Sitting of 9 March 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. Speaker MR. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiner's of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, namely—
  Bray and Enniskerry Railway Bill.
  Ordered, that the Bill be read a second time.

PETITIONS.
  BOILERS REGISTRATION AND INSPECTION BILL.
  Petition from Leeds, against; to lie upon the Table.
  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Paisley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Twrcelyn; Stratford-on-Avon; and Menai Bridge; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Rockingham; and Grange Moor; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Streatham Hill, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Spennymoor; and Harpurley; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Camberwell; Patricroft; Urmston; Sunderland; Armley; Forest Gate; Stratford; Stratford-upon-Avon; Birmingham (two); Sheffield; Exmouth; Manchester; Hartlepool; and Edgbaston; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ROYAL PATRIOTIC COMMISSION.
  Return [presented 23rd February] to be printed. [No. 91.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2387 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS.
  Copy presented, of Return of Proceedings during the month of December, 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BANKRUPTCY COURTS (IRELAND).
  Annual Returns presented, of the Official Assignees of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland and the Local Courts, Belfast and Cork, for the year 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  BIRTHS, DEATHS, MARRIAGES, AND VACCINATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of the Forty-fifth Annual Report on the Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Scotland for 1899, and Thirty-fifth Annual Report on Vaccination [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES (SCOTLAND) (REGULATIONS).
  Copy presented, of Regulations under the Inebriates Act, 1898, made by the Secretary for Scotland for the rule and management of a State Inebriate Reformatory, and for the classification, treatment, employment, and control of persons sent to it, and for their absence under licence [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 92.]
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Lunacy.—Copy of Return of all sums received by the visitors of lunatics for travelling expenses, or upon any other account, from 1st January to 31st December, 1899 [by Act].
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—DEFENCE OF KIMBERLEY—PRESENTATION OF MEDALS BY MR. RHODES.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: On behalf of the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire, Eifion Division, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Mr. Cecil Rhodes has proposed, as has been reported, to present a medal to the soldiers that were engaged in the defence of Kimberley; and whether he will be permitted to assume the function of dispensing honours to Her Majesty's troops.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. Powell-Williams,) (for Mr. WYNDHAM): No such proposal has been communicated by Mr. Rhodes to the War Office.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: And as to the second part of the question, suppose it were offered?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  PURCHASES OF HORSES AND MULES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether many of the foreign mules and horses purchased for the service have been found unsatisfactory; and whether he can state the relative numbers of the supply of animals obtained from the various countries, including Great Britain and Ireland, within the last twelve months.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM):There have been no complaints of foreign horses, nor of the mules, except in the case of Italy, from which country a number of mules were despatched which (from their size and shape) proved unsuitable for South African draught. The approximate numbers purchased have been as follows:—Horses:Great Britain, 12,010; Ireland, 4,746; Australia, 406. Cobs: Argentina, 5,864; Australia, 300. Mules: Italy, 7,004; Spain, 4,507; North America, 15,903.
  MR. WASON: How many of the 12,000 horses stated to have been purchased in. England were purchased in Scotland?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I understand that the greater includes the less, and that, therefore, England includes Scotland.
  SCOTTISH HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

  COMFORTS FOR THE TROOPS—MR. HAMILTON GATLIFF.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Mr. Hamilton Gatliff proceeded to South Africa at his own expense, and has, up to the present time, undertaken gratuitously the distribution of the clothing and other comforts sent out by friends at home to the several regiments at the front; whether, as in rendering this service he is aiding in maintaining the efficiency of the soldiers in the field, this is rather a duty that should properly be discharged by the War Department, and should not be dependent on voluntary effort; and whether the Government are prepared to recognise in any way the service rendered by Mr. Hamilton Gatliff.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): Everything necessary for the subsistence and efficiency of the troops in South Africa is supplied and distributed by the War Department. The work of distributing comforts sent by private persons, which are not necessaries, does not properly fall within the duties of the military staff; and Mr. Gatliff's generous offer to carry out this service without pay or reward was gladly accepted by the Secretary of State.
  GENERAL LAURIE: Are we to consider that shirts and socks are not necessary for the troops?
  *MR. J POWELL-WILLIAMS: I suppose that both shirts and socks are necessary. The supply of such articles to the troops is considered to be sufficient for actual service; but generous individuals had supplemented it.

  COLONIAL COMMISSIONS.
  MR. GILES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the officers commanding the Canadian, Australian, and other Colonial forces in South Africa hold Her Majesty's commission, and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government will consider whether, out of regard to the services rendered by them to Her Majesty and the Empire, they ought to be entitled to receive a similar commission from Her Majesty to that of the Volunteer officers in this country, and to retain on retirement the rank held and won by them in service in South Africa.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): Both officers and men of the Colonial forces in South Africa derive their military status from their Colonial Governments, and it would not appear expedient to alter this. The question of retention of rank on retirement rests with the various Colonial Governments.

  IRISH REGIMENTS—WEARING OF THE SHAMROCK.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will see that arrangements are made for sending shamrock from Ireland to the troops in Great Britain and other countries where it could reach them in time for St. Patrick's Day next.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): There is no reason for supposing that it will be beyond the powers of Irish regiments to provide themselves with a supply of shamrock, and the Secretary of State is of opinion that such a supply should be procured by regimental arrangement. The regiments are probably better able than the War Office to obtain the genuine plant.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, now that Her Majesty has ordered the wearing of shamrock by the Army on St. Patrick's Day, he will order that an additional shilling be paid to each soldier on that day to enable the men to fittingly celebrate the day.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): Army funds could hardly be appropriated for the purpose which the hon. Member suggests.
  MR. T. B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the order recently issued by Her Majesty the Queen, commanding all ranks in the Irish regiments to wear a sprig of shamrock on St. Patrick's Day will be extended to individual Irishmen in every one of Her Majesty's regiments.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: All Irishmen, whether serving in Irish regiments or not, will be allowed to wear the shamrock on St. Patrick's Day.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that when I raised this question I was turned out of the House, the Government will now apologise to me?

  IRISHMEN IN THE NAVY—WEARING OF THE SHAMROCK.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will ask Her Majesty to be pleased to command that all Irishmen in the Navy shall wear shamrock on St. Patrick's Day.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. Goschen,): There are no regulations with regard to the wearing of emblems on special days in the Royal Navy. I could not ask Her Majesty to issue such

  483
  a command as is suggested, even looking to the fact that shamrock is not procurable on foreign stations or on the high seas. But the Admiralty will have no objection to Irishmen in the Navy wearing a sprig of shamrock on St. Patrick's Day, and commanding officers will be so informed.

  HIGH ANGLE RIFLE FIRE—DR. CONAN DOYLE'S INVENTION.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that Dr. Conan Doyle submitted to the War Office particulars of an invention for securing accuracy of high angle rifle fire, and will he explain the grounds on which that Department declined to investigate the merits of the invention, or to give the inventor an opportunity of explaining the invention, or of witnessing experiments, if any, made for the purpose of testing the value of it.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. It was thought unnecessary to trouble Dr. Conan Doyle to proceed further in the matter because a similar invention by another gentleman had been considered as recently as last December, and it had been decided that the probable practical utility of such fire was not such as to justify the War Office in pursuing the matter further.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: Was Dr. Conan Doyle's invention the same as that which had been previously considered?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Both inventions dealt with high angle firing for small arms.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: Was there any difference between the two inventions?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I believe there is no practical difference; the idea is the same, anyhow.

  MESSING ALLOWANCES.
  Sir BRAMPTON GURDON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will now consider the advisability of abolishing the messing allowance with all its complica-
  484
  tions, and adding in lieu thereof three pence a day to the pay of the warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Regular forces and Militia.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): It is not considered advisable to make a change in the direction suggested.

  MILITIA—PRELIMINARY TRAINING OF RECRUITS.
  *MR. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in the interests of the embodied Militia and to encourage recruiting, arrangements could be made for posting Militia recruits straight to one of the Militia battalions, if stationed at home, instead of in the first instance to the regimental depôt for preliminary training.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): Militia recruits can best learn their drill at the headquarters of the regimental district.

  DELAGOA BAY RAILWAY ARBITRATION.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the arbitration in relation to the Delagoa Bay Railway has now been proceeding for ten years; whether repeated promises of an early decision by the Berne Tribunal have been made to Her Majesty's Government and repeated in this House during the past five years; and what is the real cause of delay in giving the award.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): The first meeting of the arbitrators took place on the 3rd of August, 1891. No promise as to the date of the final decision has been given or repeated in the House of Commons. Her Majesty's Government were given to understand that the award would be delivered not later than October last. The delay in promulgating the decision is extremely regrettable.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when the award will be given?
  [No answer was returned.]

  BUDGET RESOLUTIONS—BROKERS' CONTRACT NOTES.
  MR. HARWOOD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Resolution on brokers' contract notes will include memoranda forwarded to principals of sales or purchases made on the Manchester Exchange, and in similar places, by agents receiving commission.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,) (for the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER): So far as can be judged from the description of the memoranda which the question contains, such documents would certainly attract the proposed new stamp duty. But I would ask hon. Members to be good enough to wait for explanations until they see the clause in the Bill, which I hope will be circulated in a few days.
  Sir WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the term "broker" in the Resolution relating to stamps on contract notes is intended to include all agents selling or purchasing on commisssion for a principal; and, if not, what distinction is to be understood.
  MR. HANBURY (for the CHANCELLOR OF THE RXCHTQUER): The term "broker" in the Resolution is only to apply to persons carrying on the business of a broker, and therefore would not have the wide application suggested in this question. The Bill itself will be circulated in a few days.

  ESTATE DUTY—PREVENTION OF EVASIONS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of duty he estimates will be produced by the new estate duty which he proposes to establish, in addition to the duties charged by the Finance Act, 1894, in respect of settled property, the life interest in which has been surrendered to the remainderman by the life tenant within twelve months of the death of the latter.
  MR. HANBURY (for the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER):What I propose to do is not to establish a new estate duty, but to stop evasion of the existing duty by the process named in the question. I think, so far, such evasion has been rare,
  486
  because it was not supposed to be legal; and therefore but little duty has been lost. But the recent decision in what is known as the De Freville case has made it necessary to amend the law in order to prevent what might probably become a source of great loss to the revenue in future.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to introduce a Bill this session to amend the law relating to the death duties; and, if so, can he state briefly the nature of the Bill and its objects.
  MR. HANBURY (for the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER):No such Bill will be introduced, but certain amendments of the law on the subject will be included in the Finance Bill, in pursuance of resolutions already agreed to.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS—WOMEN'S OVERTIME.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the result of further inquiry into the recent illegal working of women over hours in textile factories having contracts for the War Office; whether it has been found that the Bradford Trades Council are justified in their statement that the absence of inspection has allowed manufacturers working illegal overtime not only to produce cloth for Government purposes, but also for private sale; and whether, as stated, firms who could have executed the orders without illegal overtime have been passed over, and in the course of the last week not only women but also children have been illegally working overtime.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY): Individual inquiries have been made with regard to all firms known to be working overtime on Government contracts. In a few cases it was found that the overtime had been used for private work, and this has been stopped. In one case children were found to be employed overtime, and this also has been stopped. The names have been supplied to me today by the right hon. Baronet of some firms who appear to be working overtime without the knowledge of the factory

  487
  inspectors. I will make inquiry into these, and take such action as the circumstances may call for. As regards the first sentence of the last paragraph of the question, I can only repeat that the selection of firms for these Government contracts is not a matter as to which I have any responsibility or information.

  CRAGHEAD COLLIERY FATALITY.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has seen an account of a calamity at Craghead Colliery, in the county of Durham, whereby a man named Robson lost his life, and another named Stenlake was seriously affected by the fumes of gelignite or foul air; whether he is aware that three miners named Cooper, Wilson, and Parnaby nearly lost their lives in an attempt to rescue Robson and Stenlake; and whether some arrangement can be made whereby the men who risk their lives in this manner can receive some national acknowledgment of their bravery.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: Yes, Sir. I have had before me a report of this case, and may, perhaps, say that the accident was due not to fumes of gelignite, but to a sudden escape of noxious gas from the coal. I am fully sensible of the courage displayed by Cooper, Wilson, and Parnaby, and am sure that everyone will agree that it is worthy of cordial recognition. But I am proud to think that it is always forthcoming in greater or less degree when circumstances demand it, and I doubt whether any new national arrangements are desirable for rewarding special cases which it would be extremely difficult to select.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: Would it not be as easy to give the V.C. for industrial bravery as for bravery on the field of battle?
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The question of the grant of the Albert medal is frequently under consideration in these cases. I am not saying it ought or ought not to be awarded in this case. But it must be given under very rare circumstances. The granting of the medal has, in my experience, often given rise to many difficulties and heart-burnings.

  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL (No. 3).
  MR M'KENNA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in the Factories and Workshops Bill (No. 3), recently circulated, the word "not" has been omitted by inadvertence after the word "which," in page 6, line 3.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: No, Sir. The Bill is accurately printed. The object of the sub-clause in question is to extend the provisions which now apply only to new factories and workshops in which more than forty persons are employed so as to include factories and workshops in which substantial alterations or additions are made, but not so as to alter the limit of forty persons.

  GENERAL POST OFFICE CIRCULATION OFFICE.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can now give a definite date when the removal of the circulation office to Mount Pleasant will take place; and if no definite date has yet been fixed, will he, for the convenience of the staff, mention the approximate date upon which the change will take place.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY): Notices have been exhibited since the 26th ultimo stating that no definite date for the removal to Mount Pleasant can yet be fixed, but that it is expected to take place in April or May next.

  POSTMEN'S PROMOTIONS.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the paucity of promotion open to postmen, all vacant postmasterships and sub-postmasterships, not exceeding in value £140 per annum, can be reserved exclusively for postmen.
  MR. HANBURY: The claims and qualifications of postmen who apply for any post office which is notified as vacant are considered with those of other candidates, and the Postmaster General does not consider that he would be justified in excluding other deserving officers of the

  489
  Department from the appointments referred to.

  EDINBURGH POST OFFICE— SORTING BRANCH.
  MR. DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can explain the prolonged delay in authorising the scheme for the revision of the sorting branch of the Edinburgh Post Office; and whether, seeing that this matter has been under consideration for more than a year, he can say when the scheme of revision is likely to be sanctioned and given effect to.
  MR. HANBURY: The new scheme was submitted to the Treasury a few days ago, and is now being considered.

  IRISH LIGHTS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether a petition was presented to the Commissioners of Irish Lights by a number of lighthouse keepers on 27th November, 1899, requesting the consideration of certain inequalities of pay and arrangements; whether he is aware that no reply has been sent to the petitioners; and whether he can state if the matter is under consideration, and when a reply is likely to be forwarded.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that they received the petition referred to in the question at the end of November, and that they are giving careful consideration to the various points raised therein. They hope to be able to send a reply very shortly.

  CLONES POST OFFICE.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what progress, if any, has been made with the new post office in Clones, for the erection of which sites were invited over three years ago; have sites been offered; and if so, why has none been selected; are the Clones public still obliged to transact their postal business in the corner of a small general shop, under the same conditions as ten years ago, where privacy
  490
  is impossible, and where customers may overhear and observe all that takes place; and when may a remedy be looked for for this state of things.
  MR. HANBURY: The delay which has taken place in this case is regretted, but it has been unavoidable. A site which has recently been offered is now under consideration to see whether a new post office can be provided upon it at a total cost for site and building which the Department would be warranted in incurring. In the meantime the office is necessarily continued in the present premises, one half of which is used as a shop; but, as already stated, no specific complaint can be traced of the particular inconveniences mentioned.

  DUNGANNON WORKHOUSE—ROMAN CATHOLIC OFFICIALS.
  MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many officials, distinguishing between Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic, are employed in connection with Dungannon Workhouse; and how many Roman Catholic, and how many non-Roman Catholic, pauper inmates are respectively in the body of the house and in the infirmary.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,) (for Mr. G. W. Balfour): With the exception of the chaplains of the workhouse, the Local Government Board have no information as to the religious persuasion of the officials connected with that establishment, whose appointments are made by the board of guardians. Nor have they any such information respecting the inmates. The hon. Member would probably obtain the information on application to the guardians.

  BELFAST POLICE FORCE.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland has he observed that fourteen recruits from the constabulary depôt have been detailed to augment the strength of the Belfast police force; and is this movement intended to cope with possible disturbances in Belfast; and, if so, will he say what restraining effect upon a Belfast mob the addition of fourteen recruits to the constabulary in that town could have.
  MR. ATKINSON: It is a fact that fourteen recruits have recently been sent to augment the Belfast police force. There is no special significance in this step, as the hon. Member seems to apprehend, the men having been detailed for ordinary police duty to fill vacancies. I don't know the precise number of police who could effectually restrain a Belfast mob; I wish I did.

  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, CORK—MEDICAL CHAIRS—ROMAN CATHOLIC PROFESSORS.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that there is only one Roman Catholic professor in the medical school of the Queen's College, Cork, it is intended to appoint a Roman Catholic to the professorship now vacant; and whether it is intended that this appointment shall be filled by a physician, as in the case of every other medical school in the United Kingdom.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): I have no information as to the religious denominations of the occupants of medical chairs in the Queen's College, Cork. As regards the remainder of the question I can only say that the legitimate claims of all candidates for the vacant chair will be fully considered.

  IRISH ASSISTANT LAND COMMISSIONERS —MR. ROBERT GREENE.
  MAJOR JAMESON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that Mr. Robert Greene, of Greenlawn, Ennis, an assistant Land Commissioner, is also a land agent for several estates; is he aware that on the same day Mr. Greene was fixing fair rents he was also distraining in his own name through the sheriff's bailiff in his capacity as land agent and receiver; and will he take steps to stop this anomaly, and prevent Land Commissioners acting as land agents.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): This question has been referred to Mr. Greene, and pending the receipt of his observations it is desirable that the question should be postponed. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat it on Monday.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT—COUNTY SURVEYORS' SALARIES.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to recent proposals of the Irish Local Government Board for the increase of the salaries of county surveyors in Ireland and their deputies; and whether, in view of the serious objection taken to these proposals, they will be reconsidered.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): Where the duties of a county surveyor, or other "existing" officer, are increased, the Local Government Board are required by the terms of Section 115, Sub-section 18, of the Local Government Act, to fix the increase of salary proportionate to the increase of duties, in the event of the council failing to arrive at an agreement with their officer in the matter. The Board are aware that in several instances dissatisfaction has been expressed by councils at the award of the Board on the ground that it is considered excessive; but, on the other hand, equal dissatisfaction has been expressed by many of the officers concerned on the ground that the increase of salary is not commensurate with the increase of duties. The Board's award was arrived at in each case only after the fullest consideration, and cannot now be reconsidered, as suggested.

  THE CENSUS (IRELAND)—IRISH LANGUAGE.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if steps will be taken in connection with the census in Ireland to obtain the same information with regard to the Irish language as is proposed to be obtained concerning the native language in Scotland and in Wales in the Census Bill.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the Returns of the last census in Ireland he will observe that the information mentioned in this question was obtained and published. There is no intention to depart from the practice on the occasion of the next census.

  ARMS REGULATIONS IN IRELAND —CASE OF MAJOR HAIRE.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he

  493
  is aware that informations have been laid against Major Haire for firing a gunshot at a man named Patrick Grue, of Kilturk North, near Lisnaskea, who has addressed the Inspector General of Constabulary asking that the prosecution of Major Haire be taken out of the hands of District Inspector Roe on the grounds, among others, that Mr. Roe went bail for Major Haire, and also went in company with Major Haire to obtain the evidence of a witness in the case, and has since been in frequent communication with Major Haire; and will he see that the prosecution in this ease be conducted by the official Crown Prosecutor.
  MR. ATKINSON: I am aware of the circumstances under which Major Haire has been returned for trial at the assizes, and that Patrick Grue has addressed a communication to the Inspector General of Constabulary in the terms stated. The case having been sent for trial at assizes, the prosecution will, in the ordinary course, be conducted by the Crown Prosecutor.

  CONTEMPT OF COURT—CASE OF MYLES SINNOTT.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Myles Sinnott, of Courtown Harbour, was some time within the last five years committed to Woxford Gaol for contempt of court; what was the date of his committal, and what was the nature of the contempt; how long has Sinnott been detained in gaol; and is he still in custody; if not, when was he discharged.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): I am informed that the man Myles Sinnott was committed to Wexford Prison on the 17th October, 1896, on an order of attachment issued by the Court of Chancery for contempt of court. His contempt consisted in refusing to join with one Mary Sinnott in paying into court a sum of £850 cash to the credit of a suit, Sinnott v. Sinnott, and also in refusing to join in transferring a sum of £760 Consols to the credit of the same suit pending in the Court of Chancery. Sinnott was detained in prison until the 14th December, 1897, a period of one year and fifty-nine days, and on his discharge he was removed to the Enniscorthy Lunatic Asylum.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: How long was Sinnott under arrest before it was discovered he was out of his mind?
  MR. ATKINSON: Only a short time.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: That makes two men sent to prison for contempt of court and afterwards put in a lunatic asylum.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: What limit of punishment would the man have received had he been tried for his offence?
  MR. ATKINSON: I am not aware of the details of the offence.

  MURDER OF HUGH THOMPSON NEAR ENNISKILLEN.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he can give the House any information as to the murder of a man named Hugh Thompson, near Enniskillen, this morning.
  MR. ATKINSON: Yes; I regret to say that a man named Hugh Thompson, who left Enniskillen about eleven o'clock this morning, was found murdered half an hour afterwards.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it not the fact that the unfortunate man had given evidence in favour of an evicted tenant?
  MR. ATKINSON: I believe the man was about to give evidence or had given evidence in a case of malicious injury.

  RAILWAYS (PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  MR. MADDISON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when the Second Reading of the Railways (Prevention of Accidents) Bill will be taken.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am afraid it is at present impossible to fix a day.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state positively what the business will be on Monday; also, is it intended to take the Factories and Workshops Bill today?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As to the last question, I understand there are many Members on both sides of the House who would like to have longer notice of this Bill, and I shall not therefore propose to take the Second Reading to-night, although I am afraid that that leaves us practically with no contentious business. I hope that on Monday the Army Estimates will be taken. On Tuesday the first business will be the Loans Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When that is disposed of the Army Estimates will be proceeded with until the end of Vote 1. But as to that I must not be considered as pledging myself beyond Tuesday.
  MR. TENNANT: When will the Second Reading of the Factories and Workshops Bill be taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It certainly will not be taken before ten days. I will give all the notice I can.
  MR. STEADMAN: When will the Second Reading of the Housing of the Working Classes Bill be taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope to be able to take it before Easter, but I cannot definitely pledge myself.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the First Lord of the Admiralty say when the Admiralty Office Vote will be taken?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Not for some time.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Lunacy Acts." Lunacy Bill [Lords.]
LAND CHARGES BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 118.]
LUNACY BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 119.]
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS (SUPPLY)
Ordered, That the other Government Business have precedence this day of the Committee of Supply.—(Mr. Balfour.)
POLICE RESERVISTS (ALLOWANCES) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill, and I need add but little to what I said on its introduction. The House will recollect that in the autumn session* it was announced that the Government were prepared to pay to married civil servants called out for active service in South Africa one half of their salaries. I was then asked what we were prepared to do in the case of the Metropolitan Police, and many watch committees and joint standing committees throughout the country also inquired what could be done for Reservists belonging to the constabulary. I said at once I thought it was right and proper that the Metropolitan and the provincial police authorities should be able to deal with these men on terms fairly comparable with the treatment of civil servants, and I promised, if necessary, to introduce a Bill to legalise provision being made for the wives and children of police reservists called out for service abroad. I have since found there is a strong feeling on the part of the standing joint committees representing the counties and watch committees representing the boroughs that power should be given to them, and in fact I understand that many of them have taken advantage of the promise I made of a Bill, in order to deal liberally with these cases. The object of the Bill, which I now ask the House to read a second time, is simply to enable watch committees and standing joint committees, and the Secretary of State in London to make a provision for the wives and families of police Reservists who have been called abroad analogous to that which is being done for the Government civil servants, who were in the same position and are now serving in South Africa. The necessity for the Bill arises from the fact that, under the Police Act of 1890, a police Reservist called out for permanent
  See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth, Series], Vol. lxxvii., page 550 (statement of Mr. Wyndham); page 575 (statement of Sir M. White Ridley).

  497
  service is no longer a member of a police force. It is, therefore, not within the power of the standing joint committees or of the watch committees, as the case may be, to give any gratuities or allowances to the families of those Reservists while they are abroad. The Bill gives the necessary power, but leaves the exercise of it entirely optional. The amount of the grant from local rates is limited by the provision that, counting in also the allowances and remittals made by the War Office, the total money received by a Reservist's family shall not exceed his full pay as a constable. The general effect of this will, I think, be that the grant from the rates will correspond to that made by the Government, viz., half-pay. It may be more or it may be less in certain cases, but, at all events, it is, up to the limit stated, entirely in the option of the local authorities. I have had the most general testimony from the police authorities connected with the Home Office, and no less from the Scottish Office, that it is their desire to be able to make some allowance within these limits to the wives and the families of these men. The Bill is limited to a year—to this particular war. I cannot myself imagine that in any quarter of the House there will be any objection to the proposal, and I therefore earnestly commend the measure to the favourable consideration of the House.
  Bill read a second time and committed for Monday next.

CENSUS (GREAT BRITAIN) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  *SIR F. S. POWELL: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board did not introduce this Bill by a statement. I appear here to-day in some sense as representative of the Statistical Society. We approached my right hon. friend with a memorial setting forth our case, and I have great pleasure in acknowledging the readiness with which he complied with many of our sugges-
  498
  tions. I feel that I should not be in order if I were to enumerate all the points as to which alterations have been made in the Bill, but when I mention the fact that the vague term "storey," in the description of a house, has been changed to the word "tenement," I think the House will agree that a great improvement has been effected thereby. Then the date has been altered in accordance with our suggestion, and I believe that the change of date will tend to render the returns more satisfactory and of greater value. Another addition of great interest is the provision that a person not born in this country shall state in the schedule his nationality, for I am sure that that information will prove of great value in times to come in regard to legislation affecting aliens. I do not think I need occupy the time of the House by further referring to the new details, but I will make one general observation, and that is that the Bill, as compared with the Act of 1891, is more elastic in its provisions, more flexible, and much more easily adapted to the circumstances of cases as they arise. There is another point as to which I am bound to express my acknowledgments to the right hon. Gentleman. The Government have resisted the temptation to ask too many particulars. In the United States the census involved too many particulars, and that resulted in great inaccuracy and great delay in the issue of the reports, which consequently were not of that service to the community which otherwise they would have been. As regards the subject matter of the investigation, three things are essential. One is promptitude. You must have all the returns on a given day, or they are of no value. The next is accuracy as distinct from carelessness; for unless the questions put are of a simple character you may depend upon it that there will be a great want of accuracy and much remissness and carelessness in the filling up of the schedule. The third point to which the attention of the Government has been directed is that all information sought for should be such as that a certain statement of facts can be given. If you complicate your answers there will be great uncertainty as to some of the replies. They will consequently be less reliable, and the whole result of your labours will be of little value to the country. Having said so much in acknowledgment of the action

  499
  of the Government in response to our memorial, I must express my great regret that I should have to-day, as in 1890,* to stand up in my place in the House of Commons and deplore the fact that the Government have not seen their way to adopt a quinquennial census. In the year 1890 there was a Departmental Committee presided over by my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin, and the Report signed by him is undoubtedly worthy of careful consideration. This Committee recommended a quinquennial census, and they gave their reasons for so doing. I should be reluctant to ask the House to listen to those reasons, but still I think they are of such a character that they ought not to be neglected. It was pointed out by the Committee that the change of population in this country in the course of ten years is enormous, and calculations which had been made by the Registrar General were shown by the Committee to be grossly inaccurate. I do not blame that high official. He, no doubt, has done the best he could with the materials at his hand. I find, however, in the Report of the Committee, mention is made of an error at Salford to the extent of 16 per cent., another one at Oldham of 18 per cent., and a third in the metropolitan district of West Ham of 25 per cent. And if this applies to these cases to such a remarkable extent we may be sure that the same would apply, although with perhaps less force, to other districts. That is not all. During the last ten years the discrepancy has, no doubt, greatly increased, and I shall be surprised if it does not turn out when we compare the estimate made by the Registrar General with the facts disclosed by the census, that there is a wider and more startling discrepancy than any which occurred on the last occasion. We have to consider that the population of the country is becoming, to use a phrase of the day, more and more mobile. The working classes move in search of work more easily from district to district, with the result that there is a great change of population in our townships, especially in manufacturing districts Then, too, there is a great change in the areas of our towns and of country districts. The areas of Liverpool and Manchester have been largely increased in the course
  *For debates on the Census (England and Wales) Bill, 1890, see The Parliamentary Debates, Third Series, Vol. cccxlvii.
  500
  of the last ten years, and I believe that in the case of Bradford it has twice enlarged in the course of the same time. These are reasons for a quinquennial census which, I think, are well worthy the consideration of the House. I do not desire that there should be particulars of every kind collected every five years. All that we desire is that we should have particulars of name, sex, and age, and I believe that such an inquiry could be conducted without any great expense. The quinquennial principle has already been adopted in London, and all we have to do is to make a similar change affecting the whole country minus London. If we cast our eyes across the seas, we find that a quinquennial census is taken in Germany, in Sweden, in France, and in fifteen States of America, as well as in New Zealand, Queensland, Manitoba, and in some of the most important districts of Canada. These countries differ as much from one another as they all differ from us, and yet they are all driven to the conclusion that a quinquennial census is desirable. I think the time has come when we in this country should adopt that great reform. It is said that the change would necessitate the creation of a census office. I should not myself regret that change. When we look at such public Departments as the Board of Trade, the Home Office, and the Board of Agriculture, we find that they produce Returns year by year relating to production and consumption. Surely if it be worth while to have a great Department carefully collecting statistics every year with regard to trade and commerce, it is not less the duty of the Local Government Board to accumulate similar information as regards the human beings who are our masters and whom we all serve. There would be another advantage from having a census office, and that is that it would be in continual correspondence with foreign nations, and it could keep us abreast of public opinion at home and abroad. I regret, and in this matter I speak entirely for myself, that there is an entire omission on all questions as regards the religion of those who fill up these schedules. We have, as is well known, questions on that subject in Ireland, and many foreign countries adopt the same system without, so far as I am aware, giving rise to any dissatisfaction. The Bill contains a provision of great value for securing absolute secrecy. I am glad of that, and, seeing

  501
  that absolute secrecy is enjoined by the Act, I do not think that any danger could possibly arise from including in the schedule question as to the religious creed of the person filling it up. I thank the House for having listened to me so patiently. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he has met our suggestions. I hope that success will attend him in his great effort to give us an improved census, for I am quite confident that enormous advantage will accrue to this country from the greater care to be exercised in preparing it. I hope, too, that we shall have the information promptly. It is a melancholy thing to watch the volumes coming out slowly year after year, and I hope, therefore, that my right hon. friend will take care to have an efficient staff, so that the information may be available to the public before it is too late to render the service for which a census is taken.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I should like to say a word or two in support of my hon. friend's desire that we should have an intermediate census, and I may add that I think it would be a good thing to have a permanent Census Department. The Committee which has been referred to was one of the most interesting on which I ever had the honour to serve, thanks to the ability of many of my colleagues and to the knowledge displayed by many of the witnesses, who included some of the best known authorities. Our recommendation was that there should be a census every five years, and although Lord Welby, who represented the Treasury, put in a memorandum, thereby exercising the tyranny which that Department not infrequently displays, the document did not present an absolute bar to our proposal, but it suggested that the Government should authorise an intermediate census in a district which might be considered to require it. I think that was a very valuable suggestion. There can be no doubt, from the evidence given before the Committee, that we are behind some other countries in respect of the information which is given by our census. I should like to know something as to the character of the enumerators to be employed, especially in England. We found at the last census that this part of the work was pretty well done in Scotland and Ireland, but that it was badly done
  502
  in England, because many of the enumerators were not reliable. I should be glad to know whether any security has been taken with regard to that. I believe some change is to be made in the manner in which the Scotch census is to be taken; but, as far as I can judge from the Bill, there will be no material difference in the procedure.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): That is so.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I wish to allude to one or two points. The first is the date appointed for the census to be taken. I think it is unfortunate that a Sunday should have been fixed upon for doing the work, as any other day of the week would have been equally convenient for the purpose. There is nothing in the law, as I understand, which makes it necessary for the census to be taken on the 31st March, and I hope, therefore, that in Committee the Government will consider the advisability of altering the date, for I am sure that in many homes it will be extremely inconvenient and somewhat distasteful to have to fill the schedules up on a Sunday. My second point is in respect of Clause 2, which directs the Registrar General to prepare and issue such forms of instruction as may be deemed to be necessary. I think that these forms and instructions—although, no doubt, they will be framed under the supervision of the Local Government Board—should be laid before Parliament before they are finally adopted. My third point arises on Subsection D of Clause 4,which deals with the taking of information in regard to the speaking of the Welsh language in Wales. Having regard to what happened in reference to that at the last census, I think it will be necessary in Committee to consider this clause very carefully. I do not say whether or not it is desirable on general grounds that such information—which, after all, is mainly of interest to Wales—should be collected in the census. All I do suggest is that it is necessary to carefully consider the wording of the clause. The hon. Baronet opposite lamented the fact that there was no provision in this Bill for obtaining information as to the various religious denominations in this country. I

  503
  think the omission is rather a subject for general congratulation. I do not believe there could be a greater mistake than to endeavour to obtain information upon such a very delicate point by means of the census. Subject to these general criticisms, I support the Second Reading of this Bill.
  *SIR. E. DURNING-LAWRENCE: I also should like to say a word in favour of having a quinquennial census, for I hold that this country, through not having such a census, is dropping behind leading foreign nations in the important question of statistics. I think it is essential, too, that there should be a Census Department. At the present time we induce men to give up their permanent employment in order to do the census work, and at the end of two or three years they are dismissed and have no other work to go to. That is cruel to the men, and it does not redound to the credit of this country. If we had a Census Department, taking a proper and full census every five years, these men could be permanently employed, and the information would be collected and tabulated in a far better way. We should then get it more promptly, and it would be of enormous value, for it would enable our merchants to compete more successfully with foreign nations. It is worth while, perhaps, to remember that only one hundred years have elapsed since the first census was taken.* The Bill for it was brought in in 1800, and it did not extend to Ireland. Seeing that there is a strong feeling among all who take an interest in statistics that the information obtained by means of these censuses would be of much greater value if we could have it more promptly and at shorter intervals, does not this afford an excellent opportunity to establish a quinquennial census?
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I would like to join in the appeal made to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, to consider, even at the last moment, the suggestion made in regard to a quinquennial census—even if it is not such a full census made as that made
  * In The Parliamentary History, Vol. xxxv., at page 598, will be found the speech of Mr. Abbott (afterwards created Baron Colchester), on the 19th Nov., 1800, in introducing the "Population Bill." Mr. Abbott gives particulars of "numerations of the people" made in very early times.
  504
  every ten years. Such a proposal was made by the Royal Statistical Society, and, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs, it has behind it the recommendation of a strong Committee of this House, and a considerable body of municipal, actuarial, and sanitary opinion.
  *MR. COURTNEY: I am afraid I can add very little to what, I understand, has already been said by hon. Members in reference to a quinquennial census. But as I happen to have been the chairman of the Committee appointed to consider this question before the last census, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words to express the strong feeling of statisticians and all those concerned in watching the movements and health of the people, as to the necessity of getting an enumeration of the population at shorter intervals than ten years. That has been felt in so many communities that we are really very much behind the rest of the world in having only a decennial census. The matter is of great importance in consequence of the rapid changes that take place in industrial centres as to the growth of population. In these large centres the population grows up in consequence of the development of particular industries, and the ascertainment of new sources of wealth; and sanitary legislation and organisation in many other respects which should keep pace with the growth of population are delayed for many years. There were a great many false anticipations as to the results of the census of 1881 and in 1891, showing that most careful estimates which may be made by the Registrar General as to the growth of population, so far as that can be gathered through the births, deaths, and marriages of a particular area, are often very far out. The population is sometimes very much in excess of and sometimes greatly less than what had been supposed. It is really a scandal that on account of a little expense, which would only happen once in ten years, this important reform should be further delayed. What is wanted is not that absolute reproduction in a quinquennial census of the full census taken at a decennial period. We do not want to have so complete a return of occupations, trades, and the other data which are accumulated at the decennial census; but we do want

  505
  to have some check on the movement of population so as to be in a better position for social and political action than we are when this long period intervenes between one census and the other. I would urge upon the President of the Local Government Board the necessity of yielding to the pressure which is now put upon him, and which has been brought to bear upon him for so many years by statisticians, sanitary reformers, municipal organisations, and, in fact, by everybody in the community who takes an interest in the progress of the people, as to the introduction of this moderate addition to the census now about to be taken.
  *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I wish to endorse the opinion just expressed by the hon. Member for West Denbigh. I think the Government exercised a wise discretion in excluding the subject of religion from the coming census; and for this reason: a census of the people in order to be effective must be taken with the concurrence and goodwill of the entire population. The enumerators have difficulties enough to contend with without adding to them anything superfluous; and if it were proposed to take a religious census we should enter on a bitter and exasperating controversy. Supposing it were adopted the issue would be that the inquiry, in a large number of cases, would not be answered, and ill-feeling would be raised where cordial assistance might be otherwise rendered to the Government. I hope the Government will remain firm in the attitude which they have most properly assumed.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I wish to draw the attention of the Lord Advocate rather than the President of the Local Government Board to one point. It is that the record is altered in form from what it was in the last decennial census. Hitherto there has been a separate Bill for Scotland, but in the present case there is only one Bill, and the Scotch census is put into an interpretation clause at the end of that Bill. There have been substantial differences in the way in which the census has been taken in England and Scotland. I daresay that these differences may be provided for under this Bill, but the right hon. the Lord Advocate has departed not only in this, but in other Bills, from what has been the
  506
  general practice on Scotch legislation in this House. The Bill immediately preceding the one under discussion was made to apply to Scotland by an interpretation clause, whereas there have always been hitherto separate Police Acts for Scotland. The police in Scotland are under the Secretary for Scotland and the Scottish Office, and although they are not put under the English Local Government Board in this Bill, there is a tendency to do so.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I can assure the hon. Member who has just sat down that there is not the slightest desire on the part of the Department I represent to trench in any degree whatever on the province of Scottish questions. If the Scotch census has been included for the first time in the English Bill it is solely in order to save Parliamentary time in a session when less time than usual will be available for legislation. In regard to the particular clause by which this fusion is to be accomplished I must refer the hon. Member to my right hon. friend the Lord Advocate for any explanations he requires. My hon. friend the Member for Wigan expressed the regret which he felt that I had made no statement in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. I was under the impression that the Bill sufficiently explains itself, and moreover a statement was made on the First Reading. In all essential respects the House will see that, with the exception of the inclusion of Scotland, and of certain particulars suggested to us by the Royal Statistical Society, to whom I desire to render my acknowledgments for their assistance, the Bill is practically the same as that of 1890. There have been eliminated from the Bill of 1890 a number of what appeared to us to be superfluous clauses, which might very well be embodied in the instructions to the enumerators and give greater elasticity to these in carrying out their duties than would otherwise be possible. My hon. friends the Members for Wigan and Liskeard, and various other gentlemen, have called my attention to the desirability of having a census, not so complete and elaborate as that which is now to be taken, but still in some points of great importance, prepared quinquennially. I quite acknowledge that there would be many advan-

  507
  tages to be gained in that respect; and I am aware also that a course of that kind was recommended by a Departmental Committee, although I think I am right in saying they were not altogether unanimous. What I want to point out is that the introduction of the present Bill is not in the least degree in conflict with these views. The Government considered the question, and we thought, on the whole, that if a quinquennial census is to be taken it should be provided for by a special Bill in 1905. I have stated that I agree with a great deal of what has been said on the subject on the present occasion. The mind of the Government is perfectly open on the question, and the House is not to understand, because it is not included in the present Bill, that we, should we be responsible at that date, shall be precluded from dealing with the question when the time comes. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs says we are very much behind other countries in connection with the census. I am afraid it may be so in some cases, but not in all. America has been often quoted, but I have reason to believe that the census returns in America are far less satisfactory than those in this country, and very often very much more inaccurate. The hon. Member says that the returns are good in Ireland, better still in Scotland, but altogether to be condemned and very bad in England. I can only point out that the instructions which the Local Government Board are by the Bill empowered to issue will leave a very wide discretion to the Department, and if the charges made against enumerators in England are founded upon fact it will be necessary to make better selections in future. The hon. Member for West Denbighshire complains of the day selected for the census, both on the ground that it is fixed for March 31, and also on the ground that that day is a Sunday. Sunday is not the day on which the work will be done, but it has been chosen because it is a day on which the majority of people are likely to be at home. I am glad to think that, on the whole, the Bill has been favourably received, and I hope that on an early day it will be allowed to pass into law, because there is a great deal of work to be done in connection with the collection of the returns; and the Registrar General's Office is very desirous to have an opportunity of proceeding with the work at the earliest moment.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERONpointed out that the sole reason given for the change in respect to the taking of the Scotch census was that it would save Parliamentary time. A Bill of this kind was always a non-contentious measure, and he saw no reason for the change being made.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYalways understood that the counsel of perfection was to have measures which dealt equally with the three kingdoms. That was the whole tendency and desire of modern legislation. The only difference between England and Scotland in this matter was that in Scotland the names were rather different. A house in Scotland meant a tenement in England, but matters of that kind could easily be put right. So far from the Bill being a retrograde step, it was in his opinion a great step in the opposite direction.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

LUNACY BOARD (SCOTLAND) [SALARIES, ETC.]
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. Lowther (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Motion made and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to amend the law relating to the number of the Staff of the General Board of Commissioners in Lunacy for Scotland, and to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of their salaries, and of the expenses of the Board, and the remuneration of the Chairman and Commissioners.—(The Lord Advocate.)
MR. CALDWELL: Would the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate kindly give us some explanation of this resolution.
*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,)explained that the Bill on which the resolution would be founded was purely formal. Unfortunately, in the Lunacy Act passed some time ago the salary of the clerk of the Lunacy Board in Scotland was fixed,

509
and a provision was made that only one clerk should be appointed. As the Department grew it was discovered that that arrangement was absolutely unworkable, and the present Bill was necessary to put the staffing of the office on the ordinary footing, so that such clerks as were necessary might be appointed with the sanction of the Treasury.
MR. CALDWELLunderstood that the object of the Bill was to remove the limitation imposed by the statute. On comparing the figures he found that the salaries paid to the Scotch officials were proportionate to those paid in England. Had that not been so the Scotch Members would have been the first to raise the question. But there was a statutory qualification in England not applicable to Scotland, and he hoped that the Lord Advocate would see that the men appointed by the commissioners should have the same statutory qualifications as were required in England. In regard to the other officials who were on the staff at the present moment, he said they were already provided for in the Estimates, and statutory authority was not required for making payments to them. There was no need whatever for an Act of Parliament for the purpose of introducing an increase of staff of a clerical nature. What was proposed, as he understood, was that one commissioner, who was unpaid, should get some pay now. In Scotland there were two commissioners and two deputy commissioners, while in England they had only six commissioners altogether. He had complaints from Scotland to the effect that when they wished a matter inquired into in connection with an asylum the commissioners sent down to the superintendent of the asylum to report. The commissioners did not go down themselves, and the result was that while they had a large staff they had not the work properly done. If a board required to get legal advice on a matter there was no need whatever for paying unpaid commissioners to give that advice. They all knew quite well that the salaries of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland were given for the purpose of advising the different Departments in matters of law. With four commissioners already paid and on the Estimates there was no need whatever in the case of Scotland of increasing the staff of commissioners. So far as this would be a
510
matter of taking money out of the Imperial purse he had nothing to say, but he did object to giving the money to persons not qualified for the position. If they were going to increase the salary they should make it statutory that the qualifications of the men should be sufficient for the future.
MR. WEIRremarked that in regard to this matter the information was very scanty indeed, and he wished to know if any vacancy was contemplated. He thought the House was entitled to know. It did savour to him very much like a job, and he for one would not be satisfied unless they got more information about the proposal. As the Member for Mid Lanark had said, if the officer referred to had some status they might vote a large salary. He considered that they were entitled to know the age of this gentleman, and also the ages of the clerks whose salaries it was intended to raise. The Lord Advocate was paid £5,000 a year, and the Solicitor General £3,000 a year, to give legal advice, and if they considered that their salaries were not sufficient, then let them come and ask a rise of salary. They had no right to arrange for these unpaid commissioners obtaining fees. He should ask the Scottish Office to follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury a few years ago, to cut off all these allowances. He thought the sooner they were abolished the better.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid the office referred to was a very hard worked one. The gentleman who held the position had been a most valuable public servant. He was qualified by a very long course of public service, and the Lord Advocate ventured to say that the gentleman had done more work in one year than the hon. Member the Member for Ross had done ever since he had been in that House. He thought the Treasury might fairly be trusted to do what was proper in this matter. This was merely carrying into effect an arrangement that had been made by the Treasury. It was not possible to give any more explanation than he had given. If the Treasury came to the conclusion that these gentlemen were underpaid, the only reason for not paying them properly was this statutory restriction. In regard

511
to the legal commissioners, he said that while it was the duty of the law officers of the Crown to advise the public Departments, the work of the Lunacy Department had so increased on account of the increase in the number of lunatics themselves that the Crown Office had had a great deal to do, and it was felt that they could not be expected to sacrifice so much of their time as they had been doing without a certain amount of remuneration.
*MR. WEIRsaid the hon. and learned Member had not answered his question as to the age of the secretary and chief clerk. He should like to know if they were on the eve of retiring on a pension. If these gentlemen are well advanced in years and about to take their pensions, has it been arranged that they are to get a larger salary in order that they may receive a larger pension?
MR. CALDWELLwas surprised that the Lord Advocate should think those commissioners were in any sense overworked. In England they had six commissioners, and in Scotland there were two commissioners and two deputy commissioners, and everybody know that the deputy commissioners did more work than the higher paid men. There was no proportion in the matter at all. He could not for the life of him see how for the amount of work it was at all necessary that they should have more commissioners. There were in Scotland at the present moment more than a half of the staff they had in England, and yet they had only a seventh part of the insanity in Scotland. He did not think that the Lord Advocate had made out a case. Apparently all that could be said was that the Scotch Office and the Secretary to the Treasury had agreed between them that the money should be forthcoming, and why should anybody have anything to say against it.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESremarked that if the Scotch Members objected amongst themselves it might be that there was a strong case against the increase. He observed that the Lord Advocate and the Treasury had agreed. Now, that was very suspicious. He would expect to see them in bitter disagreement. The Lord Advocate had given no reasons that he could comprehend for the creation of the new offices.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid it was not the creation of new offices.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Did I misapprehend, then, when I understood that the unpaid commissioners were to be paid?
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid it was proposed to give them remuneration.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid this quibble was worthy of a Scotch advocate. It was not to be salary, but it was to be remuneration! It was the creation of new charges on the people, and these new charges were to be paid in the name of remuneration among gentlemen who at present did not get any remuneration. Surely they could go on without remuneration. The number of lunatics had not so enormously increased. He certainly thought that a better case required to be made out. He had been looking in vain for Scotch Members to rise on this side of the House in support of the Lord Advocate, for when salaries were being considered there ought to be more Members present to support the proposal.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I did not think it would be my unfortunate fate to have to explain to the Hon. Member for King's Lynn such terms as "salary" and "remuneration." I do not wish to quibble about words, but what I said was that they were "fees," or "remuneration," and not salary. As hon. Members know, a fee is a thing to be given according as the Treasury may determine where a person has performed exceptional service or not. A salary is a fixed payment. I should have thought that there was a substantial distinction between the two terms.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

SUPPLY.

  ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES), 1899–1900.
  1. £47,000, Supplementary, Ordnance Factories.
  *MR. WEIRsaid he desired to know if there were any

  513
  penalty clauses in the contracts connected with the ordnance factories for non-fulfilment of contracts. If there wore, did the contractors get off scot-free, or were the penalties enforced, and if not, why not?
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): There are penalty clauses in the contracts. Whether they are inflicted or not depends upon the excuse which the contractors make. The hon. Member who has asked the question knows as well as any hon. Member in this House the difficulties which the contractors have had in fulfilling their contracts, owing to the difficulty of obtaining materials.
  MR. WEIR: No, no!
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Well, if he does not know it I know it. Some of the contractors have failed to fulfil the terms of their contracts in a good many cases from circumstances over which they had no control. In some cases the penalties had been exacted, and in others they had not.
  MR. WEIRthought, if the War Office would invite tenders from a larger field instead of tying themselves to a small number of firms, the difficulties would not arise. The War Office confined themselves to two or three firms, and when there was a rush of orders they could not get them out. He was sure, if they spread their orders over a larger area, they would have an unlimited supply.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: There are only two or three firms who do certain particular kinds of work, and, therefore, it is impossible to invite tenders from a larger number.
  Resolution agreed to.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.
  2. £60,300, Additional Naval force for Service in Australasian Waters.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

SUPPLY [8TH MARCH] REPORT.
Resolutions reported:—
SUPPLY [8TH MARCH] REPORT.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £,1,715,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901.
  MR. WARNER: I desire to call attention to the question which was raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for North-east Manchester,* whether it is true that two of the transports to South Africa had been supplied by the Admiralty with beef pickled in 1893. I think the accusation that seven-year-old beef was supplied is a very serious matter, and what I should like to have explained is what punishment has been inflicted upon the people who willingly and openly supply this beef? Some officer must have been responsible for having sent this beef to the victualling yard. It was supplied by the Admiralty, and not by the contractors for the transports. As it is a very serious matter that this state of things should exist, I want to see that care will be taken that it shall not happen again, and that those responsible for it should suffer to some extent.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERONsaid he thought if it was necessary to take stringent precautions with regard to the inspection of the food supplied to the mercantile marine, it was equally necessary to prevent the Admiralty re-issuing old provisions of that kind. He would like to know how it was that this 1893 beef escaped the inspection.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): With regard to this particular beef of 1893 no complaints have previously been made with regard to it. It was landed from H.M.S. Raleigh, and after it had been surveyed by the officers of the victualling yard it was sent to the transport. There were only two con-
  *See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxix., page 1414.

  515
  demnations in regard to this beef during the voyage of the transport. The remainder of the salt beef supply was landed at the Cape, and it has been surveyed by the Board of Naval officers there, who have passed it as satisfactory. I quite agree that we should take every care to see that no beef of an undesirable character should be issued to the Navy or to the transports. In this case, however, every regulation was carefully attended to, and in my judgment no officer is at fault in the slightest degree, and I do not think there is any necessity that any special order or direction should be issued in connection with the matter. I will look very carefully into the whole of this matter, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is not the slightest reason to suppose that there has been any dereliction of duty on the part of anyone connected with the victualling yard. With regard to this question, however, I may tell the hon. Member opposite that it is not at all an unusual thing for seven years old salt beef to be in good condition, but the whole question of salt beef rations is now under the consideration of the Admiralty with a view to considering whether measures should not be taken to diminish the amount in the future.
  MR. WARNER: Does beef that is seven years old require a Board or an officer to condemn it before its reissue can be prevented?
  *MR. MACARTNEY: Yes, a survey. I have myself eaten salt beef which was a good deal older than that.
  Resolution agreed to.
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £208,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Medical Services, including the cost of Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £13,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Martial Law, including the cost of Naval Prisons at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £92,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Educational Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  5. "That a sum, not exceeding £66,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Scientific Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  6. "That a sum, not exceeding £271,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Royal Naval Reserve, and the Retired Officers and Seamen Pensioner Reserve, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  7. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,004,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Naval Armaments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  8. "That a sum, not exceeding £271,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of various Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  9. "That a sum, not exceeding £786,700, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the Expense of Half Pay, Reserved, and Retired Pay to Officers of the Navy and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Shall I be in order in asking the First Lord of the Admiralty upon this Vote whether his Department will consider the question of sending a ship from time to time to protect our fisheries?
  No answer being given,
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND proceeded: I must press the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to answer my question, and unless I get a satisfactory answer or some encouragement I shall feel it my duty to

  517
  take a division against this Vote. The sums of money asked for here are very considerable in respect to Half Pay and Retired Pay, and I take it that it is not an unreasonable thing that we should get some return for this expenditure in the shape of the presence of a warship to protect our fisheries. I do not wish to delay the progress of these Votes, but I think I am entitled to some sort of a reply.
  *MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member is going to discuss Retired Pay, he is in order; otherwise not.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I am giving as a reason why we should pay this money that in return for it we should have a warship sent to protect our fisheries.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Upon those lines the hon. Member might discuss any subject he pleases.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: If the right hon. Gentleman does not think it of sufficient importance to give me a reply—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I should have to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from giving such an answer, because he would be out of order in dealing with fisheries.
  Resolution agreed to.
  10. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,123,600, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the Expense of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  11. "That a sum, not exceeding £343,500, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the Expense of Civil Pensions and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  Resolutions agreed to.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  *MR. SOUTTAR: I beg leave to move the Second Reading of this Bill. There is a great amount of interest taken in it not only on this side of the House, but also on the other side, and there is a general consensus of opinion that something should be done. The whole Bill is contained in one clause, which is almost word for word the recommendation which has been made by Lord Peel's Commission, both by the majority and the minority. That Commission was practically unanimous that the age at which intoxicating liquors should be supplied to children should be raised to sixteen. It is not necessary for me to give many arguments in its favour, because the infinite mischief which is being done in this country at the present time by the sale of intoxicating liquors to children of very tender age is very well known to hon. Members, and great mischief is done by such children going for liquor to public-houses. I know very well that the friends of temperance on the other side of the House are also very anxious that something should be done to minimise this evil.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I beg leave to move, "That the House do now adjourn." I think this motion is justified on the ground that there was an understanding that the House should adjourn after the Government business had been disposed of.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(The First Lord of the Admiralty.)
  MR. ASQUITH: I protest against this course being taken, and I do not think we ought to assent to this proposal. I know of no such understanding as that which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded to. The only understanding I know of is that the House should devote Friday evenings to Supply. If the Government, for reasons of their own, can appropriate Friday evenings for Government Bills, why on earth, at twenty minutes to six o'clock, when all the Government business is disposed of,

  519
  should the House be prevented from discussing a Bill of great importance to the social interests of the people? This Bill is founded upon the unanimous recommendation of a Royal Commission, and I do not think, under these circumstances, that I am not using too strong language when I say that it is little short of a scandal that the House of Commons should be asked by the Government to assent to this proposal to burke this most useful and most important measure.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: With what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife has just said I think the majority of the House will cordially agree. It certainly does seem an extraordinary state of things that, because the Government have had their business facilitated this evening from every quarter of the House, they should now wish to prevent private Members from proceeding with Bills of this kind. Does the right hon. Gentleman object to the recommendation of the Royal Commission, which has the approval of all sections of the House? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife has used the word "scandal," and I do not think it is too strong a word at all in regard to this proposal. I ask what will the people of the country at large think if they are obliged to read in the newspapers that, at a quarter to six o'clock, because the Government had done their business, they insisted upon adjourning the House without giving private Members an opportunity of dealing with this Bill. Certainly this session there has been no Bill proposed of more importance than this now before the House. It is a temperance Bill, and it is one which I do not believe those connected with the drink trade in the country would object to very seriously themselves. Are we now to be told that a Bill of this kind is to be strangled and blocked not because a majority of the House is against it, but because the Government desire to have a night off? I dare say private Members in this House are just as anxious to have a night off as hon. Members opposite, but it is a monstrous thing to say that the Government should come here and prevent those willing to remain to do some useful work from doing it because the Government work has been disposed of. Private Members occupy a different position to members of the Government. It is the duty of the members of the Government
  520
  not only to see that Government business is done, but to give private Members assistance upon occasions like this. So far this session private Members have had absolutely no opportunities, and a private Member might as well have been absent from the House altogether. The Government have transacted their business without consulting the wishes of private Members at all, because they have appropriated almost every hour of the time of Parliament since the session began. I hope, under these circumstances, hon. Members will oppose the motion for the adjournment, and let this Bill be considered. I believe a Bill which has for its object to prevent young children going to public houses, where they would probably learn to drink and become demoralised, will be passed by an enormous majority. I see the hon. Member for South Belfast in his place. On some questions of temperance legislation he and I have not always agreed, but this Bill I heartily support, and I appeal to the hon. Member, in the interests of the temperance cause, which he is always so ready to support, to oppose this motion. The proposition of the First Lord of the Admiralty is so unreasonable and preposterous, that I do not believe the House will sanction it, and if it does it will be universally condemned throughout the country when it is known that, instead of allowing private Members to discuss a Bill of this kind, the Government, having voted all their money, want to go off to spend the evening at the Empire or the Alhambra.
  MR. TRITTON: May I appeal to Her Majesty's Government not to persist with this motion. I do not know a more important measure than the measure which has been referred to, or one which the best people in the land more earnestly desire to see passed into law. Both the minority and majority Reports of the Royal Commission which was appointed by Her Majesty's Government to inquire into the Licensing Laws, and which gave three years hard labour to the subject, were unanimous in support of this measure. I can hardly imagine that Her Majesty's Government are going to burke discussion on such a Bill, and in making a most earnest appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury I can assure him that hundreds and thousands of the best supporters of the Government are thoroughly

  521
  in favour of this Bill. It is only ten minutes to six o'clock now, and we have an opportunity of passing the Second Reading of a Bill which will be beneficial not only to the present generation but to all future generations in the country. I most earnestly appeal to Her Majesty's Government, which is anxious to be known as a Government desirous of promoting domestic legislation, to give us an opportunity of discussing the Bill to-night, otherwise I will certainly be under the painful necessity of voting against the motion.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: After the appeal of the hon. Gentleman, I hope the First Lord of the Treasury will see his way to withdraw the motion of the First Lord of the Admiralty. It is very clear that there is a general concensus of opinion in favour of the Bill. I submit this question to the First Lord of the Treasury. Their great majority was given to the Government in 1895 for a specific purpose, and that was that they were to devote their attention to matters of social legislation for this country. Are we to understand now that this great majority is to be used for the purpose of stifling a measure which touches the young life of the country, and would prevent children of twelve or thirteen years of age being sent to public-houses, where they would come under the evils and the vicious influences of the drink traffic? Will the Government, in face of the emphatic opinion expressed in this House, insist on the motion for the adjournment? The Bill can be discussed in about an hour. There is not any serious difference of opinion upon it, and it has not been sprung newly upon the country. The hon. Member for East Clare talked about the Alhambra and the Empire. I do not think the Government are acting from any such motive, but I think that they have not realised the great volume of opinion against selling drink to children. I make an appeal to the Government as one knowing the people of this country. I come from a great industrial centre—one of the most congested industrial centres in this country—and I know the feeling of the people on this question, and I do not think that the Government, if indicted at the bar of public opinion, can give any satisfactory justification for the course they now propose to take. I
  522
  appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury, now that he has heard the opinion on his own side of the House—an opinion which is strongly shared on this side—to withdraw the motion for the adjournment.
  *MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I join in the appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury not to crush the first attempt made this session to carry temperance legislation with a measure which had the unanimous approval of both the minority and majority Reports of the Royal Commission. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to celebrate the Queen's visit to London by allowing us to carry a measure which is in the best interests of the Queen's younger subjects. I regret exceedingly to take up a position of even apparent hostility to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, but on this occasion, feeling intensely for the cause for which I have been working all my life, I join in the appeal to the Government. I should regret extremely to be under the necessity of voting against the motion.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH: I wish to associate myself with the appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury to allow this Bill to be proceeded with. Having served on the Royal Commission, I can say that, of all the disputed questions we had to consider, the practical proposal in this Bill was received with entire unanimity, and was supported not only by temperance; reformers, but also by those who do not ordinarily work for temperance reform. It is one of those questions which appeals to every man. The Bill would prevent the degradation of young children in this country by removing the opportunities which they have at present of visiting public-houses in a way which I am sure no one wishes. The opportunity having accidentally occurred, I hope the First Lord of the Treasury will allow us to deal with this Bill. I am a little afraid Her Majesty's Government are not very active in bringing forward some of the reforms—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The only question is the adjournment of the House.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH: I will only appeal again to the First Lord

  523
  of the Treasury to give us this opportunity.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I need not say that I thoroughly understand the motives which have influenced my hon. friend who has just sat down, my hon. friend the Member for South Belfast, and hon. Gentlemen opposite in appealing to the Government to allow this Bill to go on. Their reasons are not based on reasons of procedure; they are based on an earnest desire that this opportunity should be taken to help to carry into law what they believe, and what certainly I am not going to deny to be, a great temperance reform. I am not going to discuss the merits of the Bill, because it is not in regard to the merits of the Bill that I should be disposed to support the motion. But the general convenience of procedure is a motive which should not be lightly thrown aside by hon. Members because of their predilection for any particular measure. It will be remembered that it was the desire of the Government that the Factories Bill should be brought on to-night, and if it had been taken I suppose we should have a long and interesting debate on it. An appeal was made to me by hon. Gentlemen interested in that Bill to defer it on the ground that they preferred a longer time to consider its provisions. That Bill also deals with the health and social condition of the people; it is, moreover, a measure of the very greatest importance, but we were appealed to by various hon. Members interested in it to put it off for some time longer in order that they might have a better opportunity of considering its provisions in detail. Why is the same justice or injustice not to be meted out to the private Member as was meted out to the Government?
  *MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: The Government can take a day any time they like.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Bill we are now asked to consider came on, by the admission of my hon. friend, accidentally. Not a single hon. Member interested in the Bill yesterday conceived that this measure would come before the House of Commons to-day. I have my doubts whether of the ten or twelve hon.
  524
  Members whose names appear on the back of the Bill there is one now present.
  MR. SOUTTAR: Four Members at least are present.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They are Mr. Souttar, Sir Robert Reid, Sir James Haslett, Sir Thomas Gibson Carmichael, Mr. Herbert Pease, Mr. Whittaker, Mr. Herbert Roberts, Mr. Provand, and Mr. Douglas. I do not consider that on Friday nights it is for the general convenience of the House that these Bills should be allowed to come on without notice. That principle has been pressed on me by hon. Gentlemen opposite Friday after Friday, and I do not think it is in accordance with the general judicious conduct of our debates that we should depart from a rule which, so far as I know, has been universally accepted during all the sessions in which Fridays have been devoted to the purposes of Supply. The Bill itself is one whose object, at all events, everybody in the House would desire to see carried out. Its object is to promote temperance among the young, and I cannot conceive a more important subject; but, whether this Bill provides the proper machinery to carry that object out, or whether it is a Bill which, in its present form, ought to pass, is a question on which I am quite incapable of giving an opinion, because, like the rest of the House, I had no idea that it was coming on, and therefore I did not prepare myself for the discussion of the subject. My case is that, I am sure, of the great mass of those who are listening to me; it is the case of a large number of gentlemen who are not here, but who would have been in the House had they thought the Bill was coming on. Under these circumstances I should not advise the House to dissent from the motion of my hon. friend.
  Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The argument with which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has just concluded his speech is an argument that would apply to any Bill on any Paper except the first two or three, which are usually Government measures, and which the House expects to come on. The right hon. Gentleman puts forward the best plea he can; but if I had any regard, which I have not, to any party

  525
  advantage over the right hon. Gentleman, I should very much like to go to a division now, and let the country see that we have, on the one hand, an opportunity of debating this undoubtedly useful Bill carrying out the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission, and, on the other hand, we have the somewhat pedantic and little considerations which the right hon. Gentleman has just addressed to the House. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that a Bill of this sort, in ordinary circumstances, is not expected to come on on a Friday; but who is it that has "un-Fridayed" this particular Friday? Who is it that has unfrocked the Friday? It is the Government themselves, not from any fault of their own, because I quite admit that we have no right to blame them for any confusion into which their business has fallen owing to the lamented illness of one of their numbers—the Member in charge of the Army Estimates. But the right hon. Gentleman having no Estimates which he could propose to the House to-night, took a stage of three important Government Bills, which was unexpected except for the very short notice given at midnight last night, and which could have had no effect on those hon. Members interested in these Bills, who had gone to the country for the week end. Surely, these small considerations to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and which are out of place to-night, because, as I have said, the Government themselves have departed from the usual Friday practice, will not prevail with the House. I trust the House will take the advantage of this opportunity, which we hail with satisfaction, of passing a most important and vital stage of a measure which is universally accepted by all shades of opinion on the subject of licensing as a reform urgently required in the interests of young people.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I am not one of the promoters of this Bill, but I most certainly say that I shall vote against the motion of the right hon. Gentleman, on the ground of the rights of private Members alone. I ask whether this session there is to be an understanding that private Members are to have no legislation at all. This is the second time this week that the Government have supported a motion for adjournment immediately on the conclusion of their
  526
  own business. The old practice used to be when I first came into the House that, if there was no Government business, private Members got the advantage. Why on earth should not private Members have the crumbs which fall from the Government table? At any rate, if this rule is to be laid down, let it be an open and well established rule. It was said that this Bill came on unexpectedly, and that hon. Members were therefore unprepared for it; but the proper way to meet that was to move the adjournment of the debate, not the adjournment of the House. This is really a question of the rights of private Members. If, as a matter of course, we are simply here night after night to register the decrees of the Government in granting them Votes in Supply, I for one, as a loyal supporter, would have been ready and willing to do so; but I do think that when private Members get a chance, as they have this evening, they should not be deprived of their rights and privileges by the Government.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If my hon. friend will allow me to say it, he seems to think that the action of the Government is directed against private Members. I can assure him that is not the case. We may be right or we may be wrong in the action we have taken; but we conceived ourselves to be acting as the guardians of the rights of private Members in taking care that a measure which private Members did not expect to come on should not be taken on a day when such measures are not usually discussed.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: If this is the way the Government propose to protect private Members' rights, I can see that very soon private Members will have no rights to protect. There is another consideration. All of us have been struck within the last few months with the tone adopted by a large section of the press of the country in regard to the attitude of the Government to the House. I think that that attack upon the House of Commonswill be to a large extent justified if we abrogate in this way all the powers of legislation by private Members. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there are a large number of Members, even on this side of the House, who strongly object to the threatened extinction of all private Members' rights, and

  527
  especially the action of the Government in doing their best to adjourn the House the other night and to-night.
  *MR. TENNANT: The right hon. Gentleman has taken credit that the Government did not go on with the Factories and Workshops Bill to-night. I do not think the Government can claim any credit for that; for it is a very large and complicated measure, and was only received by Members yesterday morning. I am surprised that the Government, which professed at the general election to be such advocates of social reform, should have blocked a measure of social reform by moving the adjournment of the House. This is not the first time that this has occurred, because on Tuesday last a very useful measure introduced by my right hon. friend below the gangway (Sir C. Dilke) was also blocked. I protest against the action of the Government.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I make a very strong appeal to the Leader of the House to give way in this matter. My name is on the Bill. I am one of those who had the honour to serve on the Royal Commission, and heard the evidence from beginning to end, and I wish to urge the strength of the evidence in favour of the single operative clause of this Bill. The House of Commons may well spend an hour in discussing a measure which will be of undoubted benefit to the community.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I oppose the adjournment of the House. It is a monstrous thing that such a large House as is present should be asked to adjourn in daylight, when there is a Bill before it for discussion in which so many Members are interested. It is a non-contentious Bill, and, from my own knowledge, the trade in Ireland do not oppose it. I may say without any disrespect that the First Lord of the Admiralty has blundered in moving the adjournment of the House. The First Lord of the Treasury is almost always happy in difficult situations, but to my mind he did not make out a good case for putting off the discussion of this Bill. I would therefore appeal to the First Lord of the Admiralty to ask leave to withdraw his motion, which I am sure will be given. After all, the discussion will not take so
  528
  very long, and the Second Reading may be agreed to on the understanding that the Bill goes to a Committee, where it may be improved. Probably some of the members of the Government want to go to some entertainment. If so, they can go, and leave us here to do the business of the nation. I appeal to the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who takes such a deep interest in temperance, to induce the First Lord of the Admiralty to withdraw his motion.
  *MR. BANBURY: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have entreated the Government to withdraw the motion on the ground that this is a good Bill, but whether the Bill is a good one or a bad one is not the question. The question is whether we shall alter the procedure of adjourning on Fridays after Government business, a procedure which has obtained for the last four or five sessions, and which has worked well. It would be impossible, after Government business, to consider whether or not there happened to be a Bill down which, in the opinion of the few Members generally present on Friday evenings, was a good one, and therefore should be taken; or whether all the bills were bad, and therefore should not be taken. If the procedure is altered, all Bills, whether good or bad, must be taken, and the result would be that many Bills would obtain a Second Reading which ordinarily would be rejected. The late Home Secretary said the Government had "un-Friday'd" Friday. That is true, but it was done in the interests of hon. Gentlemen opposite; and, had the Factory Bill, which was to have been taken, and which also was abandoned at the request of hon. Gentlemen opposite, been proceeded with, the whole evening would have been taken up.
  MR. GEDGE: The fact that there are such a large number of Members in the House is a sufficient answer to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Without going into the merits of the Bill, which touches a subject of great importance and excites a great deal of interest throughout the country, I think it would be almost a disgrace to the House of Commons to adjourn at a quarter past six on a Friday afternoon, when we expected to be here the whole evening, and not to afford time to discuss

  529
  this Bill. If it passes the Second Reading, and should turn out incapable of amendment in Committee, it can easily be thrown out on the Third Reading. We should expose ourselves to the charges of cowardice if, having this Bill brought before us, we could not afford time to discuss it. It is always with great regret that I go against the Leader of the House, but unless the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty withdraws the motion, I shall be compelled to vote against the Government.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I only want to point out that this Bill is practically unopposed. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No, No," and "Agreed."] There is scarcely a Member in the House who would venture to go before any constituency in the country and say he opposes the Bill. It is the manifest wish of the majority of hon. Members present that the Bill should be discussed, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability of meeting the wishes of the House.
  MR. H. P. PEASE: I would suggest to the Leader of the House that the question should be put to the House without the Government Whips taking charge of the division.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that my hon. friend's suggestion would be a proper one, for the motion was made by a member of the Government in my absence, and it would have been made by me had I been present. I wish, however, the House to understand that, while I give them the best advice in my power, it is not my intention to attempt to drive the House. According to my judgment the course pressed upon me is not a very wise one, and possibly there may come a time when the Leader of the Opposition would come to see that himself. The only wish I would utter at the present moment is, that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will recollect that his view is that if a Bill is down on the Paper, even if it comes on in a most unexpected manner, there is no reason why it should not be fully discussed by the House. I will remember it.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That might be a very good reason for moving the adjournment of the debate on
  530
  an individual Bill, but not the adjournment of the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I really do not see any distinction between the two. There were two Bills which came on absolutely without notice, and the right hon. Gentleman thinks that there is no reason why they should not be discussed, and that he would take the same view, whether the Bill was a Government Bill or a private Member's Bill. I take a different view, and I only wish that the doctrine now uttered by the right hon. Gentleman from his responsible position will recur to his mind on some subsequent occasion when the Government is desirous of passing a Bill which, owing to some Parliamentary accident, has come on somewhat earlier than was expected, or on an occasion not anticipated. However, so far as I can collect the general view of the House, it is that they are so desirous of this particular measure that they are prepared to abandon the general principle of procedure which usually appeals to their minds. I do not agree, as I have said, but if they take that view I shall not insist on the motion for which I am practically responsible.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Motion again proposed.
  MR. GALLOWAY: I cannot help thinking that this Bill, coming on without warning, has put some of us in a somewhat unfortunate position, for we have not had time to consider it, or to read the evidence of the Royal Commission on which it is based. Everybody will agree that it is wrong to sell intoxicating drink to children, but whether this Bill will effect the object for which it is intended I think is extremely doubtful.
  MR. MIDDLEMORE: I think the House will approve of the very few words I have to say. At the first glance this Bill seems admirable, but on mature consideration it appears to be less admirable. My objections to it are twofold. In the first place, a very large number of children under sixteen years of age represent themselves as over sixteen, and those who value truthfulness should not put temptation in the way of children to make them untruthful. In the second place, I wish to point out that this

  531
  is not in my opinion temperance legislation, but legislation to prohibit children under sixteen years of age from purchasing drink. Now, who sends the children to purchase the drink? Their parents. Who will fetch the drink in future if the children do not? Why, the parents. [An HON. MENBER: Who will drink it? The parents.] Is it not likely that the parents will remain in the public-houses to drink, and that will not promote drinking at home? They will, therefore, drink very much more than if they drank it at home. It seems to me that an evil, which I recognise, is going to be superseded by an evil which, for anything I know to the contrary, will be greater. If I were a publican I would support the Bill, because more drink will be consumed if it is passed than at present. Hon. Gentlemen may say that the parents will send children for the drink who are over sixteen years of age, but I would far rather send a child of thirteen or fourteen to a public-house than a child, especially a girl, over sixteen.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I must admit that, like the rest of the House, I have been taken completely by surprise by finding that I am expected to deal with this subject this evening. As hon. Members very well know, the question before us is not devoid of difficulty, and is one which has occupied the attention of the House before. It was referred to a Select Committee of the House some years ago, and a Bill was brought before the House in a different form from that now before the House, in which very considerable alteration was made. I am told that an argument is derived from the recent Report of the Licensing Commission, where both the majority and the minority of the Commission agreed at all events with the principle of this Bill. When I look into the details of this Bill I am almost inclined to think that they go beyond the provisions which ought to be made. To say that children of fifteen or sixteen are not under any circumstances to be at liberty to fetch their parents' beer is going a long way in the direction of interfering with the liberty of the working classes, who would be the first to complain if this or other measures were passed hastily on the strict lines which
  532
  the Licensing Commission has taken. Although I regret I have not had further time to look into this matter, I may say that, so far as the Government is concerned, they will offer no opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: I think the House would do well on this occasion to let this Bill go through without a division. We are all agreed that the sale of drink to children under sixteen for their own consumption is wrong, and it is quite possible that the Bill may be so amended as to condemn the sale of drink to children for their own consumption while not preventing them from fetching their father's dinner beer. If that were done the Bill might be a useful one.
  MR. BARTLEY: I do not think that anyone will say that I would oppose any measure tending to promote temperance and thrift, but in a measure like this we are very liable to run away with sentiment and overlook the practical bearing of it. Are we prepared to say it is a crime for a working man to have beer with his dinner? If it is not a crime, can it be said to be a crime for him to send a member of his family to get it? You say it is a great evil to send younger children, therefore he must send the older ones. But it seems to me you are increasing the danger by making this age limit of the child sixteen. It is a most impressionable age, especially in girls, and in my opinion it would be far more dangerous to send girls of between sixteen and twenty, who are liable to temptations from which younger children are exempt. I am fully in accord with any measure to promote social improvement, but on this occasion I take the same line as that taken by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, who, when some years ago a similar measure was proposed, opposed it on those grounds. I regret the heat which has been imported into the discussion, which cannot by any possibility be a party measure, and I am strongly of opinion that this change, if effected, will not benefit those people whom we wish to benefit.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he understood that in order to discuss this Bill hon. Members had been prepared to go to the verge of beating the Government.

  533
  No explanation had been vouchsafed from the other side in reply to the arguments which had been put forward, and in the absence of arguments in favour of the Bill he should vote against the Second Reading. Of course this was a well-intentioned Bill; every Bill was that did mischief. Intoxication was not the only or the most serious vice in the world, there were others which had more serious and material effects, and the Bill as it was framed might lead to serious evils. Of course nobody was in favour of intoxication, unless it were the Kitchen Committee, and he did not suggest that even they approved of it. If the Bill simply prohibited the sale of liquor to children for their own consumption he should be prepared to vote for it, but having regard to the vagueness of its language, he was not prepared to take that course.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I cannot understand why this subject should take the Home Secretary by surprise, for it is one with which the man in the street is very well acquainted. Neither is it a surprise to the magistrates, or chairmen of quarter sessions, or the Royal Commission which inquired into the subject. If this question was put to working men's political clubs of all shades of opinion the unanimous answer would be, "Let us save the children from this temptation." Whether the age of the children should be fourteen, fifteen, or sixteen is a point for a Committee, but on the broad question as to whether children should be allowed to go into beerhouses and off-licensed houses, hon. Members will agree that children should be kept from the baneful influence of such places. There is another point. Intemperance, though decreasing among working men in poor neighbourhoods, is increasing very rapidly among the women. There is a class of women, commonly known as "soakers," who lose self-respect and put on slatternly habits, who are given to secret drinking, and who regularly employ children between the ages of nine and thirteen to fetch their drink at various public-houses. The result is that in some districts scores of boys and girls earn money regularly by fetching drink for these women, who would not but for the children be able to indulge their craving. By frequenting the public-house children mix in evil associations which influence
  534
  them in later years. I appeal to the House to revert to its instinctive common sense, and to pass a Bill which the Commission recommended, and which everybody interested in the welfare of the people has long demanded.
  MR. VICARY GIBBScomplained that the Bill had been sprung on the House, and said that although hon. Members had stated that everybody was in favour of the Bill, it was not in fact a good Bill. No age could be worse than sixteen for girls to go to a public house—an age when children were most impressionable, and most likely to be influenced by their surroundings. He also thought that it was a monstrous thing that the publican should be compelled to decide as to the age of children who came to his house. He was not in a position to discuss the Bill at any length, and concluded by moving the adjournment of the debate.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I think that I ought not to accept that motion. The unanimous decision of the House to allow the motion for the adjournment of the House to be withdrawn is substantially the expression of a desire to continue the debate.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc."—(Mr. Souttar.)
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: The whole object of this discussion was to pass this Bill, which was supposed to be so short and simple. That being so, there is no reason to remit it to the Committee on Law. A Committee of this House is quite competent to judge the age at which a girl shall be allowed to enter a public-house.
  MR. COHEN: I hope there will not be any disposition to press this motion upon the House. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would have opposed the Bill if they had thought it was not going before a Committee of the whole House.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERONsaid that if the motion were accepted the Home Secretary would have an opportunity of considering the details of the measure.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEYsaid that he hoped the motion would not be pressed. The general sense of the House was in favour of the Bill being discussed in Committee of the whole House.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

MIDWIVES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. J. H. JOHNSTONE: I need detain the House with but few observations in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. This is the only country in Europe where women, without being qualified by skill or good character, are allowed to practise as midwives. The present Bill has been carefully thought out, and its promoters have been aided by the advice of the General Medical Council. It provides for the establishment of a General Midwives Board, largely composed of medical men but partly composed of laymen. This Board will frame rules for the examination of women wishing to follow the profession of midwife; and there will also be provision for the registering of women now in practice, who can produce evidence of good character. Under the Bill no woman will be allowed to practise for gain without a certificate which will be granted and issued by the Board after examination of the candidate, With this certificate there is coupled the further provision that before a woman commences to practise in any district of the country she must take out a licence from the local supervising authority. The county council is recommended as the supervising authority under the statute, with power, if need be, to delegate that authority to the sanitary authority. The general effect of this will be that some satisfactory proof of training and capacity should be given before a woman is allowed to take up the practice of midwifery, and that when she does begin her practice
  536
  there shall be control, wherever she is carrying on her practice, of the supervising authority. I know that I should not be justified in detaining the House further, but I wish you to consider what are the sufferings of the poor women in England from the treatment of rough, ignorant, and in many cases dissolute women, of whose former career they know nothing, and of whose qualifications they know nothing. Those who have been about among the poor will know the immense amount of suffering caused to the women and children by unskilled nursing. I dare say I shall be told that the poor law is strong enough. I have not been a member of a board of guardians for many years without knowing that this is not the case. When you consider the number of women who require attention of this kind, I hope the House will not reject this Bill lightly or unadvisedly, but will give it a Second Reading on this occasion, and allow its defects, if it has defects, to be considered in Committee. If it can be improved and put in a more workable shape, let that be done in Committee.
  *MR. SCHWANN: I would ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading. It has been before the House a great number of years, and it has had the support of several Select Committees. I believe the House will be doing its duty and attending to a great need if it gives this Bill a Second Reading. For some years the medical profession was against any Bill of this nature being introduced into this House, but I am glad to say that now there are unmistakable signs that the opinion of a great number of medical men on this subject has changed. Those connected with large working-class districts know how much suffering arises from midwives who have not had adequate medical instruction. Their medical instruction is provided for in the Bill. We have carried out as far as we were able the representations of the Privy Council, and leading medical bodies, as to what is desirable, and we have removed those obstacles which might stand in the way of the support of the public and of the medical profession. The right of friendly neighbours to assist in cases of labour has been preserved. We all know that in country districts there may be cases where a midwife is not within reasonable distance, and

  537
  where a friendly neighbour has to be called in to give assistance. That has been provided for, and has removed much opposition.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Instead of being fully agreed, I certainly mean to oppose this Bill as vehemently and persistently as I can, and I believe I will get the support of some hon. Members in the House, if not a majority. Let me acknowledge at once the persistency of the hon. Gentleman who has brought forward the Bill. He has kept me in attendance at this House while he has been attempting—I will not say to smuggle through the measure, for I recognise in him an honourable as well as an honest antagonist—but while he has been endeavouring to get this Bill through in all kinds of unseasonable hours, and without discussion. You have here an admitted evil, and immediately some ardent philanthropic reformer, conscious of the evil and deeply and honourably moved by it, brings before this House a remedy which at first sight may seem good, but which you will find on examination will aggravate the evil with which it proposes to deal. Nobody denies that there is a great deal of bad nursing in the country, but there is also a great deal of good nursing as well. I altogether take exception to the picture drawn by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Johnstone), and by the Gentleman who seconded the Bill, of the way in which women are attended to in their confinements. What happens in country districts is this. A woman is called in to a confinement as an attendant. But a confinement is a natural process, and usually is effected successfully. The picture drawn of the drunken, incompetent nurse is entirely the result of an imagination inflamed by philanthropic feeling.
  MR. J. H. JOHNSTONE: I have known two cases this winter in my own small village, in which from no lack of sympathy, but on account of unskilled assistance on the part of friendly neighbours, confinements have been attended by most sad results.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: If this Bill passes you will have the sad results
  538
  multiplied by ten. If the Bill would diminish by 5 or 10 per cent. the sad results—to use the language of my hon. friend—then I would support it, and I would say it is a step in the right direction, but my contention is that it is a step in the wrong direction, that it is retrogressive and not progressive, and that it will accentuate and not retard the evil of which you complain. The hon. Member said there was a change in medical opinion in regard to the Bill. What is the proof of that statement? I have in my hand a letter from the editor of the Lancet—and everybody knows that that journal is the most influential authority of the medical profession—in which he states that a circular letter was issued to the medical profession in England with a view to ascertaining the opinion of the profession on the Bill. He received 7,250 replies, and an analysis of the answers shows that 1,547 medical men are in favour of the Bill, 640 are indifferent, while the remaining 5,000 odd are opposed to the measure. I think I am entitled to give that as a specimen of the kind of argument by which this Bill is backed up. What does the Bill propose to do? In regard to the subject of midwifery, medical education has made enormous progress during the past few years. There was a time when a midwifery degree could be obtained by any medical man. The midwifery form of degree was the last that a medical man got. But medical men have seen that it is most important to take up this part of the medical profession with proper training, and the result is that to-day a man is not entitled to take up midwifery practice unless he has a medical and surgical certificate. The proposal of my hon. friend is that women are to have three months training for the work for which a medical man requires five years.
  MR. J. H. JOHNSTONE: There is nothing about three months training in the Bill. The rules are to be approved by the General Medical Council.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I have not read the Bill for a few days, but I understand that the Bill will only insist on women having three months training. What I maintain is this: if you are going to entitle a woman to act, not merely as a midwife, but to act as a fully trained medical practitioner—["No, no!"]—I wish to make my statement in my own way, with-

  539
  out unfair interruption. The effect of the Bill will be to make a midwife assume the duties and responsibilities of a medical practitioner. I protest against that to the utmost. Ignorance is very bad, but half knowledge is sometimes worse. The inadequate training you give to these midwives will give them all the pretences and privileges of the properly qualified, and whatever safeguards you may put on it, the result will be that, instead of calling in a fully-trained medical man who has spent five years of his life in qualifying, the certificated nurse will be called in, and the results will be very serious. Another point is this. My hon. friend, and all those who are in favour of the Bill, speak as if confinement were a serious disease. It is a natural process which, if nature be allowed to take its own course, will usually be attended with successful results. Ignorance and interference may convert confinements into surgical cases in which incompetence will
  destroy the life it is trying to save. One of the subterranean horrors of society is malpractice in these cases. I charge this Bill as calculated to increase malpractice by giving these women the right to interfere in cases of confinement, and in that way cover, under the cloak of confinement, what is really an illegal practice. I think this Bill is so unpopular, and opposed by so strong a body of cultivated opinion, that it requires a great deal of serious consideration, and for these reasons I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
  DR. AMBROSEseconded the motion.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 56; Noes, 127. (Division List No. 62.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

  Garfit, William

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Baker, Sir John

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Banbury, Fredk. George

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

  Barry, Rt. Hon. A. H. S.-(Hunts

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Heath, James

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

  Hogan, James Francis

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Caldwell, James

  Kenyon, James

  Strauss, Arthur

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Bir.

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Lowe, Francis William

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lowles, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Mr. T. P. O'Connor and Mr. Galloway.

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  NOES.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. H. Henry

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

  Gedge, Sydney

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Crilly, Daniel

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Crombie, John William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herb. J.

  Burns, John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Burt, Thomas

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

  Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Hazell, Walter

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(D'rbysh're

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorg'n)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Faber, George Denison

  Henderson, Alexander

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Fenwick, Charles

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J(Manc'r)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Colville, John

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Monk, Charles James

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Steadman, William Charles

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Kimber, Henry

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Crn.

  Phillpotts, Capt. Arthur

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'lnd

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Ure, Alexander

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wallace, Robert

  Leng, Sir John

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'nsea

  Purvis, Robert

  Wason, Eugene

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  M'Crae, George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  M'Killop, James

  Round, James

  Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh. N.

  Maddison, Fred

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Rutherford, John

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Mr. Heywood Johnstone and Mr. Tennant.

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS: Anyone who has listened to the speeches of hon. Members opposite would suppose that a great many members of the medical profession were against this Bill. That is not so, because the General Medical Council, the Royal College of Physicians, and the Royal College of Surgeons are all in favour of the Bill.
  DR. TANNER: My name is down on the Paper against this Bill, and I desire to say a few words upon it. The leading medical paper in this country is the Lancet. That paper took a plebiscite of the medical profession, and by an overwhelming majority in England, Scotland, and Wales they decided against this Bill. There are a great many professed humanitarians who say upon this question that women are always better qualified than men to deal with women, even under most arduous circumstances, and that their strength would be quite sufficient to support the strain put upon them in such cases. This question has been taken up in France and Germany, and this measure is proceeding on lines opposed to Continental experience. I think it is very unwise in matters of this kind to absolutely put a half-qualified, or in most cases a wholly
  542
  unqualified, woman in such a position that she has all the powers of life and death in her hands in dealing with matters which medical men have to practise for at least four years in order to understand. By this Act of Parliament you undo all that has been done in the past, and in the face of the material vice that you have seen cropping up in your midst, not only in this country but in America, France, and other countries, you absolutely take away a controlling and guiding power for good that you have created through education. The whole control is now to be given to some uneducated woman. I heard the First Lord pleading against the small Bill about selling liquor to children, but here is a Bill dealing with human life, that touches the very essence of our well-doing, and I ask, are you really going to work this mischief? I sincerely hope not. I have never known a graver occasion affecting the interests of the profession to which I have the honour to belong. Speaking for the major portion of my friends in that profession, I should be unworthy of my position in this House if I did not raise my voice, however meek it might be, in the interests of humanity against this proposal.
  MR. HAZELL, who spoke amid loud cries of "Divide, divide!" supported the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 124; Noes, 34. (Division List No. 63.)

  AYES.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hardy, Laurence

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Baker, Sir John

  Hazell, Walter

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H.(Bristol

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

  Burns, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Burt, Thomas

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jones, William(Carnarvonsh.

  Rutherford, John

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kimber, Henry

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Channing, Francis Allston)

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Scott, Charles P. (Leigh)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Sinclair, Capt. Jn. (Forfarsh.)

  Colville, John

  Leng, Sir John

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Souttar, Robinson

  Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Steadman, William Charles

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Sullivan, Donald (Westmeath)

  Crombie, John William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Talbot, Rt Hn J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Lowles John

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Ure, Alexander

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wallace, Robert

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Killop, James

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Maddison, Fred.

  Wason, Eugene

  Fenwick, Charles

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Williams, John Carvell(Notts.

  Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Monk, Charles James

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Moore, Arthur (Londonderry

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

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

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Alban's)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Morrell, George Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Mr. Heywood Johnstone and Mr. Tennant.

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  NOES.

  Abraham William(Cork, N.E.)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Purvis, Robert

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hogan, James Francis

  Strauss, Arthur

  Caldwell, James

  Kenyon, James

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kilbride, Denis

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks

  Doogan, P. C.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A, Akers-

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Mr. T. P. O'Connor and Dr. Robert Ambrose.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask my hon. friend what course he now proposes to pursue in regard to this Bill.
  MR. J. H. JOHNSTONE: I beg to propose that it be referred to the Grand Committee on Law.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc.
  Adjourned at a quarter before Eight of the clock till Monday next.

VISCOUNT GORT.
Petition of John Gage Prendergast, Viscount Gort, claiming a right to vote at the elections of representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report there upon to the House.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  GWYRFAI RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL [H.L.]
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESin formed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on the 27th of February last discharged, and Bill committed.
  SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESinformed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on the 2nd instant discharged, and Bill committed.
  SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  EDINBURGH DISTRICT LUNACY BOARD BILL [H.L.]
    EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]

      ROTHERHITHE AND RATCLIFF TUNNEL BILL [H.L.]
      LONDON SEA WATER SUPPLY BILL [H.L.].
      SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
      NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL [H.L.].
      NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
      Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Viscount Falmouth be proposed to the House as a member of
      466
      the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Muncaster; read, and agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2387. Havre and District.

  BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS, AND VACCINATION (SCOTLAND).
  Forty fifth Annual Report by the Registrar-General in Scotland, for the year 1899; and Thirty-fifth Annual Report on Vaccination.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LUNACY.
  Return of all sums received by the visitors of lunatics for travelling expenses or upon any other account from the 1st January to the 31st December, 1899.

  INEBRIATES ACT, 1898.
  Regulations for certified inebriate reformatories in Scotland.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.
*LORD KINNAIRD: I rise to ask the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury whether any precedent can be found since the Reformation Settlement was enacted by the passing of the 1st Elizabeth, Chapters 1 and 2, in which Prayers for the Dead have ever been introduced "by authority" into any special services put forth by any of the Archbishops of Canterbury. I do not propose to enter into any historical or theological discussion, but there are many people throughout the country, including Church dignitaries, whose minds have been somewhat excited by the words put into the form of intercession. Within a week of the time when the Bishops asked that this year might not be one in which any controversy should arise, these words appeared which some of us regard as an innovation, and possibly his Grace the Archbishop may say something to calm the fears of some who have been surprised and pained by the words used.
*THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I cannot answer

467
the noble Lord's question in detail; I have not been able to look through all the precedents, and the number of prayers that have been issued by the authority of the Crown is too great to make it possible without a very great deal of labour to find out exactly whether any forms of prayer have been previously issued in which the words used express precisely the same thing as the words to be found in the prayer recently put forth. I hold in my hand, however, two documents of the same character—that is to say, forms of this kind. One of them is a "form of prayer and thanksgiving to Almighty God to be used in all churches and chapels for general thanksgiving for many and signal victories which Divine Providence has vouchsafed to his Majesty in the course of the war." The date of this is 1797, and in that form I find words that come very near indeed to the language—it would be impossible to draw a distinction between them—inthe prayer which has been lately issued. I will just read the words that your Lordships may know what the words are to which I refer. In the form of prayer set forth for use on December 19, 1797, those words occur—
"And for those whom in this righteous cause Thy Providence permits to fall, receive we pray Thee their souls to Thy mercy."
That prayer was issued in the usual way on the date I have mentioned, and again in the same manner a year later—on 29th November, 1798. These words come as near as anything can well come, when the words are not identical, to the prayer lately issued, though the words take a somewhat different form—
"And for all those who have fallen, that they with us may enter into that rest which Thou hast prepared for those who believe in Thee."
If you take this to pieces, the "rest" which is here spoken of is that rest to which all those who fall in the faith of Christ will be brought at the final change which is to pass over every one of us at the Resurrection Day. What is to happen after our death and before resurrection is not known distinctly; it is not anywhere told us in the New Testament. We really do not know, but we do receive some idea that those who have followed the true faith are during that interval to have happiness so far that they are in the presence of God, but are still waiting for that great change which will come to all. The prayer looks forward to that time,
468
praying that those who have fallen in the true faith may "enter with us into that rest which Thou hast prepared for those who believe in Thee." The only objection I have ever heard made to this is that when they have entered into that rest, when once they have passed into the hands of God, it is impossible that they can have any addition to their happiness. Well, there is nothing in the New Testament that implies that the happiness is always exactly the same, and that there is no possibility of increase; but there is in the New Testament sufficient to lead us to the belief that, at any rate, there is one thing that can increase their happiness—that is, that they should be reunited with those whom they loved on earth, and so the prayer is not simply that they may enter into rest, but that they with us may enter into rest, and the idea of reunion with those whom they loved here is the very essence of the petition. I do not suppose there is any Christian who will hesitate to say that happiness will certainly be increased by the reunion of those who really loved one another. The idea which is very often expressed that those who are happy need no addition at all would imply that it is a matter of indifference to them whether the loved ones left behind did or did not join them. This prayer expresses no such idea, but a precisely opposite idea—that they with us may have that great blessing in common. Of course, I am aware that prayers for the dead are not common in the Church of England, and that such prayers have been struck out altogether from the ordinary services, but, nevertheless, it is quite certain that the law has decided that such prayers are not outside the limits of the law. We have had the question settled before the regular Court, and that settlement has been acquiesced in ever since it was arrived at, now more than sixty years ago. Moreover, that settlement is based on the same principle as that which underlies the well-known decision in the case of Mr. Bennett. There the judges refused to condemn Mr. Bennett on the ground that the doctrine he taught was not prohibited by the Church of England. The principle of the law is, therefore, accepted. The law itself and the rule of the law which is laid down by the Court of Arches in regard to prayers for the dead leave the matter in this position—that there is no

469
prohibition, and that it is quite open to members of the Church of England to pray for the dead. Of course, those who are under the canons have made a promise that they will keep within the limits of the Prayer-book, and therefore they cannot without further authority offer any such prayer, because the Prayer-book does not contain any prayer directly praying for the dead, and only contains prayers which pray for the dead indirectly. The reason why the Church of England struck out direct prayers for the dead is clear from the circumstances of the Reformation. At that time prayers for the dead were almost entirely taken up with prayers for souls in purgatory, and these prayers for souls in purgatory were the source of very scandalous abuses, abuses which first caused Luther to protest against the doctrines of the Church of Rome. The Church of England has directly declared that the doctrine of purgatory, of pardons, of adoration and invocation of saints is vain and fond and contrary to the law of God, and in so far as any prayer indicates approach to anything of that kind, that prayer is unquestionably inconsistent with the teaching of the Church of England. At that time it was very difficult to draw any line, and the Church took the course of striking out all prayers that could possibly be abused without any reference to the question whether or not they would be abused. But the Church did not in any way whatever forbid the use of prayers for the dead, which it could very easily have done, and in the 22nd Article the Church could have excluded prayers for the dead altogether. But the Church did not do that, and when the judges had to decide whether or not such prayers were excluded, they decided distinctly that they were not excluded. At this time there is great and special occasion; it is a time when there are hundreds of sorrowing souls very anxious about relations engaged in the war in South Africa. They have been praying for their loved ones out there, and they feel it is hard that they may not have the comfort of praying for those who have fallen when they know, as a great many of them do know, that prayers for the dead are not forbidden. At such a time as this it is right that we should practise toleration, and where the Church has said there shall be liberty, there should be liberty for those who wish to use it. As no doubt
470
your Lordships know, five different forms of prayer are appointed for use, and no clergyman is tied down to the use of any particular one. He may choose any one of the five, and this particular prayer is only one of the five. Therefore it is in no way whatever a burden on the conscience of the clergy, and it gives that great consolation to very many who are feeling deeply at this time, that, without any hindrance from rules of the Church, they are allowed to pray, and join others in praying, for those whom they have lost; at any rate, to pray that the day of their final rest shall be in participation and renewal of their old affections. If it is said that, having got to their final rest, they want nothing more, I think that only shows the want of serious reflection. We are not told anywhere that the blessedness of Heaven is exactly the same for everyone, or that when once it has been given it cannot be increased. We are distinctly led to believe that those who are gone away do not lose their affection for us who have yet to follow. For that reason I think it was right to give them an opportunity of expressing their feelings in public worship. The prayer has been issued in the ordinary way. The question has been raised whether the Privy Council has any right to issue such prayers at all. But that is a matter with which I have nothing to do. The power has been used for a considerable time, and it has always been treated as a power that resided in the Crown and the Privy Council. I am not at all concerned in that question, which could only be decided by the courts of law. I am not concerned with the question whether such prayers are issued by lawful authority or not. At present they are issued as having lawful authority, and therefore, they are taken as lawfully issued, and I do not see how else we can treat them. There is one more thing I should say, and that is that we have lately spoken decidedly on this matter, and told the clergy in various ways that they must not use such prayers. Why must they not? Not because they are not lawful, for the law has decided that they are, but because they have promised to use the prayers of the prayer-book, and having made that promise they are not allowed to go outside it unless they have lawful authority, and that lawful authority is given for this occasion. I cannot help

471
feeling that of all things we need at this time we most need absolute toleration of all that comes within the law of the Church, and we ought to show in dealing with the Church that we have no intention whatever of narrowing its limits or shutting out from any liberty which the Church has granted the desires of those who feel the need of using such liberty.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I cannot refrain from making some comment on the language the most reverend Prelate has been using. He has not been able to bring before your Lordships any precedent since the Reformation Settlement in which prayers for the dead have ever been introduced "by authority." The most reverend Prelate constantly spoke of what he was pleased to describe as the law of the Church. I entirely dissent from him in that phrase. There is no law of the Church distinct from the law of the land, and the reason there is a strong feeling upon this question is not that this particular form of prayer is in itself so very objectionable, but that it admits a principle which is of a very far-reaching character. The most reverend Prelate says the clergy are bound to use no prayers except those permitted and retained in the Book of Common Prayer, except that other prayers from time to time may be agreed to by authority. At the same time he admits that it is not at all clear as to the legal authority upon which this prayer was issued. The authorities practically who issued this prayer were the two Archbishops and my noble friend the Lord President of the Council. It would be a very serious matter if the principles of the Church of England could be, from time to time, undermined by a process by which practically the two Archbishops, at any time, could introduce any special forms of prayer they desired. The objection to this particular prayer in the minds of people in the country is precisely that which existed at the time of the Reformation. "Black Masses" now take place in a great number of Churches of the Church of England, and the Bishops either cannot or will not exercise any authority at all in these matters over the clergy; and it is perfectly clear that when a prayer of this kind is introduced it will be used by clergymen who are opposed to the principles of the Reformation as an extenuation and defence of
472
the practices they are carrying on. This is not merely an academicals question, because, unfortunately, there are in many dioceses principles being introduced which are antagonistic to the Reformation. In one diocese, for instance—the diocese of St. Albans—the study of a book called "Wake man's History of the Church of England" is made obligatory on candidates for holy orders. What is the teaching of this book? I do not wish to trespass long upon your Lordships' time, but I will read a few extracts from it to show what is going on in the Church of England under the sanction and control of certain Bishops—
"The vast majority of those who suffered (in Mary's reign) were not people even of religious influence; they were illiterate fanatics."
Again—
"That the State should send the clergy to prison for refusing to acknowledge its right to enforce the decisions of its own courts upon them in matters of faith and worship, which no one believed to be good law, soon became an unbearable scandal."
Their again—
"The training of souls in confession has taken a recognised place among the duties of the priesthood."
"From the point of view of history the Church revival of the present century is seen to be nothing more than the complete reaction against the Protestant movement of the sixteenth century."
The point which has been raised by my noble friend (Lord Kinnaird) is not a large one in itself, but it is an important one as relating to what is going on and being taught in the Church of England. It is a matter of great regret when there is a feeling, which it is impossible to exaggerate, in the north of England, that prayers should have been introduced under the moral authority of the two Archbishops which, even supposing they are within the law, are certainly novel in principle, and give rise to grave suspicions, and will, I fear, be made use of by the very men who are endeavouring to undermine the Protestant character of the Reformation settlement.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *LORD WINDSOR: In asking your Lordships to read this Bill a second time

  473
  I need only make one or two explanatory observations. The Bill is introduced this year in exactly the same form as it left the House last session.* The Bill was read a third time by your Lordships, but, owing to the late period at which it got through the Committee stage, I withdrew it, as it was absolutely impossible to get the Bill through the House of Commons. Certain alterations were made in the Bill at the instance of the Local Government Board, and I trust that, in re-introducing it again in the same form as it left the House last session, the opposition entertained by the Local Government Board will no longer exist. The object of the Bill is really not to widen the operation of the Public Libraries Acts, but to make the Acts of 1892 and 1893 more workable and more efficient. It is said that these Bills are only a method of raising the rates for the purpose of enabling idle people to read novels and light literature, but I venture to submit that an objection of that sort is not valid as against this Bill, and ought to have been made when the Public Libraries Acts were passed. As the law at present stands, there is no qualification or disqualification mentioned for a library commissioner, and Clause 2 of this Bill proposes to supply that deficiency by providing that the qualification of a library commissioner shall be the same as the qualification of a parish councillor. At present two urban authorities may agree together to build and keep up a public library, and two or more parish authorities may agree together to do the same thing; but there is no provision to enable a parish authority to agree with an urban authority to build and maintain a public library, Clause 4 will remedy this deficiency, and enable a parish authority and an urban authority to act together. This will tend rather to economy than to an increase in the rates. Clause 11 relieves the library authorities from the danger of an action in the event of a book being left on their shelves which contains libellous matter, provided that reasonable diligence is exercised. I trust that no objection will be raised by the Local Government Board to the Second Reading of this Bill, even if certain small
  *See The Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series: First Reading, March 23, 1899, Vol. lxix., page 65; Second Reading, July 25, Vol. lxxv., page 192; Committee, July 31, page 872; Report, August 3, page 1,232.
  474
  alterations have to be made in Committee.
  LORD HARRIS: The Local Government Board have no objection to the Bill being read a second time. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill made certain alterations in it last year which met the views of the Local Government Board. That authority, however, have objections to make to some of the details of the Bill, but these can be made in Committee.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALEBURY): Clause 11 contains one of those problems to which I have a strong objection. It leaves to the discretion of the learned judge the question whether the action shall be allowed to proceed or not, but it does not indicate the principle that is to guide him. I do not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but I mention this matter so that the noble Lord can consider it between now and the Committee stage, as it appears to me to be the principal objection to the Bill.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

DELAGOA BAY RAILWAY ARBITRATION.
LORD WENLOCK: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is the fact that the International arbitration in relation to the Delagoa Bay Railway undertaken by the Berne Tribunal has now been proceeding for upwards of nine years, and, if so, what steps they have taken to impress upon the court the obligation of giving their decision, seeing that the case was finally closed as long ago as April last, and that judgment was promised in October, 1899, again in January, 1900, and has not yet been issued; and if Her Majesty's Government will state whether they are prepared to join with the Government of the United States of America in pressing for an immediate award. In putting this question to the Government I do not propose to go at any length into the complicated proceedings which led up to the appointment of the international tribunal, but I cannot help thinking that this is a matter of sufficient public importance to bring before the notice of your Lordships'

475
House. I think your Lordships will agree that those whose interests are at stake have every cause to complain of the delay which has taken place in regard to the decision of their case. I am given to understand that they have—and not without reason—denounced the delay which has taken place as a grave public scandal. We have heard a great deal of the advantages and benefits to be derived from international arbitration, but I think the most ardent advocates of that system will have reason to pause in their bestowal of praise on this mode of procedure after witnessing what has occurred in this particular case. The matter referred to the Berne tribunal was not very difficult of solution. It was a question of what the Portuguese Government should be called upon to pay for the cancellation of a concession of a railway and certain other advantages given to a certain body of people, and it was simplified by the fact that the Portuguese Government themselves admitted the liability which was imposed upon them by their own action, and they went so far as to hand over a sum of about £28,000 to the British Government, on account, to help the unfortunate British investors to meet their more immediate and pressing requirements. In these circumstances I think we may well ask Her Majesty's Government to assure us that they will do their best to press for an immediate award in this particular case.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I entirely concur with the noble Lord that the delay of the Delagoa Bay arbitration is a most lamentable matter, and that we should be very glad if this litigation could be brought to an end. But the noble Lord suggests that we ought to move in the matter. I wish he had continued his speech a little longer, in order to tell us what precise kind of movement he wished us to initiate. The tribunal is not subject to us in any way whatever. We are litigants before it. If the British counsel were to get up and address a vigorous denunciation, such as the noble Lord would address to them, I am afraid they would simply tell him to hold his tongue. An official remonstrance from one of the litigants before a tribunal is not within the ordinary experience of judicial affairs. It is quite
476
true that we have in years past, again and again, under various Governments, tried what unofficial representation could do to induce greater rapidity of action. I am informed that the tribunal entirely declines to admit that it is responsible for this delay. The president says, I am told, that if there is undue delay it is the fault, not of the tribunal, but of the parties. That being the state of the case, I frankly admit that our chance of taking any action which would effect the object the noble Lord has in view is very small. I quite concur with him that it is unfortunate, not only in its bearing on the fortunes of the litigants, but also in the discredit that it reflects on the value of the principle of arbitration, from which we had hoped great things. There is no doubt that the Powers will be less willing to refer any differences they may have to arbitration if they are told that the proceedings will take nine years before a result is obtained. I can only join with the noble Lord in lamenting this result, and I can assure him that, while we should be glad to do anything we can do in this case, it is entirely outside our power to coerce the action of the tribunal.

MILITIA BALLOT BILL [H.L.]

  INTRODUCTION.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Before your Lordships separate I wish to present a Bill, entitled "An Act to amend the Law relating to Ballot for the Militia in England and Wales." This is not my own Bill; it is a foundling which I picked up inanimate and comatose on the steps of the War Office. I have made no change in it except to substitute my own name on the back of it for that of the Marquess of Lansdowne. In Committee I shall endeavour to make the Bill much less harsh and onerous to the people of the country than it is as it stands now. I believe by law a man is bound to support, his own child, and in the circumstances I do not see how my noble friend the Secretary of State for War or the noble Marquess at the head of the Government can oppose the Bill, in spite of the statement of the Prime Minister on a former occasion that in his view the adoption of ballot for the Militia would cause wholesale emigration of the young men of the country. I hope your Lordships will give a favourable consideration to the Bill, and that when we get

  477
  into Committee we shall endeavour to make it not only a useful and permanent measure, but one which will not weigh heavily on the people of this country. I beg to move the First Reading of the Bill.
  A Bill to amend the law relating to the ballot for the Militia in England and Wales—Was presented by the Lord Wemyss (E. Wemyss); read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 23.)

MIDWIVES BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to secure the better training of midwives, and to regulate their practice—Was presented by the Lord Glenesk; read 1a; to be printed; and to read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 24.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five of the Clock, to Monday next a quarter before Eleven of the Clock.