the difficulties one meets with in drafting.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I am to blame for three of them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I only propose to add a paltry two more, but if the Government will not accept the Amendment at this stage I will not press it now. But the noble and learned Viscount, with the dexterity of an old Parliamentary hand, has not, I observe, answered the substance of my argument. The great difficulty will be for parents to understand that their intention is rightly interpreted by the magistrate, who might easily ignore it under the words as they stand. If the noble and learned Viscount will give me some hope that he will consider other words to make it clearer that any real bona fide objection of the parents would be accepted I certainly will not press the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will look into it again with the draftsman and consider it, but at present I think we have covered the whole ground.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Variation of orders.
7.—(1) Where an order has been made that a defective be placed under guardianship the judicial authority which made the order, or any other judicial authority, or, where the original order was not made by a judicial authority, any judicial authority may, on application being made for the purpose by the guardian or by the Board or by the local authority, and on being satisfied that the case is or has become one unsuitable for guardianship, order that the defective be sent to an institution.
(2) A person appointed to be guardian of a defective may, on the application of the local authority or of the Board or of any other person who appears to be interested, be removed from his office by any such judicial authority as aforesaid, and where a person appointed to be guardian of a defective dies, or resigns his office, or is removed from his office, such judicial authority as aforesaid may, on the like application, appoint a suitable person to act in his stead.
(3) An order under this section shall not be made without giving to the relative or other person who presented the original petition and to the local authority an opportunity of being heard.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 25, after ("order") in subsection (3) insert ("or appointment").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The appointment has to be made by order.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The appointment is not made by the Court. It is made by somebody else, and I think the Amendment is necessary. It is the case of a variation of an order which has been already made. In the case of an institution, where there is a variation a new order is made if the defective has to be moved, but where a particular person has been appointed to be a guardian and a new guardian is to be appointed then it is not an order but an appointment, and, unless the words "or appointment" are in, the relatives would have no voice or right to be heard, although a different person was to be made a guardian of the child from the person who was guardian when they were heard before the Court.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The appointment will have to be made by order.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble and learned Viscount assures me that that is so, I will not press the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am satisfied of that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have an Amendment in subsection (3), after "giving" to insert "to the local authority, and where practicable." It may not always be practicable to give notice to the person who presented the original petition, and therefore I propose to insert these words. The petition may be presented by somebody who has gone abroad or emigrated, and we want to put in words to provide for that.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 26, after ("giving") insert ("to the local authority, and where practicable").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Amendment in the same subsection, after "petition," to insert the words "and to the parent or guardian of the defective," is to provide that where a change is made the parent or guardian is to have a right to be heard. They ought to have notice like any body else.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 27, after ("petition") insert ("and to the parent or guardian of the defective").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 27, leave out ("and to the local authority").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Procedure in cases of persons guilty of offences, &c. 8 Edw. 7. c. 57.
8.—(1) On the conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction of any person of any offence punishable with penal servitude or imprisonment, or on a child brought before a court under section fifty-eight of the Children Act, 1908, being found liable to be sent to an industrial school, the court, if satisfied on medical evidence that he is a defective within the meaning of this Act, may either—

(a) postpone passing sentence or making an order for committal to an industrial school, and direct that a petition be presented to a judicial authority under this Act with a view to obtaining an order that he be sent to an institution or placed under guardianship; or

(b) in lieu of passing sentence or making an order for committal to an industrial school, itself make any order which if a petition had teen duly presented under this Act the judicial authority might have made, which order shall have the like effect as if it had been made by a judicial authority on a petition under this Act:

Provided that, if the court is a court of summary jurisdiction and the case is one which the court has power to deal with summarily, the court, if it finds that the charge is proved, may give such directions or make such order as aforesaid without proceeding to a conviction, and such a person shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be a person found guilty of an offence.
(2) The court may act either on the evidence given during the trial, or may call for further medical or other evidence.
(3) Where the court so directs a petition to be presented against a person, it may order him to be detained in an institution for defectives or in a place of safety for such time as is required for the presentation of the petition.
(4) Where it appears to any court of summary jurisdiction by which a person charged with an offence is remanded or committed for trial that such person is a defective, the court may order that pending the further hearing or trial he shall be detained in an institution for defectives, or be placed under the guardianship of any person on that person entering into a recognisance for his appearance.
(5) Where it appears to the police authority that any person charged with an offence is a defective, they shall communicate with the local authority, and it shall be the duty of the police authority to bring before the court such evidence as to his mental condition as may be available:
Provided that where it is intended to bring such evidence before the court the police authority shall give notice of the intention to the person charged, and to his parent or guardian, if known.
LORD MONK BRETTON: In Clauses 2 and 5 it is provided that a person can only be made a defective on the evidence of two medical practitioners. The only respect in which this clause differs from Clauses 2 and 5 is that, as it is a procedure in cases of persons guilty of offences, the evidence is oral. An Amendment was moved on this point in another place, and the answer of the Government was that there was nothing to prevent the Court from calling for another doctor if they wanted one. They seemed to consider that an adequate answer. But the point in favour of my Amendment is that it is a very serious matter to put a person away as a defective, and as in the other clauses you have insisted on two medical practitioners it seems reasonable to require the same safeguard in the present case.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 34, leave out ("medical") in subsection (1) and insert ("the") and after ("evidence insert ("of two medical practitioners").—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The objection to this Amendment is that it is fettering the judicial authority. They might require three doctors or even four, and if the standard is two it might tend to become a mere formality. I think that in dealing with the judicial authority it is better to leave them quite unfettered to do the right thing. You are not dealing with somebody who does not know his business. They magistrates for this purpose are selected, and in the other cases they are highly competent persons, and I think it is objectionable to fetter the judicial authority in the choice of evidence. They may want more than the Amendment points to, and I ask the noble Lord not to press the Amendment.
LORD MONK BRETTON: I suppose the noble and learned Viscount would not accept "at least two"?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No; because there may be a case in which it is perfectly plain that only one is necessary and in which the Judge can deal with it. I can conceive a case Where it should be the family doctor when all the circumstances are known.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONK BRETTON: The object of my Amendment at the end of subsection (1) is to provide that in the case of a child the education authority should be able to nominate as the doctor the school doctor where they think that the school doctor is likely to know more about the child than any other doctor.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 13, after ("offences") insert ("Provided also that in the case of any person dealt with under this section for whom a local education authority is providing education under the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899, one of the medical practitioners aforesaid shall be nominated by such local education authority").—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The object of the noble Lord's Amendment is a laudable one if it would only work out as the noble Lord contemplates, but it may be that this particular doctor is not available and it would therefore be a pity to put in limiting words.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know that it will be necessary for me to press the Amendment which stands in my name if the noble and learned Viscount will give me an assurance. The object of the Amendment is to give the parent or guardian or any relative of the defective an opportunity of being heard. The words of the proviso run, "Where it is intended to bring such evidence before the Court the police authority shall give notice of the intention to the person charged, and to his parent or guardian, if known." That is quite right, but it is not sufficient that there should be merely notice given. It also follows that if upon the notice being received the parent or guardian has medical evidence to bring in contradiction of the medical evidence submitted, there should then be an adjournment so that there may be an opportunity of getting it ready. I have been assured that if

1789
notice has been given it would follow that the authorities would give a sufficient adjournment to enable the notice to be acted upon, and if the noble and learned Viscount will assure me that that is provided for I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 35, after ("known") insert ("and on the application of the person charged or of the parent or guardian or any relative of such person, the Court shall adjourn the ease so as to give the applicant an opportunity of calling medical or other evidence to show that the person charged is not defective within the meaning of this Act").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If this is not already provided for, I will see that it is in the Regulations.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Duration of detention under orders.
11.—(1) An order made under this Act that a defective be sent to an institution or placed under guardianship shall expire at the end of one year from its date, unless continued in manner hereinafter provided:
Provided that in the case of any institution the Board may by order direct that orders that persons be sent thereto shall, unless continued as hereinafter provided, expire on the quarter day next after the day on which the orders would have expired under the above provision.
(2) An order shall remain in force for a year after the date when under the preceding provisions of this section it would have expired, and thereafter for successive periods of five years, if at that date and at the end of each period of one and five years respectively the Board, after considering such special report and certificate as is hereinafter mentioned and the means of care and supervision which would be available if he were discharged consider that the continuance of the order is required in his interests and make an order for the purpose:
Provided that where a defective was, at the time of being sent to the institution or placed under guardianship, under twenty-one years of age, the case shall be reconsidered by the visitors appointed under this Act within three months after he attains the age of twenty-one years.
(3) On such reconsideration the visitors shall visit the defective or summon him to attend before them and inquire into his mental condition and the means of care and supervision which would be available if he were discharged and into all the circumstances of the case, and if it appears to them that further detention in an institution or under guardianship is no longer required in the interests of the defective alone, shall order him to be discharged:
Provided that if the visitors do not order his discharge the defective or his parent or guardian may within fourteen days after the decision of the visitors has been communicated to the defective and his parent or guardian appeal to the Board.
(4) The special report above mentioned shall be a special report as to the mental and bodily condition of the defective made, in the case of a person detained in an institution, by the medical officer of that institution, and in any other case by a duly qualified practitioner, and shall be accompanied by a certificate under his hand that the defective is still a proper person to be detained in his own interest in an institution or under guardianship, and the person sending the special report shall give to the Board such further information concerning the defective to whom the special report relates as they may require.
(5) A certificate under the hand of the secretary to the Board that an order has been continued to the date therein mentioned shall be sufficient evidence of the fact.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We now come to a very important clause of the Bill, which the marginal note calls the "Duration of detention under orders." Your Lordships will realise that when a defective is confined in an institution under this Bill there is no reason why he should ever come out again. No doubt in the large majority of cases the injury to or deficiency in the brain of the defective is of a permanent character, and there is not much hope of anything like a recovery. At the same time his condition may be to some extent improved, and if it is not a very bad case and was only a minor case originally the slight improvement may be quite sufficient to make a difference as to whether he ought to be detained or let go again. Another circumstance is that the conditions of the home of the natural guardians of the defective may have changed so advantageously as to make it possible for them to make proper provision for the defective apart from any public institution. Besides those two circumstances you have to take into account the possibility of a mistake being made. These are all reasons why very careful safeguards must be taken, even after the person has been held to be a defective and has been confined in an institution, so that if due cause can be shown he shall be let out again
This is one of the most important parts of the Bill, and the Government in their clauses and subsections try and provide for these contingencies. Subsection (2) of Clause 11 is the principal subsection. It sets out how the Board are to consider a special report on periodical occasions after

1791
the first year, and subsequently in every quinquennial period. They are to consider a special report and certificate of a medical authority and to consider all the other circumstances of the case. But there is one matter which they are not called upon to consider, and which I think they ought to consider—that is the views of an independent medical authority. I most earnestly ask your Lordships to think with compassion of the relatives of a defective shut up under this Bill. Take the case of the mother of a child shut up under the Bill. She probably does not admit that the child is as defective as the authorities hold, and she is probably convinced, and perhaps rightly, that she is the best person to look after the defective, at any rate better than any public institution in the world. She is immensely interested that no mistake should be made and no injustice done, and if any improvement in the child's health has taken place that it should have due effect in permitting the restoration of the child to her own care. All those things every one of your Lordships will feel require the greatest consideration at our hands.
The authorities in these institutions, having to deal with a very large number of cases, become necessarily hardened in their consideration of them—what the French call routinier. They follow along a beaten track and do not give themselves the same trouble to ascertain whether the circumstances have changed as a person closely interested would do. It does seem to me that if in those cases the parents are in a position to have an independent medical examination they ought to have it, and that medical examination ought to be given by the authorities whether the child is to be kept in the institution for another year or it may be for another five years. That is a tremendous sentence upon these unfortunate people and upon the parents, especially the mothers, and I think that the Government ought to provide for an independent medical examination being made if it is asked for under due regulations and at proper intervals. I do not want to put anything unreasonable or impossible or impracticable, but if it is possible it should be considered. This seems to me the simplest and most reasonable Amendment in the world. Suppose any one of your Lordships had a child torn from you and placed in one of these institutions and you were not
1792
allowed to have an independent medical examination at the end of a certain period to see how the child was going on. I doubt if he would not be almost willing to break the law to prevent so great a wrong, and I urge the Amendments in this matter above all the Amendments that I have ventured to put before your Lordships to-night. The object of this Amendment and of a new clause in the Bill which I suggest later on is that there should be under due regulations an opportunity for an independent visit and an independent certificate by a medical authority on behalf of those interested.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 38, after ("mentioned") in subsection (2) insert ("and the report of any duly qualified medical practitioner who, at the request of the defective or his parent or guardian or any relative or friend, has made a medical examination of the defective").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is no difference between the Government and the noble Marquess as to his object, but there is a difference as to how it is to be attained. We have endeavoured to attain it, and I think satisfactorily, in another fashion. The difficulty about giving a right to an independent visit by somebody nominated by the parent or guardian is this, that it is a good thing when it works but in the great majority of cases it does not work. There are a large number of instances under this Bill where an independent person brought in from outside might come in in a very unsuitable mood or manlier, and the result would be that great friction would arise with the officials of the institution over the advent of the outsider. But we have preserved a careful power to order such a visit, so that he should go under the œgis of the authority. The Board can direct a visit by a special medical man selected, if so desired, by the parent or guardian; and, more than that, the powers of the Lord Chancellor which are used for this purpose are preserved. I have not infrequently exercised such powers even under the existing jurisdiction, and it will be open to the Board of Control and to the Lord Chancellor to send au independent physician backed with authority and the status which that authority gives him to make an inspection. That is very much better than his coming in ab extra in the fashion the Amendment suggests. I undertake that there will be no difficulty in the independent doctor

1793
being given authority to make an independent visit whenever a case for it is made out. It is only because we foresee the friction which in nine cases out of ten would arise that we do not like the proposal in the shape which the noble Marquess proposes it. I will undertake that the powers which are already in the Bill will be used, so far as I have any control, in the freest manner whenever a proper ease is made.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Surely that does not meet the point urged by my noble friend. The Lord Chancellor says that he will undertake, so far as he is concerned, that the powers vested in himself or other authorities shall be used on occasion to see that an independent medical opinion is taken. In the first place, the noble and learned Viscount can only answer for himself. In the second place, the whole point of my noble friend's appeal was that the parent should have the legal right to have an independent medical opinion at quinquennial intervals. Surely that is very different front the offer which the Lord Chancellor has made. He really has not made any answer at all to the human appeal which my noble friend made for the right of the mother and the father, independently of any authority, even of the Lord Chancellor, to have at intervals an independent medical opinion as to the state of their child. It seems to me that the plea which my noble friend put forward is an unanswerable one. The Lord Chancellor says that if the Amendment was accepted there would be friction in the asylums. I think it very likely there would be. I know how human nature acts under such circumstances, and that the authorities in an asylum do not like the intrusion of even a brother practitioner from outside. But we have to override the prejudices of the asylum authorities, and to see that a far higher principle is vindicated—namely, the right of the parent to be satisfied by the opinion of his own medical practitioner in whom he trusts. I venture to say that we ought not to allow the amour propre of the officials of the asylum or the chance of friction, which I do not deny, to stand between what I call the inalienable right of parentage.
THE LORD, CHANCELLOR: Again I say there is nothing between us, only a
1794
question of how best to effect the common purpose. If an outside doctor is allowed to be sent in by the parent or whoever it may be, there will be that friction which the noble Earl has described, and the chances of the condition of the unfortunate patient being worse than it otherwise would be. All I suggest is that if the parent or guardian conies to the Board of Control Or to the Lord Chancellor—I can speak for the last official, and I can speak on instructions for the Board—in every case where it is not unreasonable authority will be given for the independent doctor to enter, and entering with the authority of the Board or of the Lord Chancellor behind him he would be in a very much stronger position than he would otherwise be in. That is provided by this Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In which clause?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: According to the regular powers of the Lord Chancellor under the Lunacy Act and the express powers of the Board of Control conferred upon them by the Home Secretary.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They do not give a parent or guardian the right to go to the Lord Chancellor and demand the admission of his own medical adviser.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The parent has that right. I have a case every week, and I order a special inquiry in every case where it is reasonable, and communicate with the persons concerned. The Lord Chancellor has that power, and the Board of Control has it also. I assure your Lordships that there is no desire to interfere with the liberty of the subject here or not to safeguard it. We think that we have done it in the fullest possible way. The sending of somebody from outside into these asylums without any official authority we feel will lead to friction and do more harm to the unfortunate defective than the good that is sought to be done.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: wish I could believe that the difference between the noble and learned Viscount and my noble friend is really as small as

1795
the noble and learned Viscount appears to suppose. I cannot help feeling that there is a substantial difference between the two positions. One objection of the Lord Chancellor to the proposal of my noble friend I can understand. He said that a medical officer sent to visit one of these defectives might approach his task in an unsuitable frame of mind. I can conceive that that might happen, and that there might he some risk of inconvenience. But is it not better to run that risk than to incur the infinitely greater risk of making people believe that when their relatives are taken from them under this Bill they are to be buried away in an asylum, and that there is to be no prospect, except the one opportunity when the defective arrives at the age of twenty-one, of extricating them from their position? This Bill is, of course, a tremendous interference with personal liberty, and I cannot help thinking that it would be worth while straining a point, if it be straining a point, in order to remove from the public mind the kind of impression which I believe might be created unless some Mitigations of this kind are accepted. The noble and learned Viscount gave us an assurance which, of course, we should take from him unreservedly, that as far as he is concerned no obstacle will be placed in the way of a visit from an independent doctor. But that is really not quite the same thing as giving the relatives of the defective the right of requiring such a visit. We have to think not only of people who have access to the high legal authorities, but of very poor and humble people who will be easily discouraged from taking a step of this kind if you place too many obstacles in their way. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will take into consideration the strong appeal made to him by my noble friend, and that he will accept this Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD: Might I ask the noble and learned Viscount to explain to us whether this new class of patient whom we are to authorise for compulsory detention are going in this respect to be treated exactly in the same manner as those who are at present subject to compulsory detention? I understood from the noble and learned Viscount that the facilities for exemption were exactly the same in both cases.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD: I think that has to be considered. We all of us experience anxiety if we contemplate the possibility of any one being detained who is not really a fit subject for detention, and we must all of us be profoundly anxious to relieve the feeling of anxiety which undoubtedly exists with regard to this Bill. Therefore I think it should be possible without any serious risk to allow what is asked for by the noble Marquess in this Amendment. I understand that the opposition to this Bill in the House of Commons has been from those who were perhaps unduly anxious, but who, at any rate, were anxious with regard to the liberty of the subject. Would not the acceptance of this Amendment be a further step in the direction of removing apprehensions?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is evidently very strong feeling in the House about this, and I can only say that my own conviction is that this step will lead to friction in the future and to the less smooth working of the institutions we are setting up. There is no such power under the Lunacy Acts as they are now, and for the good reason that we have ground for thinking that it would only lead to friction if it were so. I believe that what your Lordships have in view is already provided for, but if your Lordships persist in putting this Amendment in, your Lordships must decide.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 39, leave out ("he") and insert ("the defective").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I put down the Amendment standing in my name for the purpose, in the first place, of calling your Lordships' attention to the extreme obscurity of this clause. In the second place, it is a rather fairer provision than the clause itself provides. Let me call your Lordships' attention to the way in which the clause is drawn, not the way in which it was originally drawn, but as it emerged from the House of Commons. The abnormal subsection is subsection (2). This subsection provides for the consideration of these cases at stated periods—at the end of one year, and then at the end of every quinquennial period. Then there is

1797
a proviso dealing with the special case of when the defective who is an infant reaches the age of twenty-one years. Subsection (3) apparently only refers to the proviso, and does not refer to subsection (2), and then you suddenly come back to subsection (2) again, because subsection (4) refers only to subsection (2) and does not refer to subsection (3). I am quite sure that was not the original intention of the Government or the draftsman: it must have been the result of changes in Committee. As the clause now stands there is to be a consideration with a special report, and, as your Lordships have now decided, a report from an independent doctor if required—a consideration with a special report but without necessarily seeing the defective himself and hearing what he has to say and seeing by his own evidence what the defective's condition is. Then we come to the reconsideration of the special case when he reaches the age of twenty-one. There the defective has to be specially visited and has to be inspected, and anything he has to say anything which they may deduce from his appearance is at their disposal. Then we conic to subsection (4), which provides for the special report belonging to subsection (2). All that is very confusing. What appears to me to be the substantial matter a this, that upon every consideration, whether it is a consideration at, the normal quinquennial periods or a reconsideration at the time of the defective reaching the age of twenty-one years, there should be a personal visitation of the defective by the authorities. I do not understand upon what principle the Government confine that personal visit to the special case when the defective reaches twenty-one years. It appears to me that whenever the consideration takes place the visitors should see, or some one on behalf of the authorities should see, the defective, and that should apply to the consideration under subsection (2) just as much as to the reconsideration under the proviso of that subsection. In order to bring that point out and to obtain from the Government some explanation of what their real intentions are, I propose to insert the words "consideration and" before "reconsideration" at the beginning of subsection (3) so as to make this subsection quite clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 6, after ("such") insert ("consideration and").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Marquess is under some misapprehension as to the structure of this clause. The structure of Clause 11 is this. First, an order is made that the defective must be sent to an institution or placed under guardianship. That order is to expire at the end of a year unless it is continued, and then the order is to remain in force for a year after the date at which it would have expired, and thereafter for successive periods of five years. At the end of each period of one and five years respectively the Board—not the visitors but the Board—after considering such special report and certificate and the means of care and supervision which would be available, are to make an order. Then there is a proviso which deals with the particular case of a defective who at the time he was sent to the institution or placed under guardianship was under twenty-one years of age. In that case, but in that case only, the reconsideration takes place and it is to be by visitors.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Why is that distinction made?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is purely a provision for that particular case.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What is the reason for it?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Because you have the five year periods. The Board is a better authority than the visitors for examining a case. The only reason for bringing in the visitors is this. There may be all over the country a large number of defectives attaining the age of twenty-one and it is necessary to appoint special visitors to see them. Then the case is to be reconsidered by the visitors. On such reconsideration the visitors shall visit the defective or summon him to attend before them, and so on, The procedure is entirely the procedure of the visitors, and the specific case in which they act is on the defective attaining twenty-one. They are the only ones who reconsider. It is really a question of the way the clause should be framed, and I hope I have satisfied the noble Marquess that what has been done has been done, not per incuriam, but to carry out the scheme of the clause.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and learned Viscount has made it clear with regard to the two cases. But when the Board are acting at the end of the quinquennial period ought they not to make a point of seeing the patient?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Board have very large discretionary powers as to that, and no doubt the defective would be visited by one or two visitors. The contemplation is that the visitation shall be more complete than under the present lunacy jurisdiction.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I want the noble and learned Viscount to explain is this, why there should be a consideration at the end of five years and a reconsideration when the defective reaches the age of twenty-one. If it is right in the second case—the twenty-one years case—that the defective should be seen by some one and it is so necessary that you actually lay it down expressly in the Bill, then you ought to lay it down expressly in the other case too. There is no reason for the distinction. There is no magic about the age of twenty-one that it should be specially singled out. There should be a personal inspection at the ordinary quinquennial period. As my noble friend said, it does not matter, as long as it is a competent person, who inspects the defective; but clearly if it is necessary that he should be inspected in the one case it is also necessary in the other.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The case of visiting at twenty-one is a case specially provided for, because many infant defectives in the ordinary course of events will attain the age of twenty-one at about the same time all over the country at different places. It probably would he impossible for the Board to overtake all the cases, and therefore machinery by visitors is provided under statutory conditions. But in the case of the Board their duty is to provide for the inspection of every patient at the end of the quinquennial period. The procedure of the Board is not only regulated by very competent persons but prescribed by Regulations framed by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Lord Chancellor, and by Order in Council if necessary. It is only because the visit is in a particular case that the statutory provision has been introduced.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid I have failed to make my meaning clear to the noble and learned Viscount. However, I will not press the Amendment on the present occasion, but I will see whether I cannot draw up an Amendment for a later stage which will make it obligatory on some one or other to visit the patient at the end of the quinquennial stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: word "alone" has been inserted in subsection (3) after the words "in the interests of the defective." It was moved in the other House and was accepted, but it is obvious that it may rule out cases where the further detention is desirable both in the interests of the defective and of his parents. The Amendment is really consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 12, leave out ("alone") and insert ("himself").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Duration of detention not under orders.
12.—(1) Where a defective has been placed by his parent or guardian in an institution or under guardianship it shall be lawful for such parent or guardian to withdraw him from the institution or guardianship at any time on giving notice in writing for the purpose to the Board, unless the Board, after considering what means of care and supervision would be available if he were discharged, determine within seven days that the further detention of the defective in the institution or under guardianship is required in the interests of the defective, and where the Board have so determined no further notice by the parent or guardian shall be allowed till after the expiration of six months from the last precious notice.
(2) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section a defective who has been placed by his parent or guardian in an institution or under guardianship may be detained in the institution or under guardianship, and the case shall be reconsidered by the Board at like intervals and by the visitors, as if he had been ordered to be sent to the institution or placed under guardianship, and the provisions of the last foregoing section shall apply accordingly.
(3) The managers of any certified institution, or house, or any approved home may discharge any defective placed there by his parent or guardian by giving seven days' notice to the Board.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I move to omit from subsection (1) the words "seven days" and to insert "fourteen days after receiving the notice." This is moved at the instance of the Lunacy Commissioners. The length of notice to be served by a parent or guardian of an intention to withdraw a child placed in an institution is by this Amendment extended from seven days to fourteen days, which is more convenient. This will do no one any harm, and will avoid confusion from unduly short notice.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 37, leave out ("seven days") and insert ("fourteen days after receiving the notice").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I move to leave out in subsection (3) "seven days'" and to insert "one month's." Seven days is very scanty notice to give to the parents or whoever is responsible that the defective is to be discharged from an institution, and it will be almost impossible for them to make the necessary arrangements within seven days.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 11, leave out ("seven days'") and insert ("one month's").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think this Amendment is quite reasonable, and I accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The next Amendment is merely in order that the parent or guardian, if he can be got at, should have proper notice.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 12, after ("Board") insert ("and to the parent or guardian of the defective, if known").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have no objection to that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Power to recover expenses.
13.—(1) Where an order that a defective be sent to an institution or be placed under guardianship has been made under this Act, the judicial authority which made the order or any other judicial authority, or, where the order is not made by a judicial authority, any judicial authority, may, on the application of the petitioner, or of the managers of the institution or the guardian, as the case may be, or of an officer authorised by the local authority, make an order requiring the defective, or any person liable to maintain him, to contribute such sum towards the expenses of his maintenance in the institution or of his guardianship, or, in the event of his death in the institution of his funeral expenses and any charges incidental thereto, including the cost of conveyance to the institution, as, having regard to the ability of the defective or person liable to maintain him, seems reasonable.
(2) Any such order may, on the application of the managers of the institution in which the defective is for the time being detained, or of the guardian, or of an officer authorised by the local authority, be enforced against any property of the defective or person liable to maintain him, if made by a judge of county courts, in the same way as if it were a judgment of the county court, and, if made by any other judicial authority, as if it were an order for the payment of a civil debt made by a court of summary jurisdiction.
(3) An order made under this section may be varied or revoked by the judicial authority which made it or any other judicial authority.
(4) Where a defective has been placed by his parent or guardian in an institution or under guardianship any sum which the parent or guardian has agreed to contribute towards the expenses of the maintenance or guardianship of the defective shall be recoverable summarily as a civil debt.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In order to prevent fighting about the money afterwards it is better that the agreement about money matters should be in writing. I therefore move to add "in writing" after the word "agreed" in subsection (4).
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 1, after ("agreed") insert ("in writing").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think this is an improvement, and I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Claus 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 15:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment standing in my name to Clause 15 is really a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 35, after the second ("is") insert ("apparently").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The two Amendments to this clause are also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 10, after ("guardian") insert ("wherever practicable").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 22, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17:
Provisions as to religious persuasion.
17.—(1) The judicial authority, court, or Secretary of State, in determining the institution to which a defective is to be sent under an order, shall endeavour to ascertain the religious persuasion to which the defective belongs, and the order shall, where practicable, specify the religious persuasion to which he appears to belong, and an institution conducted in accordance with that persuasion shall, where practicable, be selected.
(2) A minister of the religious persuasion specified in the order as that to which the defective appears to belong may visit the defective at the institution on such days, at such times, and on such conditions as may be fixed by the Board, for the purpose of affording religious assistance and also for the purpose of instructing him in the principles of his religion.
(3) Where a defective is sent to an institution which is not conducted in accordance with the religious persuasion to which the defective belongs, the defective shall not be compelled to receive religious instruction or religious ministrations which are not in accordance with his religious persuasion, but shall, as far as practicable, have facilities for receiving religious instruction and attending religious services co ducted in accordance with his religious persuasion.
(4) Where an order is made for sending a defective to an institution which is not conducted in accordance with the religious persuasion to which he belongs, the nearest adult relative, or in the case of a child his guardian or person entitled to his custody, may apply to the Board to remove or send the defective to an institution conducted in accordance with the defective's religious persuasion, and the Board shall on proof of the defective's religious persuasion comply with the request of the applicant; provided that the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board that the managers of the institution named by him are willing to receive the defective.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is a slight ambiguity in subsection (4). It says, "Where an order is made for sending a defective to an institution which is not conducted in accordance with the religious persuasion to which he belongs, the nearest adult relative, or in the case of a child his guardian or person entitled to his custody, may apply to the Board," and so on. The word "guardian" is used in two senses in the Bill. There is the ordinary sense, the natural guardian; and there is the guardian appointed under the Act itself. I presume that what the Government mean here is the natural and proper guardian, the person who stands in the place of a parent, but they never use that word except in the composite phrase "parent or guardian." The guardian is the only one defined in the clause, and the word "guardian" is left as it stands without the preface "parent or." I am not particularly enamoured of the definition "parent or guardian" in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 12, after ("his") insert ("parent or") and leave out ("or person entitled to his custody").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The law supplies the definition. If a child has a parent the father is the guardian.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But the guardian may be the natural guardian or the guardian appointed under the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not in this clause. It is not ambiguous there.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment standing in my name is, I think, quite right. A Roman Catholic ought not to be sent to a Roman Catholic institution if the institution is unsuitable for his needs. For instance, a feebleminded person might be sent to a home kept for idiots. That would never do, and we must not let that happen.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 19, after ("defective") insert ("and that the institution is one suitable to the case").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This new clause which I move to insert after Clause 17 raises very much the same point as the Amendment which has just been inserted in the Bill. It is, I must admit, a little wider in one respect, because it allows the duly qualified practitioner to go and see the defective more often than merely at the end of the quinquennial periods. Still, it is a very proper and reasonable proposal, at any rate so far as the parents or guardians themselves are concerned. If the Government are not willing to allow me to insert this clause in respect of the medical practitioner, I hope they will at any rate allow some words to be put into the Bill to show that the parents or guardians have an inalienable right to go and see how their unfortunate relation is getting on. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not tell me that this will be all provided for by Regulations. These things which are absolutely essential ought to be in the Bill. It ought to be laid down as an absolute right of the responsible relations of the defective to visit the defective from time to time.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause, viz.: Any duly qualified medical practitioner nominated for the purpose by a defective, or his parent or guardian, or by any relative or friend of the defective may visit the defective at any institution or approved home or certified house for the purpose of the medical examination of the defective at such times and on such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State; provided that the regulations shall permit a defective to be so visited at intervals not exceeding six months.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should wish to see what is to be in the clause before I gave a promise. For instance, take a case of lunacy. In certain cases it may be very detrimental to the wellbeing of the lunatic that he should be visited by any one; and in some cases it might aggravate his condition very much. In every case where it could be done consistent with the well-being of the defectives the parents or guardians should be able to see them. We only want to, keep it discretionary. I should like to see the suggested words of the noble Marquess.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The words as drafted in the noble Marquess's clause on the Paper are "on such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is absolutely necessary to keep it discretionary. If the noble Earl had had the constant communications that I have had in connection with the Lunacy Commissioners upon these subjects he would know how serious the other side is.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 18 to 23 agreed to.
Clause 21:
General powers and duties of Commissioners.
24.—(1) Subject to regulations made by the Secretary of State the Board shall—

(a) exercise general supervision, protection, and control over defectives;

(b) supervise the administration by local authorities of their powers and duties under this Act;

(c) certify, approve, supervise, and inspect institutions, houses, and homes for defectives, and all arrangements made for the care, training, and control of defectives therein;

(d) visit, either through one or more Commissioners or through their inspectors, defectives in institutions and certified houses and approved homes, or under guardianship, or (with a view to their certification) elsewhere, and persons who have been placed under the care of any person as being defectives;

(e) provide and maintain institutions for defectives of criminal, dangerous, or violent propensities;

(f) to take such steps as may be necessary for ensuring suitable treatment of cases of mental deficiency;

(g) make annual reports and such special reports as the Secretary of State may from time to time require;

(h) administer, in accordance with this Act, grants made out of money provided by Parliament under this Act.

(2) Without prejudice to their powers and duties under any regulations which the Secretary of State may make for further or more frequent inspection and visitation, it shall be the duty of the Board, through one or more Commissioners to inspect every certified institution, certified house, and approved home at least once in each year, and either through themselves or their inspectors to inspect every certified institution, certified house, and approved home one additional time in each year and every defective under guardianship, at least twice in every year, and any Commissioner shall have power to discharge at any time any person detained in a certified institution or certified house or under guardianship under this Act:
Provided that a Commissioner shall not exercise such power of discharge without the consent of the Secretary of State in the case of a person sent to such an institution by order of the Secretary of State from a prison, criminal lunatic asylum, place of detention, reformatory or industrial school, or inebriate reformatory, so long as the term for which he was committed to the prison or other place from which he was transferred remains unexpired.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This clause says that subject to regulations made by the Secretary of State the Board shall visit, either through one or more Commissioners or through their inspectors, defectives in institutions and certified houses, and so forth; and it goes on to say "or (with a view to their certification) elsewhere." We do not know what the words "with a view to their certification" mean, and I have put down an Amendment to leave them out.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 31, leave out ("with a view to their certification").—(The Marquess of Salisburry.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The reason for these words was to introduce a reference to the motive why there should be such visits. The Amendment, if accepted, would remove a limitation on the power of visitation by the Commissioners. The words would only cause persons not in an institution or under guardianship to be visited if the Commissioners thought they ought to be certificated. Why should the Commissioners visit them if they were not under guardianship unless the Commissioners had reason to think they ought to be certificated? That is the difficulty about it. I think the words as they stand introduce rather a useful limitation on the powers of the Commissioners.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Are the Commissioners supposed to go about and visit defectives anywhere with a view to their certification?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Commissioners will carry out the powers of the Board of Control, and what you do not want is that the Commissioners should rove about with no reason for roving about. The provision is really to enable them to find the defectives and certify them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 38, after the first ("reports") insert ("to be presented to Parliament") —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26:
Local authorities.
26. The local authority for the purposes of this Act shall, as respects a county, be the council of the county, and, as respects a county borough, be the council of the borough.
THE MARQUESS OF BATH: The Amendment which I have on the Paper is designed to give the control of the mentally deficient in their area to the Corporation of the City of London. I may remind your Lordships that the City already has an asylum winch bears the highest reputation for its management and is absolutely in the forefront. It may be urged, of course; that the residential population in the City is small, but on the other hand there is a large floating population which will come under this Bill. There is a precedent for this in the Children Act of 1908, where the Corporation have this clause. I would also remind the House that there is no desire on the part of the Corporation of the City of London to in any way avoid financial responsibility in this matter. They would be perfectly ready, as it is provided already, to bear their full share of the expenses with regard to the mentally deficient throughout the whole area of the county of London. Powers such as this have been repeatedly given to the City; the separate position of the City has been recognised in the Police Act, the Lunacy Acts, the Housing of the Working Classes Act, the Public Health Acts, the Employment of Children Act, the Infant Life Protection Act, the Explosives Act, the

1809
Lighting of Vehicles Act, and so on. And not only that, but in every County Council Bill the position of the City has been recognised. I therefore venture to recommend this Amendment to your Lordships, and to express the hope that the noble and learned Viscount will be able to see his way to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 28, leave out ("and"); and in line 29, after the second ("borough") insert ("and, as respects the City of London, be the Common Council").—(The Marquess of Bath.)
LORD MONK BRETTON: I hope His Majesty's Government will not accept this Amendment. In the first place, the mentally deficient service is a county service in London at the present time. In the second place, as the noble Marquess has suggested, there are very few mental deficients in the City. I think that is very natural. Sir Frederick Banbury, in another place, when reminded that there were very few mental defectives in the City and that consequently it was unreasonable that the City should have a separate service, said the City were prepared to take in paying patients in the home which they would provide. We on the London County Council object to the City having these powers. It is quite true that the City is the lunacy authority for its district, very much to the disadvantage of the general ratepayers of London; because if the City were in the London County Council area they would pay in rates under this head exactly three times as much as they do at the present time. Consequently the ordinary ratepayer outside the City area would very much prefer not only to have the care of the mentally deficient but also to have the care of the City lunatics. But we do object to this Amendment in this connection. The Royal Commission on the Feeble Minded say in their Report that "There is in London a division of authority and want of administrative accord which is fatal to any successful treatment of the problem." And the Commission went on to say that several of the witnesses strongly advocated the abolition of such division of authority. The noble Marquess quoted several Acts in which separate powers have been given to the City. I could quote others in the opposite sense. But I chiefly rely on the principle of fairness with regard to the rates, and the quotation I have made from the Report of the Royal Commission.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understand the noble Lord who has just sat clown to intimate that the London County Council do not agree to this Amendment?
LORD MONK BRETTON: That is so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government went into this matter with a desire to hold the scales, and the following considerations impressed them against the City. First of all, there are very few defectives in the City. Not a great many people sleep there in proportion to the population and the number of defectives is very small. Secondly—and this is very important—the Common Council of the City is not an education authority, and the, education authorities and this Bill stand in very close relation. Thirdly, the City is represented on the London County Council for the purpose. Fourthly, when this was moved in the House of Commons it was discussed, and then dropped. Therefore to put this Amendment in now would probably lead to a great deal of controversy. I therefore think the noble Marquess will be well advised not to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:
General powers and duties of local authorities.
29. The local authority are hereby empowered, and it shall be their duty, subject to the provisions of this Act and to regulations made by the Secretary of State—

(a) to ascertain what persons within their area are defectives subject to be dealt with under this Act otherwise than at the instance of their parents or guardians;

(b) to provide suitable supervision for such persons, or if such supervision affords insufficient protection, to take steps for securing that they shall be dealt with by being sent to institutions or placed under guardianship in accordance with this Act;

(c) to provide suitable and sufficient accommodation for such persons when sent to certified institutions by orders under this Act, and for their maintenance therein, and for the conveyance of such persons to and from such institutions;

(d) to make provision for the guardianship of such persons when placed under guardianship by orders under this Act;

1811

(e) if they think fit, to maintain in an institution or approved home or contribute towards the expenses of maintenance in an institution or approved home or the expenses of guardianship of a defective;

(f) if they think fit, to provide for the burial of such persons dying in an institution or when placed under guardianship in accordance with this Act;

(g) to appoint or employ sufficient officers and other persons to assist them in the performance of their duties under this Act;

(h) to make to the Board annual reports and such other reports as the Board may require:

Provided that—

(i) nothing in this Act shall be construed as imposing any obligation on a local authority to perform the duties mentioned in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (g) aforesaid where the contribution out of moneys provided by Parliament under this Act towards the cost on income account of performing such duties is less than one half of the net amount (as approved by the Board) of such cost;

(ii) nothing in this Act shall affect the powers and duties of poor law authorities under the Acts relating to the relief of the poor, with respect to any defectives who may be dealt with tinder those Acts; nor the right of poor law authorities to receive the same grant for a defective who has been, or may be, sent to an institution, that they would have received if the Idiots Act, 1886, had not been repealed; nor shall local authorities under this Act have any duties with respect to defectives who for the time being are being provided for by such authorities as aforesaid, except to such extent as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Local Government Board;

(iii) nothing in this Act shall affect the powers and duties of local authorities under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911, with respect to any defectives who may be dealt with under those Acts, nor shall local authorities under this Act have any duties or powers with respect to defectives who for the time being are, or who might be, provided for by such authorities as aforesaid except to such extent as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor;

(iv) nothing in this Act shall affect the duties or powers of local education authorities under the Education Acts; and the duty of ascertaining what children over the age of seven and under the age of sixteen (herein-after referred to as defective children) are defectives shall rest with the local education authority as herein-after provided and not with the local authority under this Act; and such last mentioned authorities shall have no duties as respects defective children, except those whose names and addresses have been notified to them by the local education authority under the provisions of this Act.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This Amendment in paragraph (a) is exactly the same Amendment as I moved, and the Government accepted, upon Clause 4. It is only a definition.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 32, leave out ("at the instance of their parents or guardians") and insert ("under paragraph (a) of subsection one of Section two of this Act").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The next is a substantial matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the Government. I ventured to refer to this on the Second Reading. I have no reason to doubt that the principle of providing for supervision for the defectives who are not bad enough to be shut up or put under guardianship may have a great deal to be said for it, but the expression is absolutely vague. I am now upon paragraph (b)—"to provide suitable supervision for such persons." The Amendment which I am proposing is to insert, after "such persons," the words "with their consent or the consent of their parent or guardian." I ventured on Second Reading to ask the noble and learned Viscount —it was not convenient for him to reply to me then—to tell us what this supervision meant, and what the effect of the words "to provide suitable supervision" would be, because "supervision" is very vague. It is not defined in the Bill. It is a new thing to say that without any process of law at all, without any decision of any Law Court or judicial authority, certain persons should have the right to supervise other persons. At present if a person attempts to supervise an ordinary man be is told "Mind your own business." That is the ordinary reply if people interfere with him, unless they do it by process of some legal right acquired on a decision of a Court of Law. But this supervision arises without any decision of a Court of Law at all, simply apparently upon the motion of the local authority, who are empowered under this section to provide supervision for such persons, or, if such supervision affords insufficient protection, to take steps for securing greater powers of restraint. What does this supervision amount to? Does it mean that they are

1813
to pay the persons to supervise, or to appoint them? Or are they granted additional powers they do not possess at present?—for instance, rights of entry; calling upon the civil power to assist them; rights to interview the alleged defective, whether the alleged defective likes or no? All those questions are undetermined in the clause; it is perfectly vague. I have tried to restrict it in one particular to draw from the Government how far they really intend to go. The way I propose to restrict it is by putting in the words, "with their consent or the consent of their parent or guardian," so as to make it quite clear that this supervision cannot be exercised over one against one's will, or against the will of the parent or guardian, until there has been some legal process under which the matter may become legitimate. These appear to be limiting words which will lead the Government to explain exactly what they mean by "supervision."
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 33, after ("persons") insert ("with their consent or the consent of their parent or guardian").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The governing purpose of the clause is this. The authority, subject to proper regulations, are first of all to ascertain the number of defectives within the areas, and to there and then provide suitable supervision for such persons. That does not, of course, mean that the authority is straight off to determine who is to supervise, or to settle upon the person to whom the guardianship is to be committed. That is a matter for the judicial authorities when the time comes. All that is done here is to define the duty of the local authority. The local authority is to see that these persons have suitable supervision, or, if the supervision is insufficient protection, to take steps of a further kind. The noble Marquess proposes to put in after "persons" the words "with their consent or the consent of their parent or guardian." Now suppose the case of a parent or guardian being in default; suppose the case of a child who is in a home where the parents are drunkards. Such a parent, or such a guardian, is very likely to be obstinate and to refuse. What the authority has to do is to take steps to provide certain supervision, it may be through the judicial authority or other-
1814
wise. But it would never do to make the consent of the existing parent or guardian a condition, because the parent or guardian may be the very person from whom it is essential to get the custody of the child.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I follow what the noble and learned Viscount says and am impressed with it. But will he tell us what powers the supervisor would have in the case of a reluctant parent?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is to provide suitable supervision for such persons. The authority will, if possible, replace it with such other person temporarily, and if that cannot be done take other steps. It is on the other steps that the legal protection will come in.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The point of my next Amendment is this. I do not think paragraph (d) can be read with the rest of the Bill. The guardian is appointed by the judicial authority. That is quite clear. Then what is meant by the words "to make provision for the guardianship"? The words seem to cover the same ground, so that the local authority is to have jurisdiction which overlaps, as it were, the authority of the judicial authority. The word "providing" is a very wide one. We speak of providing a school—that means the whole thing, the putting up of the school, the paying for it, and the determining of every circumstance about it. One would think that provision for the guardianship would be the same. But if the noble and learned Viscount says it is to pay for the guardianship, then I turn to Clause 37. There you will find that "A local authority may, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, contribute towards the expenses of the guardianship." So that where the local authority is directed in Clause 29 obligatorily to provide for the guardianship, in Clause 37 it has an optional power to contribute towards the very same thing. It is therefore evident from the reading of the Bill that the interpretation which the noble and learned Viscount would wish to put on the provision of the guardianship is not sound; otherwise you would not want

1815
power to contribute to the guardianship in a subsequent clause. That is why I say the paragraph does not read. I think the Government ought to bring up clearer words stating what they really mean. If they mean "pay for the guardianship" in Clause 29 they should say so and strike out the provision in Clause 37, because the two things are not consistent. If they mean more than pay for it, then they interfere with the appointment of the guardian which is assigned to the judicial authority by an earlier clause in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, lines 4 to 6, leave out paragraph (d).—(The Marquess al Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The guardian is appointed by the judicial authority, not by the local authority. Very well. The guardian, having been appointed by the judicial authority, then has to be looked after, and the local authority it is who finds out about him, and pays him, and so on. But although it is said in Clause 29 that it is the duty of the local authority to look after him, it is only said to be a duty subject to the provisions of the Bill and regulations made by the Secretary of State. In Clause 37, which is one of those clauses which relate to cases where they are not under a duty, as I have pointed out, it is expressed to be subject to the other provisions of the Bill, so there is no inconsistency. In most cases the local authority will look after the guardian. There may be cases, however, where they are not under an obligation to do so. The clause is useful as giving the power to make the contributions necessary. If there is any inconsistency it is in Clause 37, which, I agree with the noble Marquess, has almost more of an optional look about it than is desirable. I should be ready to see that go if any one draws attention to it; but I attach a good deal of importance to paragraph (d), and I should like to keep it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will move on Clause 37, then.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next is a purely drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 10, leave out ("a defective") and insert ("any defectives other than aforesaid").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is also purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 11, leave out ("such").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONK BRETTON: The object of my Amendment is to cut out the duty of the local authority to provide accommodation for dangerous criminals. I understood from the noble and learned Viscount's statement on Second Reading that the State would pay the whole cost of such criminals. I do not know if that was so. But in any case the county councils object to having to pay for these criminals. Moreover, they do not want to be bothered with them or to have the responsibility of them at all. In the circumstances I hope these persons will go to the prisons which are more suitable.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 20, after ("Acts") insert:
(v) Nothing in this Act shall require a local authority to provide accommodation or' treatment for defectives of criminal, dangerous or violent propensities.—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is nothing in the Bill which requires the local authority to provide accommodation for the treatment of criminals who are dangerous or who have violent propensities. The cost incurred in respect of persons who are sentenced and come under that head will be defrayed by the State.
LORD MONK BRETTON: Would that cover all persons of criminal propensities? A person of criminal propensities is a criminal, I take it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Persons who are dangerous are covered by this. Persons who have merely committed a theft, or are in a position of that kind, are not covered by it.
LORD MONK BRETTO.N: When the noble and learned Viscount says "covered by it" he means that the local authority will not be responsible for them, I suppose?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Take the case of a boy who has stolen an apple from an orchard—a small thing of that kind. It would not be right to put him in the category of persons whom the State should take charge of because of their criminal violence or propensities. Such a case as that it would be right to leave as the matter stands. But in all cases where the criminal is dangerous or has violent propensities he will be provided for by the State.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 32 agreed to.
Clause 33:
Special provisions as to Lancashire.
54 & 55 Vict. c. xx.
33.—(1) If the council of the county of Lancaster and the councils of the county boroughs represented on the Lancashire Asylums Board so agree, that Board shall be the local authority for the purposes of this Act for that county and those county boroughs, and the provisions of the Lancashire County (Lunatic Asylums and other Powers) Act, 1891, as to expenses, borrowing, accounts, and audit shall apply accordingly in substitution for the provisions as to the like matters contained in this Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Amendments to this clause are simply for the purpose of putting into order the provisions settled in the other House about the county of Lancaster. As your Lordships know, the county of Lancaster stands on a different footing from other counties in that it has so many boroughs, and so on. They are merely drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 23, line 26, leave out from the beginning of the clause to the second ("the") in line 27.
Page 23, line 28, leave out ("so agree, that Board shall") and insert ("shall as respects the county of Lancaster, and the county boroughs represented on the said Board").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 36 agreed to.
Clause 37:
Power of local authorities to establish or contribute to institutions, &c.
37.—(1) A local authority may, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State,—

(a) undertake or combine with any other local authority in undertaking, or contribute such sums of money upon such conditions as they may think fit towards, the establishment, building, alteration, enlargement, rebuilding, or management of institutions certified or intended to be certified under this Act or the purchase of any land required for the use of a certified institution or for the site of an institution intended to be certified under this Act; and

(b) contract with the managers of any certified institution for the reception and maintenance in the institution of persons for whose reception and maintenance the local authority are by this Act required or authorised to make provision;

(c) contribute towards the expenses of the guardianship of any person placed or ordered to be placed under guardianship.

(2) Where plans of any proposed alteration, enlargement, rebuilding, or building have been approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section they shall be carried out without any modifications (except such as the Secretary of State may approve), and no building or site which has been provided by a council or to which they have contributed under this section shall without the consent of the Secretary of State be used for any purpose other than that for which it has been approved.
(3) Land may be acquired by a local authority for the purposes of this, Act in the case of the council of a county under and in accordance with the Local Government Act, 1888, and in the case of the council of a county borough as for the purposes of the Public Health Acts.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In pursuance of the discussion we had just now, I move to leave out paragraph (c) of Clause 37.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, lines 12 to 14, leave out paragraph (c). —(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I accept that Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39:
Visitors of institutions.
39.—(1) The persons appointed under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911, to act as visitors of licensed houses, with the addition of one or more women appointed in like manner as such visitors, shall be the visitors of institutions for

1819
defectives under this Act, and the number of persons appointed to be visitors of licensed houses under those Acts shall be such as may be considered necessary to perform the duties of visitors of institutions for defectives under this Act as well as the duties of visitors of licensed houses under those Acts, and their duties under this Act shall he taken into consideration in determining the remuneration, if any, of the visitors and clerks to visitors.
(2) In all places where no persons are so appointed to act as visitors of licensed houses a sufficient number of persons, with the addition of one or more women, possessing the like qualifications as such visitors shall be appointed in like manner as such visitors to act as visitors of institutions for defectives, and a clerk to such visitors shall be appointed in like manner as in the case of the clerk to the visitors appointed under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911, and the expenses of visitors so appointed, including the remuneration, if any, of any visitors and clerks to visitors, shall be defrayed in like manner as the expenses of visitors under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911.
(3) The visitors of institutions for defectives shall perform such functions as are assigned to them by this Act and such further functions in connection with the visitation of institutions and of the patients therein, and with respect to the discharge of such patients and their after care and otherwise, as may be assigned to them by regulations of the Secretary of State under this Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: These are purely drafting Amendments to make sure that the women get in. I am putting them in the right place in the Bill.
Amendments moved—
Page 26, line 12, leave out ("with the addition of one or more women").
Page 26, line 13, after ("visitors") insert ("with the addition of one or more women").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it would be useful to be able to ask the visitors to institutions to inspect these defectives. The addition I now propose is in the right direction.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 24, after ("therein") insert ("and of defectives under guardianship").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 23, leave out ("patients") and insert ("defectives").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to.
Clause 42:
Ascertainment of local authority responsible for providing accommodation, &c.
42.—(1) Where a person is ordered to be sent to a certified institution or to be placed under guardianship the local authority responsible for providing accommodation for that person or making provision for his guardianship as the case may be, shall be the council of the county or county borough in which he resided (to be specified in the order), and the duties of that council shall include, in the case of a person ordered to be sent to a certified institution, the duty to provide for his conveyance to, and reception and maintenance in, such an institution.
(2) An order that a person be sent to an institution or placed under guardianship shall not, where a council will by virtue of this Act become responsible for providing for the conveyance, reception and maintenance of that person in an institution, or making provision for his guardianship, as the case may be, be made unless that council have been given an opportunity of being heard, or, if the order is made by the Secretary of State, of making representations to him.
(3) The council responsible under this section for the maintenance of a person in a certified institution shall continue responsible for his maintenance in the event of his transfer to another such institution, and shall be responsible for his conveyance on his transfer from the one institution to the other; and the council responsible under this section for making provision for the guardianship of a person placed under guardianship shall, in the event of his being sent to a certified institution under an order varying the original order, be responsible for his conveyance to and his reception and maintenance in such an institution.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If a local authority has established an institution and there are vacant beds in that institution there ought to be no power to require that local authority to pay the expenses of defectives sent by another authority. That seems reasonable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 22, after ("him") insert ("and if room is available in an institution suitable for the defective provided by the responsible authority, an order shall not, without the consent of that authority, be made for sending the defective to any other institution").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONK BRETTON: The Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount has just inserted covers my- proposed new subsection (4) on the Paper, but it does not cover my proposed subsection (5). The point is that where a council is responsible for a defective and that defective is not in their immediate institution, it is desirable and necessary that that council

1821
should be able, so to speak, to follow the defective and inspect him. In asking for such powers one can quote the analogy of boards of guardians, who have power to visit an asylum where they have a lunatic confined. Local authorities attach importance to having this power to visit.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new subsection:
(5) The council responsible for the maintenance of a person in an institution or under guardianship may cause the institution or guardian, as the case may be, to be visited.—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The object is quite reasonable, but the Amendment is not necessary. I will undertake that this is provided for in the regulations. It is better that it should be so provided than in the clause. We have to make statutory regulations under the Bill which will be laid on the Table in Parliament, and we will provide for this in those regulations.
LORD MONK BRETTON: Boards of guardians have power to go into an asylum, not by regulations but by Act of Parliament. The local authorities dislike being under the heel of regulations made by the Civil Service in Whitehall, and would much prefer that this power should be inserted in the Bill. I cannot see what possible objection there is to doing so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think it very much matters, but it is not quite appropriate. It will be said, Why are not things of equal importance put into the Bill? A number of matters must be provided for by the regulations which, as I have said, will be laid on the Table of Parliament.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendments to Clause 43 are drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 5, after ("prison") insert ("inebriate reformatory").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, lines 12 and 13, leave out ("an inebriate reformatory or") and insert ("a").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, lines 17 and 18, leave out ("inebriate reformatory or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 44 and 45 agreed to.
Clause 46:
Contributions by the Treasury.
46. There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament such sums on such conditions as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, recommend towards the expenses of any persons detained in certified institutions or placed under guardianship, including the expenses of removal in the case of any such person ordered to be transferred from one such institution to another and towards other expenses incurred by local authorities under this Act:
Provided that, unless Parliament otherwise determines, the aggregate amount so paid in any financial year shall not exceed one hundred and fifty thousand pounds, but for the purpose of this limitation there shall be excluded all sums paid towards the expenses of persons sent to such institutions or placed under guardianship—

(a) by order of the Secretary of State;

(b) by order of a court or judicial authority after having been found guilty of an offence or having been ordered or found liable to be ordered to be sent to an industrial school.

LORD MONK BRETTON: I have put this Amendment down primarily for the purpose of obtaining information from His Majesty's Government with regard to the allocation of money. This is really the main question—How are the Government grants to be allocated? Is the money all to be spent amongst the larger authorities, or is it to be distributed throughout the country? And if there are districts which are not going to receive any money at all is it worth their while to register when the Act is going to be a dead letter in their districts? I do not wish to press this Amendment seriously, but I wish to ask for information on the subject.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 21, after ("school") insert ("and that the money provided by Parliament shall be allocated to the local authorities according to the number of persons within the area of each local authority ascertained by them to be defectives subject to be dealt with under this Act").— (Lord Monk Bretton.)
LORD STRACHIE: The objection to this Amendment is that the amount will not be reckoned by the number of defectives who happen to be living in one particular area, but the area is to receive money according to the number of defectives dealt with.
LORD MONK BRETTON: I quite understand the objection to my Amendment. But I put it down in the hope of getting some information with regard to the method of the allocation of the money.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It ought to be allocated according to the work done, rather than according to the number of heads. You do not want to give money to an area where the authority is not doing its duty. You cannot take the number of defectives merely, but the number of cases dealt with. That is the broad principle that underlies the allocation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clauses 47 and 48 agreed to.
Clause 49:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I move a series of drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 32, line 25, leave out ("institution") and insert ("premises")
Page 32, line 30, leave out ("institution") and insert ("premises")
Page 32, line 31, leave out ("premises") and insert ("same")
Page 32, line 37, leave out ("an institution") and insert ("any premises")
Page 32, line 38, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 50 to 54 agreed to.
Clause 55:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: These are drafting Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 31, leave out ("either under this section or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 5, leave out ("this section of this Act") and insert ("references to this section and the last foregoing section").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 56 to 63 agreed to.
Clause 61:
Transfer to Board of powers and duties of Lunacy Commissioners.
64.—(1) All the powers and duties of the Commissioners in Lunacy under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911, shall, as from the commencement of this Act, be transferred to the Board, and His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that anything which under those Acts is required or authorised to be done by, to, or in respect of any one or more Commissioners in Lunacy or any officer of those Commissioners shall, be done by, to, or in respect of one or more Commissioners under this Act, or the corresponding officer of the Board:
Provided that nothing in such Order in Council shall authorise anything by those Acts required to be clone by two Commissioners, one a medical practitioner and the other a barrister, to be done otherwise than by two Commissioners, one a medical and the other a legal Commissioner.
(2) As from the commencement of this Act the existing staff of the Commissioners in Lunacy shall be transferred to and become members of the staff of the Board, but without prejudice to the rights of any existing members of such staff.
(3) As from the commencement of this Act sections one hundred and fifty to one hundred and sixty-one of the Lunacy Act, 1890, shall be repealed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have an Amendment at the end of subsection (1). It is a useful provision because it enables us to pay the persons concerned, which cannot be done unless we have this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 2, after ("Commissioner") insert ("but the order may provide that in the case of the temporary illness or disability of a medical or legal Commissioner the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State (as the case may be) may appoint a person qualified to be a medical or legal Commissioner to act as substitute so long as the illness or disability continues").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 65 and 66 agreed to.
Clause 67:
Provisions as to regulations.
67. Regulations made under this Act shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Amendment gives rather stronger powers to Parliament, and I think it ought to go in.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 8, after ("and") insert ("if within thirty days after they have been so laid either House of Parliament presents an address to His Majesty praying that any such regulations may be annulled, His Majesty may, by Order in Council, annul the regulations, without prejudice, however, to anything done thereunder, and the regulations made under this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 68 and 69 agreed to.
Clause 70:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is necessary to make it clear that the term "relative" includes the husband or wife of the defective.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 26, after ("means") insert ("the husband or wife, or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 16, leave out ("an institution") and insert ("any premises").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule:

POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE.
1. The supervision of the administration by local authorities of their power and duties under this Act.
2. The certification and approval of premises.
3. The provision and maintenance of State institutions.
4. The administration of grants made out of moneys provided by Parliament under this Act.
5. Such other powers and duties of the Board of an administrative nature as the Secretary of State or the Board may assign to the administrative committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not move the Amendment standing in my name to the Schedule.
LORD MONK BRETTON: I hope the noble and learned Viscount will move this Amendment. This is a matter of considerable importance, to which I referred on the Second Reading.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Lord desires site to do so, I will move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 18, after ("Board"), where it first appears in paragraph 5, insert ("under this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
At the conclusion of the Committee stage, on the Motion to report the Bill as amended to the House.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE said: On this Motion I should like to say one or two words. I think the worst enemy of this House belonging to the Party opposite must be thoroughly satisfied with the proceedings of this Rouse this afternoon. Every one admits, whatever his opinion may be in the Second Chamber controversy, that revision is one of the functions of a Second Chamber. In the conditions under which we have to work revision is a farce. What we have done to-night is a transparent farce in the face of the whole country. It has been impossible for the Opposition to master this Bill or to do their duty by it, and it is perfectly clear that the Government know almost as little of the Bill as the Opposition. Not only that, but the Lord Chancellor puts down on the Paper many Amendments which he thinks obviously necessary improvements in the Bill, and he does not move them. Why? Only to enable the House of Commons to compass the Prorogation on Friday. It is hard indeed to be asked to take part in staging such a farce as this. The days of this House as at present composed are neatly numbered. When the new House comes into existence I devoutly hope that it will refuse to connive at a farce of this kind. I trust that it will arrange its adjournments solely with a view to its duty of revision, and not to suit the convenience either of His Majesty's Government, from whatever Party it is taken, or of the House of Commons.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 174.)

BANKRUPTCY BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to prosecute offences summarily.
32 &33 Vict. c. 62.
1.—(1) Any offence under, or which may be dealt with as if it were an offence under, the Debtors Act, 1869, alleged to have been committed by a person who has been adjudged bankrupt, or in respect of whose estate a receiving order has been made, may be prosecuted summarily, and if so prosecuted references in the enactments creating those offences to the jury shall be construed as references to a court of summary jurisdiction:
Provided that—

(a) the maximum term of imprisonment, with or without hard labour, which may be awarded by a court of summary jurisdiction for any such offence shall be six months; and

(b) summary proceedings in respect of any such offence shall not be instituted after one year from the first discovery thereof either by the Official Receiver or by the trustee in the bankruptcy, nor in any case shall they be instituted after three years from the commission of the offence.

(2) Where the prosecution of a person for any such offence is ordered by the court, and the order of the court is made on the application of the Official Receiver and based on his report, the Board of Trade may, notwithstanding anything in section one hundred and sixty-six of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (herein-after referred to as "the principal Act"), themselves or through the Official Receiver institute the prosecution and carry on the proceedings, if or so long as those proceedings are conducted before a court of summary jurisdiction, unless in the course thereof circumstances arise which, in the opinion of such court or of the Board, render it desirable that the remainder of the proceedings should be carried on by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Paragraph (b), which I propose to amend, deals with the time limit. As the paragraph stands at the present moment it only refers to the Official Receiver or to the trustee in the bankruptcy, but there is yet a third party who occasionally does take proceedings, and that is the creditor. It is desirable that the limitation should apply to the creditor as well as the other parties concerned.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 22, after ("bankruptcy") insert ("or, in the case of proceedings instituted by a creditor, by the creditor").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Dealings with undischarged bankrupt.
11.—(1) All transactions by a bankrupt with any person dealing with him bonâfide and for value and without knowledge of his bankruptcy, in respect of property, whether real or personal, acquired by the bankrupt after the adjudication shall, if completed before any intervention by the trustee, be valid against the trustee, and any estate or interest in such property which by virtue of the enactments relating to bankruptcy is vested in the trustee shall determine and pass in such manner and to such extent as may be required for giving effect to any such transaction, and, where any such transaction is a transaction in the course of any trade or business carried on by the bankrupt, it shall be valid against the trustee, whether or not the person dealing with the bankrupt had knowledge of the bankruptcy. This subsection shall apply to transactions with respect to real property completed before the commencement of this Act in any case where there has not been any intervention by the trustee before that date. For the purposes of this subsection the receipt of any money, security, or negotiable instrument from, or by the order or direction of, a bankrupt by his banker, and any payment made to, or by the order or direction of, a bankrupt by his banker, shall be deemed to be a transaction by the bankrupt with such banker dealing with him for value.
(2) Where a banker has ascertained that a person having an account with him is an undischarged bankrupt then, unless the banker is satisfied that the account is on behalf of some other person, it shall be his duty forthwith to inform the trustee in bankruptcy or the Board of Trade of the existence of the account, and thereafter he shall not make any payments out of the account except under an order of the court or in accordance with instructions from the trustee in bankruptcy, unless by the expiration of one month from the date of giving the information no instructions have been received from the trustee.
(3) In the event of a second or subsequent receiving order being made against a bankrupt, any property acquired by him since he was last adjudged bankrupt which at the date when the subsequent petition was presented had not been distributed amongst the creditors in such last preceding bankruptcy, shall (subject to any disposition thereof made by the official receiver or trustee in that bankruptcy, without knowledge of the presentation of the subsequent petition and subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section) vest in the trustee in the subsequent bankruptcy, but any unsatisfied balance of the debts provable under the last preceding bankruptcy may be proved in the subsequent bankruptcy by the trustee in the last preceding bankruptcy.
(4) Where the trustee in any bankruptcy receives notice of a subsequent petition in bankruptcy against the bankrupt, he shall hold any property then in his possession which has been acquired by the bankrupt since he was adjudged bankrupt until the subsequent petition has been disposed of, and if on the subsequent petition an order of adjudication is made he shall transfer all such property or the proceeds thereof (after deducting his costs and expenses) to the trustee in the subsequent bankruptcy.
(5) Where a person has been adjudged bankrupt, nothing in any enactment relating to bankruptcy shall affect the rights of any person making title in good faith and for valuable consideration, and without knowledge of the trustee's title, through or under a person who has acquired from the bankrupt property which the bankrupt himself acquired after he was adjudged bankrupt.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to omit from the beginning of subsection (1) the words "and without knowledge of his bankruptcy." The noble Earl said: This is rather a complicated point affecting the protection of persons who are dealing with an undischarged bankrupt. It Ls the result of a good many negotiations which were entered into with various interested parties; and inasmuch as the Amendment which I move will put the Bill in the form in which it was recommended by a Departmental Committee which went into this question, we venture to think it will probably meet with the approval of your Lordships' House. The Bill as originally proposed, and as originally introduced, did not protect persons dealing with the bankrupt if such persons had knowledge of the bankruptcy, unless the transactions were in the course of the bankrupts trade or business. During the Report stage in the other House it was urged that persons so dealing with a bankrupt ought to have protection whether they knew about it or not, and in the result it was decided that that view should be agreed to. The first Amendment gives the protection accordingly in such cases, and the second one is merely consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 9, leave out from ("value") to ("in") in line 10.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that these Amendments are additions to the Bill since your Lordships had it under consideration?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Yes; that is so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to omit from subsection (1) the words "and, where any such transaction is a transaction in the course of any trade or business carried on by the bankrupt, it shall be valid against the trustee, whether or not the person dealing with the bankrupt had knowledge of the bankruptcy."
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 16, leave out from ("transaction") to ("This") in line 20.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The next is a drafting Amendment suggested by the Institute of Bankers, to which we are glad to agree.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 2E, after ("payment"), where that word last occurs in subsection (1), insert ("and any delivery of any security or negotiable instrument").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: We propose to leave out subsection (5), which is consequential on the preceding Amendment. As the person dealing with a bankrupt will be protected by the Amendment to which your Lordships have already agreed, the subsection becomes unnecessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, lines 20 to 26, leave out subsection (5) —(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Protection, of sheriff, &c., selling goods under execution without notice of claim, by third party.
15. Where any goods in the possession of an execution debtor at the time of seizure by a sheriff, high bailiff, or other officer charged with the enforcement of a writ, warrant, or other process of execution, are sold by such sheriff, high bailiff, or other officer, without any claim having been made to the same, the purchaser of the goods so sold shall acquire a good title to the goods so sold, and no person shall be entitled to recover against the sheriff, high bailiff, or other officer, or anyone lawfully acting under the authority of either of them, except as provided by the Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 and 1890, for

1831
any sale of such goods or for paying over the proceeds thereof, prior to the receipt of a claim to the said goods: Provided that nothing in this section contained shall affect the right of any claimant who may prove that at the time of sale he had a title to any goods so seized and sold to any remedy to which he may be entitled against any person other than such sheriff, high bailiff, or other officer as aforesaid.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: This is really a drafting Amendment. It was never intended to protect the sheriff or other officer who acted negligently.
Amendment moved—
Clause 15, page 11, line 4, after ("goods"), immediately before the Proviso, insert ("unless it is proved that the person from whom recovery is sought had notice, or might by making reasonable inquiry have ascertained that the goods were not the property of the execution debtor"). —(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 27 agreed to.
Clause 28:
Application of Part I where receiving order made under s. 103 (5) of principal Act.
28. Where a receiving order is made against a debtor under subsection (5) of section one hundred and three of the principal Act, this Part of this Act shall apply as if for references to the presentation of a petition by or against a person there were substituted references to the making of such a receiving order.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Your Lordships will see that although I move to leave out Clause 28 I move to put in as a new clause after Clause 40 the words set out. As it stands at the present moment this clause would only apply to the first part of the Bill, but we are anxious that it should apply to the rest of the Bill as well.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, lines 21 to 25, leave out Clause 28.— (Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 29 to 34 agreed to.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I understand the new clause standing in my name is an agreed clause, but owing to a technicality could not be moved in the House of Commons. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34, to insert the following new clause:
"Preferential payment to creditor an offence.
".If a trustee under a deed of arrangement pays to any creditor out of the debtor's property a sum larger in proportion to the creditor's claim than that paid to other creditors entitled to the benefit of the deed, then, unless the deed authorises him to do so, or unless such payments are either made to a creditor entitled to enforce his claim by distress or are such as would be lawful in a bankruptcy, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour." —(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 35 to 40 agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: This is the new clause to which I have already referred. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 40 insert as a new clause (to form part of Part III):
"Application of Act when receiving order made under 46 &47 Vict. c. 52, s. 103 (5).
" . When a receiving order is made against the debtor under subsection five of section one hundred and three of the principal Act, this Act shall apply as if for references to the presentation of a petition by or against a person there were substituted references to the making of such a receiving order."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41:
Short title, commencement, and interpretation.
41.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Bankruptcy and Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1913, and Part I of this Act shall be construed with the Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 and 1890, and may be cited with those Acts as the Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 to 1913, and Part II of this Act shall be construed with the Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1887, and may be cited with that Act and the Deeds of Arrangement Amendment Act, 1890, as the Deeds of Arrangement Acts, 1887 to 1913:
Provided that, notwithstanding that Part II of this Act is to be construed with the Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1887, no part of this Act shall extend to Ireland.
(2) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January nineteen hundred and fourteen.
(3) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression "the Debtors Act, 1869," means that Act as amended by the Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 to 1890, and any other enactment, including this Act.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: This Amendment is in order to give more time for making the necessary regulations, as there are a good many to be made.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 24, leave out ("January") in subsection (2) and insert ("April").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:
EARL BEAUCHAMP: This is obviously a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 33, after ("shall") insert ("where those words last occur").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 175.)

FOREIGN JURISDICTION BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I need not take up much time in explaining this Bill, but as this is one of those cases which sometimes occur where the title conveys to the ordinary hearer a small notion of the contents of the Bill, I will explain very briefly what it does. Its effect is to give the power of applying to Protectorates under the Crown, by Order in Council, certain Acts of the Imperial Parliament which apply to Crown Colonies. The reason for the obscurity of the title is simply this. The original Foreign Jurisdiction Act of 1890 applied in the first place to countries with independent Governments of their own but within which the Crown had jurisdiction—such countries, for instance, as China. It was then found that it could conveniently be applied to Protectorates which are parts of the Empire not actually under the sovereignty
1834
of the Crown, but in which, by various arrangements, the Crown has jurisdiction. Under the Act of 1890 a number of important Statutes can be and have been applied thus to Protectorates, such as the Merchant Shipping Act, and others. The schedule to this Bill sets out other enactments which may be applied to countries in which His Majesty's Government has jurisdiction. There is the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, 1869; the Colonial Probates Act; Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1891; the Colonial Solicitors Act of 1900, which enables solicitors in the Protectorates to practise in England; and three Sections of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908. I understand that this measure met with no kind of opposition in another place, and I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree to read it a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I understand from the noble Marquess that this Bill only increases the number of Acts which may be applied to the Protectorates as well as to foreign countries?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: That is what it really does. The application can be made in each case by an Order in Council. It does not follow that any particular Act is by the Bill so applied.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3aTo-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ADJUSTMENTS) BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3aTo-morrow.
PUBLIC BUILDINGS EXPENSES BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3aTo-morrow.
BANKRUPTCY (SCOTLAND) CONSOLIDA TION BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (GLASGOW ELECTORAL DIVISIONS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without amendment, and to be read 3aTo-morrow.

POST OFFICE BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off till To-morrow.
HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICE) BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2aTo-morrow. (No. 176.)

IRELAND (FINES IN FISHERY CASES).
Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of the 6th of February last), and to be printed. (No. 177.)
House adjourned at ten minutes before Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Three o'clock.