Sitting of 6 June 1902

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  LONDON GOVERNMENT SCHEME (SOUTHWARK) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Sheffield; Great Barford; Bradford; Masborough; Ellistown; Barnsley; Curbar; Erpingham; Kirkby; and Silkstone; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: From Armley; Leeds (five); Lower Wortley; Holbeck (two); Hunslet Carr; and Hunslet; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Lerwick; and Sherborne (two); to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against: From Carshalton; London; St. George's in the East; and Heytesbury; to lie upon the Table.
  PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  Petition from Royal and other Burghs of Scotland, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  Petition from Norwich, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 5th June: Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.[No. 202.]
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 5th June; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 203.]
  PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS ACTS.
  Copy presented, of Patents Rules, 1902 under the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Acts, 1883 to 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (VOLUNTEERS).
  Copy presented, of proposed Amendment of the scheme relative to the efficiency of Volunteers under Order in Council, dated 4th November, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS ACT, 1877
  Copy presented, of an Order dated the 5th June, 1902, relative to the Colorado beetle [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POPULATION, NUMBER OF ELECTORS, AND REPRESENTATION.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 25th March; Mr. Plummer]; to lie upon the Table.
  INEBRIATES ACTS, 1879 TO 1899 (TRANSFERS OF INMATES OF INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES).
  Copy presented, of regulations made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of Section 6 of the Inebriates Act, 1898, respecting the transfer of inebriates from a certified Inebriate Reformatory to a State Inebriate Reformatory, from a State Inebriate Reformatory to a certified Inebriate Reformatory, and from one certified Inebriate Reformatory to another [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Sunday Delivery of Mails at Moyschool Lahinch, Clare.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will grant a Sunday delivery of mails at Moyschool Lahinch, county Clare.
  (Answer.) The Postmaster General will consider the question of establishing a Sunday post to Moyschool Lahinch, county Clare, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member as soon as possible.—(Post Office.)

  Accidents to Torpedo Boats and Destroyers.
  LORD BALCARRES: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state how many torpedo boats and destroyers have run aground or been in collision during the last two years.
  (Answer.) In 1900, two torpedo boats and one destroyer ran aground, and six torpedo boats and forty-one destroyers were in collision. In 1901, two torpedo boats and four destroyers ran aground, and five torpedo boats and fifty destroyers were in collision. In many cases the collisions were very slight and no serious; damage resulted.—(Admiralty.)

IMMORAL TRAFFIC (SCOTLAND) BILL.
[THIRD READING].
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Cameron Corbett.)
MR. GALLOWAY, in moving "That the Bill be recommitted for the purpose of inserting a penal provision," said: My hon. friend, and those associated with him in piloting this Bill so far through the House, may be congratulated by the House in having made what is an honest and real attempt to deal with one of the evils which haunt us. I hope the Bill will have a successful course, and before long become the law of the land. It will be within the recollection of the House that in the year 1898 the Government passed a Bill to deal with this same subject in England. That Bill has been of considerable use, and, as the Home Office figures show, has very largely assisted in putting down this evil. I have made some inquiries at the Home Office, and since the passing of this Act in 1898 the Returns show that in that year—and that was only a portion of the year—there were thirty-nine prosecutions under the Act, and thirty-three convictions; that in 1899 there were 104 prosecutions and eighty-one convictions; and that in the year 1900 there were sixty-two prosecutions and forty-nine convictions. There are no figures available later than 1900, as the Police Reports presented to this House, which are returned to the Home Office, are exceedingly dilatory in their arrival, and consequently it is impossible to get any figures up to date. Nor, Sir, are these figures satisfactory, as they should show what amount of punishment has been awarded in cases of conviction, since the amount of punishment is a point I wish to raise with regard to the Bill. I would like to remark, in passing, that it is somewhat interesting to notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate, when the English Act was before the House, in answer to a Question from an hon. Member on the other side, said it was not necessary for the Act to be extended; to Scotland, because in Scotland at that time the police had ample power with which to deal with this evil. It has been proved very conclusively that that is not the case. Whether the enforcement of the Act in England has led to the migration of those who commit this; abominable offence from England to Scotland, I am not prepared to say; but, I am glad to see that my hon. friend

13
the Member for Peckham has put down a Motion to extend this Bill to Ireland, and if that is not carried today, I hope it will not be long before it is so extended.
This Bill is the outcome of the action taken by the Roman Catholic chaplain at the gaol in Glasgow, and we ought to bear our testimony to the zeal with which he has discharged his duty, and also to the newspaper which has brought to light the scandal of which he complained; and I think the Lord Advocate would do well if he made inquiries as to the manner in which the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society does its work in Glasgow, because I feel it must do its work very badly if this has not been brought to his notice sooner. This is a class of crime of which he certainly ought to have had notice. The punishment provided in this Bill is only a portion of the punishment provided in the English Act, and my contention is that the punishment is entirely inadequate to the enormity of the offence. It is my belief that, if you are going to use this Act efficiently, you must give power to those in authority to give a very much larger punishment than laid down in this Act, namely, a punishment of three months imprisonment. This Bill is drawn exactly on the line of the English Act, except with regard to this particular section of the clause. This clause lays down that on conviction a prisoner may be sentenced by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to a term of imprisonment, at the discretion of the Court, not exceeding three months with hard labour. The English Act says a prisoner shall be dealt with as under 5 George IV., Chap. 83, and under that Act he can be dealt with in two ways. Section 4 of that Act says—
"Every person committing any of the offences hereinbefore mentioned, and having been convicted as an idle, disorderly person, shall be deemed a rogue and vagabond, and it shall be lawful for any justice of the peace to commit such persons to a house of correction, there to be kept to hard labour for a period not exceeding three months."
That is the way an offender can be dealt with for a first offence. But Section 5 lays down that if an offender has been convicted more than once he shall be treated as an incorrigible
14
rogue, and Sub-section 10 points out the manner in which an incorrigible rogue can be dealt with. He can be sent from the Petty Sessional Court to Quarter Sessions, and there can be sent to hard labour for any time not exceeding one year, and the justices can order, if they think fit, that such offender—not being a female—shall be punished by whipping during such imprisonment. I think it is plain that the promoters of this Bill have left out of the punishment which may be awarded for this offence one of the strongest deterrents that possibly could be enacted. Do not let it be thought that this sub-section of the Act of 1824 was repeated in the Act of 1898 without the House being cognisant of the fact. Mr. Pickersgill, a late Member of this House, when the Bill was before the House, moved to exclude Section 10 from the operation of the Act. The Attorney General who was in charge of the Bill accepted the Amendment. The Bill then went to another place, and this sub-section with regard to whipping was re-inserted and retained, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean protesting at the time. This offence is one of the few, if we are going to retain flogging at all, for which flogging ought to be inflicted. Other offences for which flogging can be inflicted are of a minor character compared to this. I find under the Slaughter Houses Act a man can be whipped for offences in connection with the disposal of skins of horses and other animals. A man can be whipped for occupying premises without any visible means of support. A man can be flogged for leaving his wife and children without any means of support, and a man can be flogged for betting in a public place. I find under an old Act of William IV, that anyone sending any message or letter inciting to riot, and any person who inflicts any damage on cattle or flocks, can be flogged, and, under the Larceny Act, 1861, the Malicious Damage Act, 1861, and Section 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, which is the strongest argument in my favour today, a man can be flogged. And, of course, Sir, there is flogging for garotting. I ask, whether any of the offences for which flogging is possible, and for which flogging is at this time inflicted, are as gross as the offence we are trying to deal with in this Act?

15
What are the arguments that can be used against it? So far as I have made a study of the question, I have found that there are only four kinds of argument. The first argument is that the punishment is brutal, and that if a mistake is made it cannot be rectified; secondly, that there is no uniformity in the inflicting of the penalty, because various judges take different views; thirdly, that it is not a deterrent, and, fourthly, that it degrades the prisoner without reforming him. With reference to the first objection, I am the last person in the world to say you ought to punish a brutal crime with a brutal punishment, but there are surely degrees of punishment. I can imagine crimes which are committed in the heat of passion or through drink, which are of the most revolting or brutal character, but for which I think it would be hard to inflict the severe penalty of flogging. In these cases it is possible that by flogging you may do away with what little chance there is of reform in the man's character. It may be that in some of these cases the man may have retained a vestige of self-respect, which you destroy by subjecting him to the indignity of Hogging. I remember the arguments used in the discussion on the Corporal Punishment Bill, and although the offences dealt with there were not so degrading as the offence dealt with in this Bill, and while I am quite ready to admit that if a mistake is made you commit an injustice you cannot recall, I should be quite willing, if my Motion is accepted, for the insertion of a clause providing that the punishment should only be inflicted when recommended by the jury and approved of by the judge. I am willing that every precaution should be taken that no miscarriage of justice should arise, but I do say some such punishment should be before the villain—I will not call him a man—who commits such crimes. With regard to the want of uniformity in the infliction of the penalty, because a man may be tried before those who take different views of flogging, I think that is deplorable. The Returns of the administration of the law in England from 1883 to 1889 show that Mr. Justice Day ordered 4,061 strokes with the cat; that Mr. Justice Grantham ordered 740 strokes; that
16
some five or six other judges inflicted 500 lashes and downwards, while some judges inflicted none at all.
MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is going beyond the scope of his Motion in discussing the action of His Majesty's judges.
MR. GALLOWAY: I was only trying to deal with the argument that the punishment, if inserted in the Bill, would not be uniform. As to the third contention, that it does not deter a person from committing crime, I submit that the other punishments in this Bill are not sufficient to effectually deter a man from committing the crime. The administration of the Act in England shows that the strengthening power of the law which enables flogging does act as a deterrent, and I think the effect of this Act will be largely lost if we do not insert some such clause as I suggest. Then it is said it degrades a man and does not reform him. I admit that on some persons the infliction of flogging may produce some salutary effect, while on others it may have quite the opposite effect. But is there anyone who can contend that such can be the case in offences of the kind with which we are dealing? We are dealing with an offence the most degrading in the social scale, and it is impossible to ask the House to believe that a man guilty of living on the proceeds of the prostitution of women can have any latent self-respect. It is because I believe that unless this clause is strengthened much of the effect of the measure will be lost, that I make my Motion. I do believe that the insertion of this clause would not in any way check the progress of this Bill. When the Government dealt with the matter in 1898, very little time was taken in the discussion of the Bill. It got through with very little opposition, and the strengthening of this clause would not in any way jeopardise the position of the Bill, it would be a very unfortunate circumstance if, in legislating for this crime, we should make it possible for a man who committed a crime in Scotland to receive less punishment than he would in England, because it would be putting a premium on crime in Scotland.
MR. H. C. RICHARDS: I beg, Sir, to second the

17
Motion of my hon. friend. I am glad to see the Lord Advocate in his place, because I should like to know on what possible ground Scotland should be treated differently to our own country. It may have been suggested that the incorporation in this measure of the Vagrancy Act would bring opposition from the other side of the House, but I earnestly hope my hon. friend is a true reformer, and will not be frightened by any argument of that sort. It would be absurd to attempt to check a great moral wrong by inflicting a different punishment in Scotland to that imposed in England. If the Bill passes in its present form, we may have in another year an hon. Member moving the Government to make the laws equal by removing the flogging penalty from the English Act. One of the most distinguished men who ever sat in this House, the late Sir Charles Hall, sat for a number of years at the Old Bailey, as Recorder of London, administering the criminal law. Although he went there determined on no account to use the powers given him of ordering flogging, he found himself after a year's experience compelled to use those powers, and he did use them. The Common Sergeant, now Recorder, who was also a Member of this House, had a similar experience. I hope Members of this House who are in earnest in dealing with this great moral wrong will not forget that if this measure is passed into law with a different penalty in Scotland than in England, it will be the thin edge of the wedge for getting the law altered in England. It would be extraordinary, now that this has become public property, to deal with this offence less severely in Scotland than in England, so that these degraded persons who exist in large cities would only have to go north of the Tweed in order to carry on this infamous traffic. I hope the promoters of the Bill will accept our suggestion, and if it is accepted I can assure them they will have no more willing supporters than ourselves in seeing this measure passed into law.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out all the words after the word 'be,' and add the word 're-committed.'"—(Mr. Galloway.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. CAMERON CORBETT: My hon. friend has complained that the Vagrancy Act is not included in this Bill. Now, that English Act cannot be brought into the Scotch Bill. All we can do in legislating for Scotland on lines adopted in England is to follow the English precedent as much as possible. The English Bill of 1898 provided that these offenders should be treated as rogues and vagabonds, and the sentences on rogues and vagabonds was applied. It is quite true that in England rogues and vagabonds became by repeated offences incorrigible rogues and vagabonds, but if anyone follows that clause in the old Vagrancy Act he will find that, though it was quite possible to bring it into an English Bill by reference, it would be hardly possible to put in a new Bill many of those provisions which have become obsolete. The question therefore becomes whether Members are in favour of this Bill or not. If hon. Members want this class of offenders to be dealt with, then they will support the Bill. If on the other hand they wish to kill the Bill, they will support the Amendment.
MR. FLOWER: I hope the promoters of this Bill will stand firm, because if the Amendment suggested by my hon. friend the Member for South-West Manchester is inserted in the Bill, the promoters will find themselves face to face with a considerable amount of opposition in this House and also in the country. My hon. friend quoted a large number of offences for which the punishment of flogging can be inflicted, in this country, but he forgot to state that there has been no case of flogging in Scotland at all, for the very good reason that under the Act of 1862 flogging of adult offenders was absolutely forbidden under the Scottish law. My hon. friend is trying to reintroduce into Scotland a form of punishment which is no longer in force in that country, and which, as a matter of fact, has not been employed in that country since 1833, when the last flogging sentence was pronounced. In common with a large number of Members, I personally believe

19
we have too many flogging sentences in England, and I do not find, looking at the criminal records in Scotland, that the absence of this particular form of punishment in Scotland is responsible for any abnormal amount of crime. My hon. friend mentioned some of the arguments of those opposed to the practice of flogging, but I would only trouble the House with two opinions on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, when dealing with this matter, referring to the time when garrotting was put down, denied that it was due to the infliction of flogging but attributed it to the fearless administration of the then existing criminal law, and the then Home Secretary, Sir Matthew White Ridley, agreed. I am very sorry my hon. friend has again raised this matter in the House. I can assure the House if they desire this Bill to pass into law they will do their best to resist this Amendment.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I do not think the hon. Member for South-West Manchester quite appreciates that if this Amendment were carried the Bill might be defeated or indefinitely postponed. I know he does not contemplate that result. He spoke with frankness, and I have to say to him that several Members who have strong views about the question of flogging would find it necessary, if the Amendment were pressed, to offer the Bill not support but a vehement opposition. I do not know whether that opposition would be effective or not at this period of the session, but I think the hon. Member in charge of the Bill has been very well advised in resisting this proposal. I am very strongly in favour of the Bill, especially because my attention has been called to the way in which these pests of society have been enabled to live on the unfortunate women of my own nationality whose great poverty has compelled them to leave their own country to live exposed to the temptations of a great city like Glasgow. There has been a good deal of agitation on this question, largely due to the exertions of a clergyman of the Catholic Church and to articles in a Catholic paper. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate has read these articles or not. I
20
may say I took care the hon. Member for South-West Manchester should get a copy. I do not think I have ever read more poignant details of the wretchedness of these unfortunate women, and the difficulties they find in emerging from the abyss when once they have descended. There is the case of a girl brought up before one of the Glasgow Police Courts for immorality. She was met by the clergyman, who offered to pay the fine, and if he had been allowed to pay the fine and secure the release of the woman he further offered to send her to one of the homes for fallen women. Undoubtedly the unfortunate woman was ready to accept this offer, but at the same time a man appeared, who offered to pay the fine instead. This man was no relative of the unfortunate woman, he was pleased to call himself her friend, but he should really have described himself as a contemptible ruffian who was living on prostitution. There was no means of dealing with this person, who was allowed to pay the fine and to take the girl to the very house where she had lived before her practices had brought her before the Court. The girl, on learning that the person was there, consented to go, remarking, however, that whenever she intended to do what was right someone always came in the way. This being my feeling in regard to the enormity of the offence, my hon. friend may ask why I do not support his Amendment. He has pointed out that this makes a distinction between the law of England and the law of Scotland, but that exists not merely in regard to this offence but in regard to all others. Flogging is not practised in the Scotch prisons, because Scotch public opinion will not tolerate it. Its abandonment is all to the advantage of Scotland, and shows a sound, healthy, and humane state of public opinion. I entirely accept all the arguments against flogging which the hon. Member used. I think it is a brutal punishment, a punishment in which there is no uniformity in the action of the judges; that it is a punishment that does not deter; that it degrades and does not reform. May I say I attach most importance to the second of these arguments. I am not alluding to any particular individuals when I say that

21
on reading some of the sentiments expressed on the Bench I heartily re-echo the sentiment of John Bright that the first thing that ought to be done is to send a couple of judges to penal servitude for life. Another thing which I wish to point out is that it is foreshadowed that this Bill ought to be extended to Ireland. I believe the hon. Member for Peckham has a Motion on the Paper to this effect. Let me say quite frankly to the hon. Gentleman beforehand that if that Motion comes on I shall feel it to be my duty most strenuously to oppose it. I have the gravest apprehension of any proposal to confer on the police additional powers over what are moral rather than criminal offences. We have examples in foreign countries in regard to the action of agents de mœurs, which prove that under a despotic Government those agents of order use their powers for the purpose of blackmailing those who by legislation are placed in their power. I was struck by some statistics in regard to this matter in England. In 1899 there were 104 prosecutions and eighty-one convictions. I think that is an extraordinary gap between the number of convictions and the number of prosecutions. It means that no fewer than twenty-three people were taken up by the police and that the case was not made out against them. That is nearly twenty-five per cent. Anybody can see what an engine of oppression the proposal now before the House would be in the hands of an unprincipled police acting under an unprincipled Government. I ask the Lord Advocate not to yield to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, and to stick to the Bill in its present shape.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House that I should state how the matter strikes the Government. I entirely concur with what was said by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division as to our sympathy with the promoters of the Bill, and with the zeal of the newspaper that brought forward what it considered to be a great scandal. When I communicated with the Scotch office my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland was very anxious to do what he
22
could to give a helping hand in the attainment of the objects in view. I need hardly tell the House that the Government was inclined to assume a friendly attitude towards a Private Member's Bill rather than to frame a Bill of its own. My hon. friend behind me was kind enough to show me his Bill, and I may say at once that the Government entirely approve of the way in which it is drawn. I should like to say one word of precaution in regard to the proposal now before the House. We were anxious that no stone should be left unturned in grappling with what we believe to be an evil, but I do not think that people should be too sanguine. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down gave a narrative of the actual facts in connection with the case of an unfortunate woman who was sentenced by a Glasgow magistrate, and who would have had to undergo imprisonment for a police offence in the nature of soliciting had not her fine been immediately paid by a man. The conclusion come to was that this was done in order to bring the woman back to her former practices in order that he might profit by her mode of life. The hon. Member said quite truly that there is good intention as well as bad. However this may be, it seems better that we, at any rate, should have all the powers of an Act which, it is said, has had a good effect in England during the past few years. With regard to the Motion to recommit the Bill in order to insert the penalty of flogging, the hon. Member for South-West Manchester has all through assumed that it is perfectly certain you can flog for this offence in England, but I do not think that that is clear. It is not for me, of course, to decide these matters as affecting England, but I can tell him as a lawyer with a certain amount of experience that I do not think it is at all clear that it is allowed.
MR. GALLOWAY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will state what the Home Office thinks is the law.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I do not know about that. Until the point is decided it cannot be clear, and for this very good reason. The English Act directs that the person who is convicted

23
should be deemed a rogue and vagabond within the meaning of the Vagrancy Act of 1824, and dealt with accordingly, but when you go to that Act you will find that the "rogue and vagabond" is quite a different person from the "incorrigible rogue and vagabond" who can be whipped. In this House, for instance, if an hon. Member obstructs once he is an obstructionist, but if he does it twice he may be regarded as an incorrigible obstructionist. But that really does not help us to a decision on the matter, for a Bill has been passed amending the Vagrancy Act of 1824. Under that amending Act so much of Section 10 of the Vagrancy Act, as relates to the punishment of whipping, is repealed. The House will at once see that this leaves the point absolutely un touched. When you say that a person, convicted of the offence referred to in this Bill, should be treated as a rogue and vagabond, does that mean that he is to be treated, not only as a "rogue and vagabond," but also as an "incorrigible rogue and vagabond"? It is perfectly true, as has been said by my hon. friend behind me, that there is a Scotch statute which abolishes the punishment of whipping adults for offences against the person and property. In Scotland flogging was only a penalty at common law, and not resting upon statute at all. Of course, the power of whipping juvenile offenders is one that still exists in Scotland, and, personally, I think it ought to be used even more than it is. But the law being as it is, and the whipping of adults for offences against the person and property having been abolished in Scotland, surely it would be very curious to make an exception for this particular offence, which, though I throw no doubt on the miserable nature of the persons who commit it, is not, perhaps, for brutality comparable to other offences which may be directed against the person, and which at the present moment are not punished by whipping. I therefore think that my hon. friend was well advised when he put the Bill in this way, and I could not give any countenance to the re-committal of the Bill in order to introduce a clause which I do not think would square with our criminal system as it at present stands.
MR. HEMPHILLsaid he would certainly oppose the Bill if the mover of it accepted the
24
Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for South West Manchester. He took the same view of the law as that expressed by the Lord Advocate. He altogether objected to extending the penalty of flogging. The tendency of all modern legislation was against it. It was found that it acted not as a deterrent, but, on the contrary, that it brutalised the offender without doing, any good to society. It will be in the recollection of some hon. Members that two years ago an attempt was made to extend the penalty of flogging in the case of juvenile offenders, but the Bill was thrown out on Second Reading, although it was very ably supported by most experienced Members sitting on the opposite side of the House. The whole argument of the hon. Member, who is so anxious to have this reactionary Amendment introduced into a very useful Bill, is that the offence is an atrocious one. We are all agreed on that; but surely there are many atrocious offences, both according to the law of England and Scotland, for which the penalty of flogging has been abolished. The only one in which that penalty has been retained for adults is where great personal violence has been used, such as in garroting, but the Act inflicting the cat for that crime was carried during a panic in London, although I believe that it was not that Act which operated in putting down garroting. The crime in this case, though an atrocious one, is not a crime of personal violence, but a sordid one, obnoxious to the moral and social sentiment of the community, and I trust that the promoters of the Bill will not accede to the suggestion of the hon. Member, and that the Bill will be carried to a Third Beading without any Amendment.
MR. VICARY GIBBS: I venture to appeal to the hon. Member for South West Manchester to withdraw his Amendment for the re-committal of the Bill. I may do so the more readily because my views on the subject of flogging are more in accord with his than those of the last speaker. I sympathise with him in his desire to retain, and even increase, the punishment of flogging. I voted for the Juvenile Offenders Bill a

25
few years ago. I have no hesitation in saying that it is the crime which is the degradation of the man, and not the punishment; and on that account I feel very strongly that the punishment of flogging ought to be preserved in many cases. I am not very sure, however, that those men who live upon the earnings of women are specially fitted for such a punishment. Genuine cases of rape or brutal violence will be more suitable for flogging, than for the sordid and despicable offence which these men commit. It is not a brutal, violent offence, and therefore not suited for a violent punishment. I would take exception to the tone of the promotor of the measure who seemed to suggest that any hon. Member who supported this Amendment was not sincerely desirous of seeing these men punished. I think it was a pity for the hon. Member to adopt that tone. My hon. friend the Member for South-West Manchester is as anxious to see these men punished as any one, and he brought forward his Amendment in no spirit of hostility to or from a lukewarm feeling for the Bill. There is this to be said; Scotland, rightly or wrongly, has pronounced against adult punishment with the cat; and I think it would be a mistake for us to go counter to the express wishes of that country. It is on that account that I feel myself unable to support my hon. friend in his Amendment. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division stated that a number of innocent men had been prosecuted for this offence, but my hon. friend surely allowed his imagination to run away with him when he drew a sort of picture of a Government being so corrupt as to bring against their political opponents a charge of being pimps, and having them convicted under this clause although they were innocent and God-fearing men. That is too absurd, and quite impossible to realise. I think the English Act made it perfectly clear that these men were to be dealt with as they had been under the Act of 1824—that is, if they were twice convicted they should be liable to the cat. I am very desirous of seeing dangerous offences to the community still punished with the cat, but I should not like to see it used as a punishment for incorrigible
26
obstruction in this House, for that would bring men for whom I have a great regard under it.
MR. BANBURY: I quite agree with my right hon. friend in saying that the hon. Member for Glasgow was a little unjust to the hon. Member for South-West Manchester when he stated that in moving the Amendment he wished to kill the Bill. The fact that the Bill has gone through all its stages after midnight shows that there has been no desire to wreck it. The Lord Advocate has cast some doubt as to whether the punishment of flogging is allowable under the English Act. He has not said it is not so, and therefore I am inclined to think so; but in order to administer the punishment of flogging, the offender must have been twice convicted. After listening with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Scotland Division I must say that the case he told us about seemed to show that the punishment of three months imprisonment did not act as a deterrent. Undoubtedly, these men led a very easy and lucrative life by committing this offence, and the punishment of three months imprisonment is not sufficiently deterrent. The ease mentioned by the hon. Member for Scotland Division was very sad, where a woman who was anxious to change her mode of life was yet so much in the power of a man with whom she lived that she was compelled to go back to her old career. I think if this man was convicted of the same offence on a second occasion it would not be wrong to inflict upon him the punishment of flogging. There is another point. How is it that, if this punishment is so much objected to, it was not opposed when the English Bill came back to this House from the House of Lords? The Bill went up to the House of Lords without the punishment of flogging in it, but it came back with the Clause empowering flogging, and no one raised the slightest objection to it. † I do not see why
† In (4) Debates, lxiv., 748, there is reported a discussion on the consideration of the Lords' Amendments. A division was taken on a motion to postpone their consideration for three months; another division was taken on the Lords' Amendment to leave out the clause repealing the (logging section of the Act of 1824.—[ED.]

27
England should be treated differently from Scotland. I hope that in the event of the Amendment of my hon. friend being carried the Government will give facilities for passing the Bill in its later stages.
MR. GALLOWAY: In asking leave to withdraw my Amendment, may I be allowed to repudiate the charge which my hon. friend the Member for the Scotland Division made, that I was endeavouring by moving the Amendment to kill the Bill, because I wished this horrible crime not to be punished. In the course of my speech, I stated as clearly as I could that I desired that the Bill should be carried in its present form, rather than risk its loss by insisting on the punishment of flogging.
Question put, "That the Amendment by leave be withdrawn."
Leave having been refused, the Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," was put and agreed to.
Main Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
MR. CALDWELLsaid he wished to raise one or two points before the Bill was read a third time. The first clause said that—
"Every male person who knowingly lived wholly, or in part, on the earnings of prostitution, or in any public place persistently solicited or importuned for immoral purposes, should be guilty of a crime and offence."
The question he wanted to ask the Lord Advocate was, "Was not this a crime at the present moment according to the law of Scotland?" Why should it in the face of this Bill, and at this time of day be made to appear that this was a new crime altogether? He had another point. Sub-section 2 of Clause 1 said that—
"If it was made to appear to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, by information on oath, that there was reason to suspect that any house or any part of a house was used by a female for purposes of prostitution, and that any male person residing in or frequenting the house was living wholly or in part on the earnings of the prostitute, the Court might issue a warrant authorising any constable to enter and search the house and to arrest that male person."
28
That was to say that the male person must be living in the house where the traffic was carried on. But suppose the traffic was not carried on in the house where the male person lived, but elsewhere, why should not power be given to enter the house in which the man resided? He asked why this special power to enter the house and apprehend the man was retained. He thought this special power was not needed in Scotland, and if it was not needed it had better not be put into the Bill. The Bill did not go far enough, because the next point was that, though you were able to apprehend a man for living on the proceeds of this immoral traffic, no steps were taken to put a stop to the traffic. So far as he knew, there was ample provision in the law for making this offence impossible. It seemed to him that the Bill should have gone further: it should not only have given power to apprehend the man, but also to order the house to be shut. He approved of the Bill so far as it went. He thought that a Bill of this sort was not so necessary for Scotland as for England. But if it were necessary, then it should have been carried a good deal further.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid the hon. Member had asked whether the offence in Sub-section B was not already a crime according to the law of Scotland. Undoubtedly it was not. It might be an indictable offence, but even then he should hesitate to say whether the offence of "solicitation" in the police statutes was not always so phrased as to apply only to females, and not to men.
MR. BANBURYsaid he presumed he should be in order on the Third Reading to say a few words on the scope of the Bill, and to discuss the question of its application to other parts of the country.
MR. SPEAKER: I think it would not be in order to discuss the desirability of applying the Bill to England or Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read the third time and passed.

UNIVERSITY OF WALES (GRADUATES) BILL.
[THIRD READING.]
MR. BRYNMOR JONES: This Bill is one which I do not think will be opposed by any Member of the House. It was not opposed at any preceding stage, and I do not apprehend that any hon. Member will oppose it now. The object of the Bill is to give Welsh graduates the same status and the same privileges as are enjoyed by the graduates of the Oxford, Cambridge, and London Universities, and the more recently constituted Victoria University. There are certain anomalies surrounding the position of Welsh graduates as to their entrance into the legal profession, which ought to be removed. For instance, if a Welsh graduate wishes to be a solicitor, he has to be articled for five years; if a graduate of Oxford or Cambridge wishes to be a solicitor, he only has to be articled for three years. There is no reason for any such inequality, and the object of this Bill is to remove it. I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
Bill read the third time and passed.

UNIVERSITY OF WALES (GRADUATES) BILL.

  MIDWIVES BILL.
  Bill as amended by the Standing Committee, considered.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR(1.40.) MR. T. P. O'CONNOR moved—
  "In page 4, after Clause 6, to insert the following clause:—'Where a person whose name is entered on the roll of midwives has, either before or after the passing of this Act, and either before or after her name is so entered on the roll, been convicted, either in His Majesty's dominions or elsewhere, of an offence which, if committed in England, would be a felony or misdeameanour, or been guilty of any disgraceful conduct in her practice as a midwife, that person shall be liable to have her name erased from the roll. The Midwives Board shall cause inquiry to be made into the case of a person alleged to be liable to have her name erased under this section, and, on proof of such conviction or of such disgraceful conduct, shall cause the name of such person to be erased from the roll.'"
  He was quite aware that the hon. Member in charge of this Bill, who had conducted it so ably, had pointed out that provision was already made in the Bill for particular cases. It was true that Sub-section 50, Clause 3, might be held to cover this case, but it was desirable that there should be no doubt on the point.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid if the hon. Member considered the words of the Bill were not sufficient to meet the object he had in view, he (Mr. Johnstone) would accept the new clause.
  New clause brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid he hoped the hon. Gentleman would see his way also to accept the new clause he now moved.
  New Clause—
  "To insert, after Clause 8, the following clause:—'Every Councillor of a county or of a county borough shall inspect or cause to be inspected from time to time any premises wherein any woman receives or proposes to receive, as a midwife, a pregnant or lying-in woman, and if such premises shall, in the opinion of the Council, be fit for the reception of a pregnant or lying-in woman, the Council shall issue a certificate to that effect, upon payment by the midwife of such fee as may be fixed by the Council, and shall enter such premises upon a register to be kept by the Council. (2) Any woman, whether certified or licensed under this Act or not, who, after the 1st day of January, 1903, shall receive as a midwife a pregnant or lying-in woman in premises which shall not have been certified by the County Council or Council of a county borough as fit for the reception of such a woman under the provisions of this Act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and on conviction on indictment shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two months, with or without hard labour, or to both fine and imprisonment, or on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.'"(Mr. Galloway.)
  brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. HEYWOODJOHNSTONEpointed out that this new clause rather went beyond the scope of the Bill, because it provided for inspection by the county. Clause 7 already provided for the homes of these women in the ordinary way. He could not accept the new clause.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORdid not think the hon. Member realised the extent of the evil that the hon. Member for South-West Manchester sought to prevent. Most of the homes were nothing else than places kept for the practice of

  31
  criminal offences. He himself had had: to stand the strain of long legal proceedings arising out of a case that he had exposed in a newspaper. As a matter of fact, the number of these so-called lying-in homes was very large, and in many parts of the country they had become a public nuisance. As the Bill stood at present, there was very little remedy against these homes, and they would be able to flourish as well after the passage of this Bill as before. That was the point the hon. Gentleman did not realise. The hon. Member was anxious that a reform should be brought about, and in his anxiety to get some reform passed he did not realise the evil he would allow to exist if he did not accept this Amendment. It was not unreasonable to ask to have an inspection of lying-in homes. He thought it should be the duty of the County Councils to inspect these homes, and he supported the new clause.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERexpressed the opinion that if this Bill became law this clause would have to be passed sooner or later. These homes were very often great fomenters of immorality, and places where immorality was concealed and malpractices took place. None of them, however, could be carried on with efficiency without having a certain amount of connection with the medical profession. When any sickness or illness occurred in them, there must be a member of the registered medical profession called in to look after the cases. But this guarantee would be removed if the Bill passed in its present form. These homes would be entirely officered and worked by persons registered under the Bill; and, therefore, the guarantee against malpractices and immorality would be smaller than under the existing state of the law. Sooner or later it would be incumbent on the House, whether in this Bill or not, to look after these places when women were once licensed to practice the art of midwifery. As there was a danger to society involved, he supported the clause of the hon. Member.
  DR. FARQUHARSONsaid everyone recognised the immense importance of the fact that the inspection of the sanitary conditions of these homes was necessary, but he was not clear that the clause might not be
  32
  held to apply to private houses. The wording of the clause was a little loose, and might give rise to a great deal of inconvenience and expense.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): When I saw this clause on the Paper, I thought it hardly came within the title of the Bill. It certainly does not deal with any matter which is germane to its main principle—that is to say, that every woman who desires to practise the art of midwifery must obtain a certificate. This clause goes considerably beyond that. I think it certainly would apply to every private house, and it might be enforced against any lady who takes a relative in to nurse. I would ask my hon. friend not to press the clause at this stage. I will consider the subject in order to see whether it can be dealt with in another place, so as to prevent houses from being used for purposes for which they are not fitted.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid he only intended the clause to apply to these lying-in homes, and certainly did not intend that it should apply to private houses. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman pledged himself that such a clause should be inserted in another place, he would be quite satisfied.
  MR. RITCHIE: I can give no such pledge as the hon. Member asks. I cannot control the action of the other House. The proposal of the hon. Member is very wide, and I will consider what can be done.
  MR. GALLOWAYthought that under those circumstances it would be better to insert the clause and let it be amended, if carried, in another place.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid there was a very strong feeling in the House upon this subject, and he hoped that, whatever was done hereafter, those who watched over the matter would have regard to this evil.
  MR. MACVEAGHthought the undertaking given by the

  33
  right hon. Gentleman was of an extremely vague character, and he hoped under the circumstances the hon. Member would go to a division. On the one hand there was the hon. Member for the Horsham Division and those who supported him, who were against this clause; on the other there was the British Medical Association, which was in favour
  of it. Of the two he certainly favoured the opinion of the British Medical Association.
  (1.58.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 63; Noes, 98 (Division List No.205.) (2.12.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Knowles, Lees

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Lambert, George

  O'Kelly, James (Roscomm'n, N.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Black, Alexander William

  Leng, Sir John

  Purvis, Robert

  Boland, John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Reddy, M.

  Caldwell, James

  Lundon, W.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cameron, Robert

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Crean, Eugene

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Delany, William

  M'Govern, T.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Dillon, John

  M'Kean, John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Doughty, George

  Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton

  Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh'n, N

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Flower, Ernest

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Young, Samuel

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Gilhooly, James

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Galloway and Mr. T. P. O'Connor.

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Austin, Sir John

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Price, Robert John

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Randles, John S.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Blake, Edward

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby. (Salop

  Rea, Russell

  Bond, Edward

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Grant, Corrie

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Burns, John

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Russell, T. W.

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Holland, William Henry

  Spear, John Ward

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. B.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Jones, David Brynm'r (Swansea

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lawson, John Grant

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Crombie, John William

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Denny, Colonel

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

  Wright son, Sir Thomas

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Grah'm (Bute

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Norman, Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Heywood Johnstone and Captain Norton.

  Edwards, Frank

  O'Malley, William

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Paulton, James Mellor

  MR. T. P. O'CONNORmoved to leave out Clause 9, and insert the following clause—
  "No woman shall hold herself out as a practising midwife in any county or county borough without having previously obtained from the local supervising authority a licence enabling her to practice therein, which licence shall be granted on proof by the woman that her name is on the midwives roll. The licence shall remain in force till the thirty-first day of December following, and shall be revocable at any time by the local supervising authority in case the holder be proved to the satisfaction of the Central Midwives Board to have in fringed any of the regulations framed under this Act. The licence shall be issued on payment of a fee of one shilling; is shall only be available in the county for which it is issued, and it shall be renewed annually on the first day of January."
  He said he did not know whether the conditions stated in the clause he now proposed quite followed those of the licence given by the Home Office in reference to vivisection, but be approached that form of licence as closely as he could. As a matter of fact, the licence he proposed was of a much less stringent character than that for vivisection. In the case of vivisection the vivisector had to define for the purposes of his licence not only the particular object for which he proposed to operate on an animal, but the particular portion of the animal which he wished to vivisect. That was very stringent, but not more stringent than the necessities of the case demanded. He was entitled to say that if this stringency was necessary in the case of those dumb animals he was not going beyond reason in asking that the licence given to a woman who practised midwifery should also be of a stringent character. There was no doubt that the proposed licence would act as a great restraint against malpractices on the part of those women. The fact that the licence was to be of a temporary character clearly pointed out to the licence that it could only be retained by proper conduct. The limitation which provided that the licence could only practise within a particular district, safeguarded and hedged round the authority of the local body, because they would be able to keep entirely under their own survey and control the persons who obtained licences from them. He did not see how the clause he proposed could
  36
  be objected to on the ground of hardship in any way. The small charge of a shilling could not be described as in any sense prohibitive, and in return for that the woman would get the advantages of equal competition with all the other midwives in the district. The effect of this licence also would be to give a better opportunity, which might be necessary in many cases, in determining the identity and locality of practice of the midwife who took out the licence. The House must always bear in mind that there was no department of medical practice where there ought to be greater caution and closer supervision than in midwifery. He said that because midwifery was quite an art, and by no means a very easy art. Many women were permanently disabled in body, and, what perhaps was worse, disabled in mind through badly practised midwifery. But apart from that everybody knew that midwifery was often the greatest source of criminal practice. There were two crimes known in medical practice which were equally serious the crime of poisoning and the crime which was associated with midwifery. Under these circumstances he was bound to say that every possible precaution should be brought forward to see that the women licensed to carry on this most dangerous and complex practice were properly safe guarded.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEadd that what was proposed in the clause moved by the hon. Member was already provided for by clause 9, which was as follows—
  "Every woman certified under this Act shall, before holding herself out as a practising midwife, or commencing to practise as a midwife in any area, give notice in writing of her intention so to do to the local supervising authority, or to the body to whom for the time being the powers and duties of the local supervising authority shall have been delegated under this Act, and shall give a like notice in the month of January in every year thereafter during which she continues to practise in such area.

  37
  "Such notice shall be given to the local supervising authority of the area within which such woman usually resides or carries on her practice, and the like notice shall he given to every other local supervising authority or delegated hotly within whose area such woman at any time practises or acts as a midwife, within forty-eight hours at the latest after she commences so to practise or act.
  Every such notice shall contain such particulars as may be required by the Rules under this Act to secure the identification of the person giving it; and if any woman omits to give the said notices, or any of them, or knowingly or wilfully makes or causes or procures any other person to make any false statement in any such notice she shall on summary conviction be liable to a line not exceeding five pounds."
  There was very little difference in sub stance between entering upon practice after giving written notice, and after obtaining a licence to practise. The very idea of having to take out a licence was objectionable to the minds of the women who practised midwifery. There was the further difficulty if the new clause were accepted that the midwife would be compelled to take out a licence for every district in which she practised. A woman who practised in rural districts would have to take out five or six licences. The object the hon. Member for the Scotland Division desired to obtain was already provided for in the way experience had shown to be very practicable in the infant Life Protection Act.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLexpressed the hope that the House would not accept the clause proposed by the hon. Member. At first he was strongly in favour of the licensing of midwives, but now he gladly accepted the proposal in the Bill as it stood.
  DR. THOMPSONsupported the new clause. He did not see any reason why it should not be adopted. The authority granting a licence would have much stronger control over the midwife than if she were allowed to practise after giving notice.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid if the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division were adopted it would make the Bill practically inoperative in South London. A large number of these women would be obliged
  38
  to take out licences in half-a-dozen different areas, and they would find difficulty in doing so.
  DR. AMBROSEsaid that under Clause 9 a woman would be obliged to give notice in writing of her intention to practise as a midwife, and that being so there could surely be no objection to her being asked to take out a licence, which would only cost a shilling. The fact of her taking out a licence would be an additional guarantee that she was qualified, because the local sanitary authorities would take care that the woman was qualified. Only the other evening he was called to a very difficult case, which had been going on from Tuesday until Saturday. The woman would have died if a medical man had not been called in. If the woman who was attending to the case had had a licence the sanitary authority would have struck her off the roll, but as she required no licence she could snap her fingers at any sanitary authority.
  (2.55.) Question put.
  The House divided.
  When the Tellers, Mr. T. P. O'Connor and Mr. Galloway, for the "Ayes," and Mr. Johnstone and Captain Norton for the "Noes," appeared at the Table, Mr. Johnstone announced the figures as:—Ayes, 59; Noes, 128. There were persistent cries of "Order, order!"
  MR. CUMMING MACDONA: May I rise to a point of order. After voting in the "No" Lobby, I went by mistake; into the "Aye" Lobby.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member voted in the "No" Lobby, I presume his name has been reckoned among the "Noes."
  MR. CUMMING MACDONA: Yes, Sir. I did not vote in the "Aye" Lobby, but the teller in the "Aye" Lobby insisted on counting me.
  MR. GALLOWAY: The hon. Member was in the "Aye" Lobby, and I insisted on counting him.
  MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Gentleman's name put down on both sides?
  MR. GALLOWAY: Yes, Sir; I believe on both sides.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the Tellers are agreed that the hon. Member's name has been put down upon both sides, of course I must ask the hon. Member on which side he first voted. If they are not agreed, I shall take the return of the Tellers. The "Ayes" are 59, and

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, James (Wic'low, W.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Knowles, Lees

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

  Barry, E. (Cork S.)

  Leng, Sir John

  O'Malley, William

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Caldwell, James

  Lundon, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crean, Eugene

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Purvis, Robert

  Delany, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Reddy, M.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  M'Govern, T.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dillon, John

  M'Kean, John

  Redmond, William Clare

  Donelan, Captain A

  M'Killop, W (Slivgo, North)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mooney, John J

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Muntz Philip A

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N

  Gilhooly, James

  Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

  Young, Samuel

  Hammond, John

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  O' Brien, Kendal (Tip'ary Mid.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. T. P. O'Connor and Mr. Galloway

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Hope, J. F. (Shef'ld Brightside)

  O'Brien, P. J, (Tipperary, N.)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir. Alex.

  Crombie, John William

  Horniman Frederick John

  Allan, William, (Gateshead)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Houit, Joseph

  Allen, C. P. (Glouc., Stroud)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dewar, John A. (Iner. sh.)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Austin, Sir John

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Doughty, George

  Jones, William (Carnar'shire)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kinloch, Sir Jno. Geo. Smyth

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lambert, George

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Edwards, Frank

  Lawson, John Grant

  Blake, Edward

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Leveson-Gower Frederick N. S.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesh'm)

  Bond, Edward

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middle'x)

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Low'stoft)

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Ed. Algernon

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Burns, John

  Flower, Ernest

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Burt, Thomas

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Cameron, Robert

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Alb.)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glas.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  More, Robt. Jasp. (Shropshire)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Myers, William Henry

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Grant, Corrie

  Norman, Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Harris, Sir Fred'k. Leverton

  Pilkington, Lieu.-Col. Richard

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Harwood, George

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Heath, Jas. (Staffords, N. W.)

  Price, Robert John

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glas.)

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Holland, William Henry

  Randles, John S.

  Ranklin, Sir James

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks)

  Wason, Jno. Cathcart (Ork'y)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Spear, John Ward

  White, Luke (York, E. H.)

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Whiteley, Geo. (York, W. R.)

  Rea, Russell

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf. Univ.)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Renwick, George

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Ridley, S Forde (Bethnal Green)

  Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R (Bath)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thom.

  Thomas, J. A. (Glam'gan Gow.

  Worsley-Taylor, Hny. Wilson

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Heywood Johnstone and Captain Norton.

  Russell, T. W.

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  the "Noes" are 128, so the "Noes" have it.
  MR. LAMBERT: May I ask how it is possible for an hon. Member to get into both Lobbies?
  No answer was given to the hon. Member.
  The following is the Division List (No. 206)—
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to move as an Amendment—
  "Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after 'shall,' insert 'habitually and for gain attend women in childbirth or shall."'
  The insertion of the words, "habitually and for gain attend women in childbirth" has been suggested by the British Medical Association, and on a former occasion they were accepted by the Lord President of the Privy Council. The Bill of 1900 contained these words, and their inclusion in this Bill is the only guarantee that unqualified women will be prohibited from practising. In the Rotunda Hospital in Dublin, which is one of the best institutions of its kind in the world, the percentage of fatal cases is very high, although antiseptics are used and every precaution is taken. If that is the case in such an excellent institution, it is an additional reason for placing a safeguard to prevent unqualified midwives taking charge of women in childbirth. In 1899, out of 11,958 cases in the Rotunda Hospital, there were 1,196 cases of abnormal presentation, and the puerperal fever cases—the very class of cases that would be propagated by unqualified midwives—was 864. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire on the Second Reading of the Bill said that parturition was a very easy process, and that a child's head was as round as a pea.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: What I said was, "in a large proportion of cases."
  DR. AMBROSE: When I look at the hon. Member's head it seems to me rather long. If such words as I have included in my Amendment are not inserted, fatal results in cases of puerperal fever, insanitary conditions, and abnormal presentations, will be far greater in proportion to those at present recorded in the Rotunda Hospital.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 6, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'habitually and for gain attend women in childbirth, or shall.'"—(Dr. Ambrose.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I do not wish to complain of a want of courtesy on the part of the hon. Gentleman, but I think he should have given his views to the House on the Amendment before other hon. Members were called upon to speak. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that this Amendment is very vital to the Hill; and it is not right that it should be passed or rejected sub silentio. I earnestly appeal to the promoters of the Bill and to the Home Secretary to meet the opponents of the Bill as it is drawn on this point. In the first place, the object of this Amendment is not to weaken the Bill, but to strengthen it. In the next place, the effect of the acceptance of this Amendment would be to remove what would be a great obstacle against the success of the Bill passing into law, and of the working of the Bill when passed: while it would also avoid a considerable amount of hostility on the part of the medical profession. I am asked to support this Amendment on behalf of the British Medical Association, and by the General Practitioners' Association. I believe, likewise, that the British Medical Council, the highest professional body in the country, is also in favour of the Amendment. Although I am not entitled to say that the whole medical profession stands behind me, I think I may say that the great representative bodies of the profession support this Amendment. That is a very serious state of affairs, and the hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill must be

  43
  fully alive to the importance of this Amendment. Of course the Amendment will be voted upon by those who have never heard the arguments in favour of it, but I am quite sure that if all the hon. Members who took part in the last division were present now, I could show them that unless the Amendment is adopted the Bill will fail in what it is desired to achieve. The desire is to reduce the large mortality and permanent injury which is caused by bad midwifery at the present moment. If the Bill passes as it stands, there will be a class of certificated midwives. I do not know whether what training they are to get will be long or short, bad or good; but I know that it will not be the training which is demanded from medical men which, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, is very severe, because no medical man can practice delivery without a certificate of efficiency on the subject. If the Bill passes without this Amendment there will be, side by side with these medical men so qualified, a class of unqualified women able to pursue one of the most dangerous operations in medical practice. My second point is that while you create a special class of midwives whom you wish to displace the Sarah Gamps, you leave the latter absolutely free to go on with their operations just as much the day after the Bill is passed as the day before. I believe that the reason why so many hon. Members are supporting the Bill, as drafted, is that they are under the impression that it will abolish the old, bad, incompetent, diseased, and dirty Sarah Gamps; but I would point out that the Bill does nothing of the sort. There is not a line, or a penalty in the Bill, which will enable the authorities to interfere with the women practising midwifery who do it now. I was discussing this question with a medical man the other day, and the suggestion was made that, in this matter, a little knowledge might be better than none at all. "No," he said, "this Bill does not give a little knowledge; it gives a title and right to nurses to take out certificates as midwives, but it does not take away the right of any woman to practise midwifery, and does not punish her at
  44
  all for any evil results following incompetence or neglect." In other words it practically leaves the dirty, diseased, incompetent, I might almost say murderous, Sarah Gamps in possession of the ground. What is the objection to this Amendment? I understand it comes from the Home Office; but I tell the Home Secretary that the responsibility must rest with hon. Members if this Bill is defeated, and not on the medical profession. The objection is that the Amendment will make the practice of midwifery by uncertified women a penal offence. Why should it not be a penal offence? If a woman chooses to take upon herself all the risks involved in attending a woman in labour, and evil results follow when, for a very small fee, a good medical man could be got, or a certificated midwife, or even a parish doctor, why should she not be punished? It is said that there is nothing like that in the other professions; but I believe that if a man sets up an apothecary's shop, or if a man starts as a dentist, and evil results follow their practice, they can be punished. And then what has happened to the unqualified medical assistants? When I was a young man in this city I knew a large number of what are called unqualified medical assistants, many of them able, who had all the experience and knowledge, probably more, of a doctor who possessed a diploma. I have known men to grow old as unqualified assistants, but does any one suppose that one of these gentleman was not as qualified as any young man fresh from college with degrees with pounds of sealing-wax attached to them? Under the present law the unqualified assistant is deprived of all opportunity of making his livelihood, and is not that a sufficient punishment? As a matter of fact, the unqualified assistant has now practically disappeared. I want to know what is the use of pretending to put down the evil of bad and dirty midwives if you do not arm yourselves with some penalty? If the law is not strong enough to prevent quacks from practising, it should be strengthened, because it is intolerable that under present circumstances so many valuable lives are lost. I say if the Home Secretary could meet us on this Amendment, and accept the

  45
  principle of it, the main objection of a large medical opinion on this subject would be removed. Undoubtedly a large number of these women have been in practice for a certain number of years, but they might be registered as parish midwives, and a certain period of grace be given to them. I have tried to speak in a candid and moderate spirit, and I can say that no man is more anxious than I to try and pass this Bill in an effective shape into law.
  MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Gentleman has made two points, dealing with two different matters. One is the value of the certificates proposed to be given to qualified midwives; and the second is that the main objection to the Bill as it stands is that if it passes there would still remain certain women who could go on practising midwifery without a certificate. The House would do well to remember what the object of this Bill is. The object is a very proper one, but it is not a very wide or complete Bill. The authors of this Bill thought, I think rightly, that it was very desirable that any person requiring the assistance of a midwife should be in a position to know whether she was or was not qualified and had a proper training. If the hon. Gentleman's Amendment were carried, the Bill, of course, could not possibly proceed, If the proposal were accepted, no person would be allowed to practise for gain unless that person had a certificate, so that after the passing of the Act any poor woman in need of assistance would be unable to avail herself of any assistance except the assistance of a medical man, because no one would be in a position to obtain a certificate.
  DR. AMBROSEsaid the Amendment referred to any person who "habitually" practised for gain.
  MR. RITCHIE: I should like to know whether any woman would be of any service unless she habitually practised. You would not call in any woman out of the street in a case of that kind, and, therefore, any woman to be of any use must have habitually practised; and such a woman would be entirely barred from practising if this Amendment were
  46
  passed. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division spoke very strongly and with deep conviction as to the necessity for the insertion of this Amendment in the Bill. It is, however, very surprising to find the hon. Member's name in the list of Members who voted against this Amendment in Committee.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am not ashamed to change my opinions.
  MR. RITCHIE: But it is surprising since the Committee stage that the hon. Gentleman should have arrived at such a state of conviction as that which he has expressed to the House today. No one would imagine when the hon. Gentleman was speaking with that fervour with which he often charms the House that he actually voted against the Amendment in Committee, whore it was rejected by twenty-five votes to eight. The House is now asked to reverse the verdict of the Committee in a matter which is vital to the Bill. I certainly could not support the Bill if this Amendment were put in and I do not believe that the House will support any Amendment which would deprive poor women who need it of the assistance they are now able to obtain. That is the reason why I, as Home Secretary, object to the Amendment. I object to women who have been in the habit of successfully practising midwifery being suddenly rendered unable to do so, thereby depriving poor women of the assistance they are able to give.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I would be quite willing to consent to some period of grace being granted to women who are now practising midwifery.
  MR. RITCHIE: That is a very considerable modification, but my own view is that it is very much better to pass a moderate Bill, such as we now have, and then, in the course of time, and I hope not a very long time, we may be able to bring before the House, with a good chance of success, a further measure. We must proceed step by step in a matter of this kind, and it is safer to go on by degrees to the end we desire. If the House desires this moderate Bill, which will ultimately

  47
  have the effect of setting up a large body of trained persons in the place of those who are practically untrained, it will not accept this Amendment.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I rise to support this Amendment, and it is a matter of profound disappointment to me, and to all others who have worked for the better education of midwives, that it should not be accepted. The right hon. Gentleman bas said that the Amendment would deprive poor people of the assistance they are now in the habit of receiving. That is an over-statement which a little consideration will show would not occur under the Bill. In the first place, every one of these women who is of good character, and competent and suitable for the work, would be able to be registered if she made an application within two years of the passing of the Act. There fore, all the best of these women would be able to come under the Act. Again, no woman in the future would, under the Act, be prevented from rendering assistance to a sister in trouble. That is common humanity. But what is intended is that we should have some means pf preventing ignorant and improper people from adding to the puerperal death rate of the country. The right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members associated with him are only recent converts. The last Bill contained these words, and they were struck out by certain hon. Members, who, like the Home Secretary on the present occasion, were afraid of the Mrs. Gamp of the villages. I should have thought that the Home Secretary would have had more courage, and would have secured for the poorer classes adequate and proper assistance in their time of trouble. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment referred to the mortality in the Rotunda Hospital. Dublin, which showed that it was absolutely necessary that ignorant and unqualified persons should be prevented from practising midwifery. We do not want to prevent poor women from being midwives, but we do want to prevent very many lives being lost every year through calling in ignorant persons to perform one of the most delicate and most important functions that any woman can perform.
  48
  The hon. Gentleman told us that in some eleven hundred cases attended in Dublin under the direct supervision of medical men by women being trained in the best school of midwifery in the world there was a mortality of between 7 per cent. and 8 per cent. from the most preventable of all diseases—puerperal fever. It is because I wish to save the many lives now yearly sacrificed through ignorant and incompetent persons acting as midwives that I support this Amendment. Let us look at the arguments used against it. It is contended that there is no precedent in the Statute-book for making it an offence for a person not properly qualified to practise, and that if yon enable people to find out who are properly qualified and who are not, that is all that is necessary. All experience of registration is against that view. We have had registration in the medical profession for over forty years, in order to enable people to find out who are qualified and who are not, and I say that not one patient in a million ever looks at the Medical Register. It was fondly hoped that when we had the Medical Register we would do away with unqualified practice, but that flourishes as much as ever. The Medical Register has not done anything to stop it. At the present day there are plenty of herbalists and bone setters and people who practise spiritual healing, and the Medical Act has no power whatever to stop them practising or to protect the public from such pretenders. We do not want a similar mistake to be made in this delicate and serious matter. My only objection to the Bill is that it does not do the work it ought to do, but it will have my support, and the support of those who think with me, if we can put in some words such as have been moved by my hon. friend. Look at the Bill in all its nakedness and poverty. Instead of protecting the poor from unqualified practitioners, it creates a class of practitioner who is to be certified. That does not touch the root of the matter at all. Any woman who is a midwife at present can go on practising her calling under the Act. All she can be prevented from doing is calling herself a midwife, but these persons hardly ever call themselves midwives, they are persons living in the poorer parts of our great cities and in our villages, who simply have the confidence of their neighbours through the services

  49
  they have rendered. I would give them all consideration under the Bill by enabling them to be registered if they are competent, but there are a large number of persons, who are not only incompetent but so ignorant that they ought not to be allowed to perform these almost sacred functions. It is to prevent that that I want this Bill extended. It is said if you do that you will create a precedent, and you will prevent people practising in a way that does not exist even for the medical profession. The profession of an apothecary is a delicate profession, but it is not by any means so delicate or dangerous as the practice we are now considering. Under the Apothecaries Act people can be prevented from practising if they have not been examined by the Society of Apothecaries, and surely what was good enough in 1815 ought to be maintained now in connection with a more complex practice and in the interests of the poorest class of the community. I strongly press this Amendment on the House, not in the interests of the medical profession but in the interests of the very poor. The Bill gives the poor no protection. It leaves them exposed to the same dangers, and simply creates a new class of practitioners. One other argument is that this new class of practitioner will gradually replace the old. That is not the experience of the medical profession. If that were so the medical profession would have replaced the bone setter and all the other quacks. Therefore, after an experience of nearly fifty years I think we are justified in saying that the clause is worthless as against unqualified practice
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): What is the character of this Amendment? The women who practise in the poorer districts are called monthly nurses, and in addition to attending the wife in her difficulty, do all the domestic work. Such a woman has to look after all the other children, prepare the husband's breakfast, and do all the other household work, and she charges from 6s. to 7s. a week. An agricultural labourer cannot afford to pay more, and I venture to say that to describe this class of people as dirty and disreputable is a libel.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I must protest against the statement that I made any such charge.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I was not referring to the hon. Member. Some of these women are not scientifically trained, though they have the training which practice gives, which after all is of some value. Even supposing there were a sufficient number of trained nurses to supply the whole of the country, they would require a higher price than an agricultural labourer would be able to pay, and further they would not do the domestic work which it is absolutely necessary should be done. The Amendment would make it a penal offence for any such woman to help another woman in childbirth, and to pass it would be to inflict an intolerable hardship. What would happen supposing no trained nurse was within reach? No doubt a neighbour would come in, but the neighbour could not be expected to remain in the house for a week or more, and do all the work for nothing. I venture to say that 60 per cent. of the child-births in this country are in households where the wages earned are under 30s. a week. It is all very well for those who have servants to do the household work, but in poor households there must he someone to look after the ordinary work, and there are no servants. No doubt it would be a very good tiling if it were possible to give every poor woman a trained nurse and, in addition, someone to do the household work. But the practical difficulties are great, and the cruelty that would be inflicted on the poorer classes by this Amendment would be intolerable. It may be in the interests of medical men, I know nothing about that; but we have to consider the conditions of the poor and see what is best for them and what is possible under existing conditions. If a trained nurse is wanted, the object of the Bill is to secure that one is got who is not only a trained nurse in name but in fact, and I trust the House will not, for the economic reasons I have stated, accept the Amendment.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDS: I rise to support the Amendment though I see no reason why some proviso should not be put in which would apply to that class of persons of whom the Home Secretary

  51
  has spoken. My conviction on this matter was strengthened by an address I heard lately from a lady whose name will command respect—Mrs. Humphrey Ward. At that meeting I heard more than enough to satisfy mo that so far as London and other populous districts are concerned, the class of women who are engaged in midwifery is of a most undesirable character. I say nothing about the country because I know nothing of the conditions. There is no woman, however poor, in this Metropolis who cannot have proper assistance, either through the doctors who charge very small fees in working-class districts, or through the young medical men who are qualifying in the hospitals, and I say unhesitatingly that as far as the great centres of population are concerned this Amendment should be accepted. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has made out a good case for the exemption of country districts, but the principle of the Amendment ought to be supported. I will certainly vote for the Amendment, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will be prepared to accept any exemptions which the Home Office may see ht to make, especially with regard to country districts.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: This Amendment has been very frequently considered, and it is one on which much may be said on both sides. I do not desire to travel over the ground which has already been traversed, but I desire simply to point out that, with the sole exception of the Apothecaries Act, the current of legislative authority is against penalising unqualified practitioners. Whatever may be said of the failure of the Medical Register Act, the lines on which Parliament has hitherto proceeded is that qualified practitioners should be distinguished from practitioners who are not qualified, and it is difficult for us to go beyond that at the present time. Sir William Priestley, who was highly esteemed in this House, and who had given great attention to this question, was in favour of this view. [The hon. Member read an extract from a speech by Sir William Priestley, and proceeded:] If I may, I would appeal to the better nature of the House, and I would ask the House to consider, if we cannot
  52
  go the full length today that we might wish to go, whether that is any reason for denying that which has been so urgently demanded for years, and for allowing the lamentable condition of things at present prevailing to continue. As the House is aware, it is more than ten years since the subject was inquired into, and during that period nothing has been done to alleviate the situation. There are still untrained, ignorant, and unqualified practitioners, and there is nothing to distinguish them from trained practitioners. I earnestly ask the House to consider it from this point of view, and to realise that it is not right to leave an evil untouched and unremedied because we cannot remove it all at once. Is that a reason for doing nothing at all, and of making naught of the labours of those who have worked on this question for years past. I am not speaking of my own labours. The evil is admitted. It is admitted it inflicts an injury, especially on the poor, and if we cannot redress the whole of it, why should not we go some way in that direction, and when we have further experience to guide us we may be able to go still further. I earnestly ask the House to begin at least a better state of things. Perhaps I may be allowed to suggest that if we cannot accept the Amendment as it stands, possibly the House may accept some words which would postpone the clause coming into operation for a definite term of years. I appeal to hon. Members on both sides to pass this measure this afternoon, not because I have any personal interest in it, but simply because I wish to see the beginning of a better state of things.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I say in answer to the appeal of the hon. Member, that if he will undertake to bring up some such suggestion on the lines he has indicated to extend the period of years during which grace should be given, I should be satisfied with that as a reasonable way of meeting my views.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: My hon. friend will understand that I have not an entirely free hand, but I will do my very utmost to carry out the suggestion.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I take it that it will have the approval of the Home Secretary?
  MR. RITCHIE: I will undertake to consider it, but I cannot go further than that at present.
  SIR JOHN LENGsaid he had received a letter on the subject which stated that nine women who had been attended by midwives had been admitted to a certain hospital in a given period suffering from disease after child birth, and that seven of the cases proved fatal. That fact alone showed the seriousness and importance of the question.
  MR. DILLON: With reference to the understanding which was suggested a few minutes ago. I think we are left in a condition in which we do not know where we are. It is the wish of everybody that the great evil which exists should be removed, and as regards that I am entirely with the promoters of the measure. The only difference and the only trouble is that my hon. friend, who in this matter represents the great bulk of medical opinion, is anxious to go further than the promoters of the Bill think possible or the Home Secretary would allow. The Home Secretary bases his sole objection to this Amendment on two grounds. One is that it would deprive a great number of poor women in the country of that unqualified assistance they now receive, and the other is that the Amendment sets up a new offence. I think the first of these objections can be easily met by extending the period of grace, and I understand that my hon. friend is not wedded to any particular form of words, but only wants the principle. The period of grace under the Bill is three years from the first of January next, and supposing that period was extended to five or seven years, it would be a matter of comparative indifference to my hon. friend, because it is the principle he desires to have adopted. During that period of grace two things would happen. A great number of these unqualified women
  54
  would disappear altogether, and others who are younger and better qualified to carry out these duties, would have an opportunity of becoming registered, and they would have a very strong motive in being trained. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman's first objection will be entirely disposed of by extending the period of grace, and I understand that, my hon. friend is quite willing to leave the question of the number of years to be settled by an Amendment in another place. The second objection of the Home Secretary is that the Amendment sets up a new offence. But the Bill itself sets up a new offence. The purpose of the Bill is to penalise by a fine of £5 any woman who shall take the name or title of midwife, either alone or in combination with any other word. That is not a criminal offence at present, and, therefore, the whole principle of the Bill is to set up a new offence. Where, then, is the objection to go one step further, and make the habitual practice of midwifery by unqualified persons an offence also. Evidently hon. Members who oppose this Amendment do so in utter ignorance of the first clause of the Bill, which, as I have said, sets up a new offence. It is said that the principle of previous legislalation was not to set up a new offence, or to inflict a penalty for what was done, but to give information to the public as to who were qualified and who were not. That is not the principle of this Bill, and, therefore, there is no force in the argument that this Bill is on all fours with the Medical Acts. Many quacks in this country call themselves doctors, but they are not penalised for it. Therefore, I say there is no principle at stake as against the Amendment, and I hope that the safety of the Bill will not be endangered by the answer given by the Home Secretary.
  MR. BOUSFIELD: It is true that clause 1 sets up a new offence, but I see a practical difficulty as regards the transitional period. It is quite obvious that it will take some years before the country, especially the rural districts, can accommodate itself to the conditions suggested by the Amendment, but it would be very easy to put in, instead

  55
  of 1905, 1910, or 1915 as the end of the transitional period. That would be an easy way out of the difficulty. I am sure the House would be prepared to accept an Amendment of that sort, and I hope the Home Secretary will agree to it.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I can not feel justified in putting the responsibility on the right hon. Gentleman. He has to consider all these matters, and may possibly have to consult others, and therefore the responsibility must remain with me this afternoon. Will it meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite if I propose to amend the Amendment by inserting the words, "after the 1st of January, 1910"? If that will meet the views of hon. Members, I am perfectly prepared to move it,
  MR. HARWOODasked if that would apply to sub-Section 6.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid he thought that sub-section would come out.
  MR. EUGENE WASONformally moved to amend the Amendment by inserting the words—
  "After the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ten."
  SIR WALTER FOSTERasked if the Home Secretary would favourably consider the Amendment.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid he did not intend to oppose it.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. HARWOODformally moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 29, to leave out sub-Section 6."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORformally moved—
  "In Clause 2, page 2, line 5, after 'London' to insert 'or the Coombe Lying-in Hospital and Guinness's Dispensary, or the Rotunda Hospital for the Relief of the Poor Lying-in. Women of Dublin.'"
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN, in explaining the object of the next Amendment, said that two classes of existing midwives were to be registered under the Act, one the class which had received certificates, the other being women who were in actual practise. In the ease of the latter it was laid down that they must be of good character. That was perfectly right, but he thought it ought also to be laid down that evidence should be produced that the other class were of good character. That would be no slur on the character of the certificate given by any institution, because a woman when she obtained a certificate would naturally be of good character, though something might have happened subsequently which rendered her not of good character. Therefore, he thought evidence of character should be produced by each class alike.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 6, after the word 'board,' to insert the words "and produces evidence that she bears a good character.'"
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid he hoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment. A number of persons, of what might be called the bettor class, had obtained certificates, but were not in actual practise. If they had to produce evidence as to character it would discourage them from registering at all.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not maintain that position. There might be even a black sheep among the persons referred to by

  57
  the hon. Gentleman, and he thought it was very desirable that there should be a certificate of character. He did not want anyone to get on the register who had done anything which would bring it into disrepute.
  MR. SCHWANNsaid that, after all, a certificate of character could be obtained from two householders.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid he did not wish to press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid he desired to move—
  "In Clause 2, page 2, line 8, to leave out "was" in order to insert "had been for at least one year."
  The clause referred to midwives who were in practise at the passing of the Act. He thought that it should be laid down that they had been in practise for some considerable time, and his Amendment provided that they should be in practise for at least one year, which was an improvement.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. T. F O'CONNORmoved—
  "In Clause 3, page 2, line 22, at end to insert '(4) One person to be appointed by the Royal British Nurses' Association, who shall be a member of that body.' "
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid that if his hon. friend deemed it his duty insist to on the Amendment, he would be prepared to concede it, but he hoped his hon friend would not press it.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he felt very strongly on the question, and he hoped his hon. friend would not be unwilling to accept the Amendment. It was absolutely necessary that nursing should enter into the matter, and that the highest nursing authority should be represented.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENmoved to extend the scope of the Bill to Scotland and Ireland. He failed to see any reason why the Bill should be limited to England. The evils which the measure was designed to meet were not confined to that one portion of the Kingdom, and, while he was glad that they would now be able to deal with those evils so far as England was concerned, he thought some explanation ought to be given of why the Sister Isle and Scotland were to be deprived of the advantages conferred by the Bill.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 7, to leave out line 7."—(Mr. Griffith-Boscawen.)
  Question proposed, "That line 7 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that if a Bill were brought in to confer corresponding advantages on Ireland he would support it, but it was impossible to extend the present measure to Ireland, as the whole frame-work of the Bill, and the bodies referred to in it, were essentially English. In other words, the whole of the procedure and government were English, and it would be obviously unfair to extend the Bill to Ireland.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,)pointed out that the same observation would apply to Scotland, as the Bill was drafted entirely on English lines.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid that this matter had engaged the attention of the promoters of the Bill. With regard to Scotland there did not exist at present any machinery which they could invoke to put the Bill into operation, and a large number of provisions and Amendments would require to be introduced to

  59
  make the Bill apply to Scotland. As to Ireland, he was under the impression that under the system of dispensary doctors and trained nurses, the people there were better off in this matter than the people of England.
  MR. DILLONsaid that to a large extent the hon. Member was right. In Ireland they were, in this as in most other things, ahead of England;

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Acland Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Delany, William

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dewar John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Dewar, T. R. (T'r H'mlets, S. Geo.

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Dillon, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Asher, Alexander

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dunn, Sir William

  Kimber, Henry

  Atherley Jones, L.

  Edwards, Frank

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Austin, Sir John

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tratton

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lambert, George

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Lawrence, Joseph, (Monmouth

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fenwick, Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Baltour, Capt. C. B (Hornsey)

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

  Leamy, Edmund

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Ffrench, Peter

  Leng, Sir John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Bayley, Thomas, (Derbyshire)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lockwood, Lt. Col. A. R.

  Bill, Charles

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Blake, Edward

  Flower, Ernest

  Lough, Thomas

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lowe, Francis William

  Boland, John

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Lundon, W.

  Bond, Edward

  Fuller, J. M. E.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bonsfield, William Robert

  Garfit, William

  MacNeill, John Cordon Swift

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Gilhooly, James

  M Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Govern, T.

  Bull, William James

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  M'Kean, John

  Burns, John

  Graham, Henry Robert

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Burt, Thomas

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Caldwell, James

  Gretton, John

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Cameron, Robert

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A. (Glasg'w

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hambro, Charles Erie

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hamilion, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

  Cavendish, R. E. (N. Lancs.)

  Hammond, John

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mooney, John J.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Morgan, David J. (Walth'mst'w

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Helder, Augustus

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Cray C.

  Crean, Eugene

  Henderson, Alexander

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Crombie, John William

  Holland, William Henry

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Crossley, Sir Saville

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  in spite of their want of education the Irish people adopted scientific improvements much more readily than the people of this country.
  (4.42.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 2.37; Noes, 23. (Division List No. 207.)

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Thomson, F. AY. (York, W. R.)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

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

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson

  Thornton, Percy M.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wallace, Robert

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Round, James

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Russell, T. W.

  Welby, Lt.-Col. AC E (Taunton

  O'Malley, William

  Schwann, Charles E.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Whiteley, George (York. W. R.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Partington, Oswald

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Percy, Earl

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Spear, John Ward

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Price, Robert John

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Stirling, Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Purvis, Robert

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Young, Samuel

  Randles, John S.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Younger, William

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Tennant, Harold John

  Rea, Russell

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Heywood Johnstone and Captain Norton.

  Reddy, M.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thomas J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Thompson, Dr EC (Monagh'n, N

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Brook held, Colonel Montagu

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Knowles, Lees

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Coddington, Sir William

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Griffith-Boscawen and Mr. Banbury.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Cross, Alexander

  Myers, William Henry

  Bill to be read the third time upon Friday next.

  CREMATION BILL [LORDS.]
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
  LORD HUGH CECILmoved the postponement of Clause 3, so that the House might know whether any Amendments were to be accepted extending the provisions of the Measure to Ireland.
  Amendment proposed—
  In page 1, line 16, to postpone Clause 3.—(Lord Hugh Cecil.)
  Question proposed, "That the consideration of Clause 3 be postponed."
  SIR WALTER FOSTERremarked that if the noble Lord had referred to the debate of last year he would have seen that he made a distinct statement that under no circumstances would he accept any Amendment which extended this Bill to Ireland. He was not going to have anything to do with legislation which would be offensive to the majority of the Irish representatives.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid he could not see upon what grounds the extension of this Measure to Ireland was being opposed.
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not think the extension of this Measure to Ireland can be discussed upon this question.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid he intended later on to move a clause extending the Bill to Ireland, and therefore he should support the postponement of Clause 3 for that purpose.
  (5.3.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ays, 34; Noes, 221. (Division List No. 208.)

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Price, Robert John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Mooney, John J.

  Purvis, Robert

  Tennant, Harold John

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Randles, John S.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen E.)

  Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Thomas, J. A (Glam'gan, Gower

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Rea, Russell

  Thompson, Dr. E. C (M'n'gh'n, N)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Reddy, M.

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Myers, William Henry

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Nannetti, Joseph F.

  Renwick, George

  Ure, Alexander

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas Thomson

  Wallace, Robert

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  While, Luke (York, E. R.)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tippera'y Mid

  Round, James

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Russell, T. W.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Sadler, Col-Samuel Alex.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  O'Donnel, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  O'Malley, William

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

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

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Spear, John Ward

  Young, Samuel

  Partington, Oswald

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Younger, William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darl'gt'n)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Sir Walter Foster and Dr. Farquharson.

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN,on be half of his hon. friend the Member for Horsham, moved the Amendment standing in his name on the paper.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 8, to leave out the word 'two' and insert the word 'five.'"—(Mr. Griffith Boscawen.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. GODDARDmoved an Amendment to omit from Clause 5 the provision that no crematorium shall be erected in the consecrated part of a burial-ground. He said his object was simply to carry out the principle laid down in the report of the Burial Grounds Committee in 1898—that all parts of a burial-ground should be treated alike.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 10, after the first 'the' to leave out the words 'consecrated part of the.'"—(Mr. Goddard.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid that he should like some further explanation in regard to this Amendment. He should have thought that it was obvious to a great many people that there was an essential difference between the con secrated and the unconsecrated part of a burial-ground. Of course the object of the provision was to prevent consecrated land from being put to what was regarded by some as a desecrating use. It seemed to him a very serious change to make, and he thought the promoters should consider whether such an Amendment was consistent with the working of the Bill.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLdid not think this Amendment could be considered by itself, but ought to be considered in relation to the words "except with the consent of such authority" which appeared in the next Amendment on the Paper. Something was due to the consciences and susceptibilities of many church people, who took strong objection to cremation on consecrated ground.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERthought if his hon. friend would withdraw his Amendment" and move the omission of all the

  67
  words after "highway" that would meet the views of the noble Lord opposite. This Amendment had been put in out of tenderness to certain people who thought the erection of a crematorium in the consecrated part of a burial-ground might be offensive to some people. He thought the Amendment as it stood was not desirable, though he agreed with the object of his hon. friend. The Amendment as proposed would leave it to the burial authority to decide where a crematorium should be put, and they might decide to put it in the consecrated ground. He did not want to have that source of difficulty.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid that if the suggestion were accepted it would be possible to erect a crematorium in any part of the cemetery. A good many hon. Members objected to a crematorium being erected in the consecrated portion of the cemetery, and although personally he did not object to this, they had upon this question to consider the feelings of others.
  MR. WALLACEsaid that if they wished to get this Bill through at all they would have to meet one another, and he urged his hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. CREANpointed out that many people did not believe in the principle of this Bill at all, and they would be compelled to see this kind of thing going on under their very eyes. He thought it was a wise thing to insert his hon. friend's Amendment and he hoped he would not withdraw.
  Question put and agreed to.
  It being half-past Five of the clock, Further Proceeding on Consideration stood adjourned.
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered upon Friday next.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Omagh Urban District Gas Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, relating to Paisley." [Paisley Gas Provisional Order Confirmation Bill (Lords).]
  Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to empower the Corporation of Margate to construct additional waterworks, and to extend their limits for the supply of water, and for other purposes." [Margate Corporation Water Bill (Lords).]
  And also a Bill intituled, "An Act to enable the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the borough of Leicester to construct additional tramways and street improvements in the borough, and to construct additional gas works and for other purposes." [Leicester Corporation Bill (Lords).]

  PAISLEY GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 227.]
  MARGATE CORPORATION WATER BILL [LORDS],
    LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL [LORDS].
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LANCASHIRE COUNTY (LUNATIC ASYLUMS) BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Sixth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.

LORD KENSINGTON.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the light of Hugh Edwardes Baron Kensington to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with.:—
Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order.
And that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—

Colwyn Bay and Colwyn Urban District Council.

2

Huddersfield Corporation.

Kingscourt, Keady, and Armagh Railway.

Leamington Corporation.

London and India Docks (Various Powers.)

London and North-Western Railway.

North-Eastern Railway.

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply.

Richmond Hill (Preservation of View).

West Ham Corporation.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

KENT WATER BILL.
A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL.
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn.
CHIGWELL, LOUGHTON, AND WOODFORD GAS BILL [H.L.],
  SCOTTISH EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD BILL.
Read 2a. and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (No. 1.) BILL,
  CHARD GAS BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.
  GARSTON AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS AND ELECTRIC SUPPLY (TRANSFER) BILL,
    GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL,

      LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL,
      LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL,
      NORTH METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS BILL.
      YORK CORPORATION BILL.
      Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY BILL,
    MIDLAND RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed.
  MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Standing Order No. 93 considered (according to order) and dispensed with, with respect to a Petition of the Borough Council of Westminster. Leave given to present the said Petition.
  BUCKIE BURGH EXTENSION AND BUCKIE (CRAIGENROAN) HARBOUR OLDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Buckie Burgh Extension and Buckie (Craigenroan) Harbour—Was presented by the Lord Balfour (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899 sections 8 and 9); read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 90.)
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 4.) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BARNES, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next.
  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SWANSEA UNITED DISTRICT) (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1.) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order). Amendments made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next.
  COATBRIDGE GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the; Examiners. (No. 93.)
RETURNS, REPORTS.
  DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS ACT, 1877.
  Order, dated the 5th day of June, 1902, relative Colorado beetle.

  INEBRIATES ACTS, 1879–1899 (TRANSFERS OF INMATES OF INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES.
  Regulations made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of Section 6 of the Inebriates Act, 1898, respecting the transfer of inebriates from a certified inebriate

  5
  reformatory to a State inebriate reformatory, from a State inebriate reformatory to a certified inebriate reformatory, and from one certified inebriate reformatory to another.

  PATENTS DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS ACTS, 1883–1901.
  Patent Rules, 1902.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons: That the provisions of the; Highland and Invergarry and Fort; Augustus Railway Companies Order are of such a character that they ought to be dealt with by Bill and not by Provisional Order.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CORONATION OATH.
  Petition for alteration of; of Roman Catholics in Natal; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  FRESHWATER FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday the 17th instant.—(The Lord Balfour.) (No. 91.)

  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE VOLUNTEERS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 92.)

  Name of Bankrupt.

  Court and No.

  Date of Receiving Order.

  Balance undistributed at 31st Dec. 1898

  Receipts and Payments between and 31st Dec. 1898 31st Dec. 1901.

  Balance undistributed at 31st Dec. 1901.

  Receipts.

  Payments.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  UNDISTRIBUTED BANKRUPTS' ESTATES.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, in accordance with the notice standing in my name, I beg to move for a Return of moneys of bankrupts' estates not wound up, and still in the hands of whatever Government Department deals with these moneys—the Return to show the amount from each estate that has remained undistributed during the last three years.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (the EARL of HARDWICKE): In the absence of my noble friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade, I have to say that the Board of Trade has no objection to the granting of a Return which will give, it is thought, the information desired by the noble Earl. I understand that the noble Earl has seen the form of the Return which the Board of Trade is prepared to give and has agreed to it.
  Return of Undistributed Moneys belonging to Bankrupts' Estates under Bankruptcy Act, 1883, in which the Receiving Order was made prior to 31st December, 1898, and the Trustee was not released on 31st December, 1901, showing Name of Bankrupt, Court and and No., Date of Receiving Order, Balance of Moneys undistributed at 31st December, 1898. Amount of subsequent Receipts and Payments up to 31st December, 1901, and Balance undistributed at latter Date.
  Ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Earl of Mayo).

LOAN BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: With your Lordships' permission I should like to make a very few remarks on this Bill, illustrating the extraordinary strength of the credit of this country. This Bill, authorises the issue of £32,000,000 in Consols. The issue has already taken place. The price of issue was £93 10s., and I understand the price today is about £97—that is for a stock which is practically a 2½ per cent. stock, because next April the final stage in the conversion of the National Debt which it was my privilege to carry through, will have taken place, and the interest on the stock will be reduced from 2¾ to 2½ per cent. The fraction of the ¼ per cent. for one year may be eliminated, and practically these Consols may be regarded as 2½ per cent. stock, and it stands now at 97. And under what circumstances of borrowing does it stand at that high figure? The country has borrowed £159,000,000 for the war. A portion of that, a comparatively small proportion, has been borrowed on Treasury Bills; but what I may call the addition to the permanent debt is £122,000,000—namely, £30,000,000 of War Loan and £92,000,000 of Consols. Therefore, the total addition of permanent debt is £122,000,000 besides the addition to the floating debt. And notwithstanding this vast sum which has been borrowed it is possible, so strong is the basis on which the credit of this country rests, to borrow this last £32,000,000 at the price of £93 10s., and to see them stand now at 97. One retrospect I should like to make in connection with these statistics. In 1888, when the conversion took place, the 3 per cent. Consol stock stood at about 101. The equivalent in a 2½ per cent. stock to a 3 per cent. stock at 101 would be that they would stand at about 84 per cent. I call your Lordships' attention to this fact, that in 1888 our Consols, translated into 2½ per cent., would have been worth about 84, and they stand now at 97; that is to say, the credit of the country has so improved, and the finances of the country have so been managed during the last fourteen
8
years—I think both circumstances ought to be put together—that that which in 1888 would have stood, if it had been a 2½ per cent. stock at 84, now stands at 13 points higher, and this after an exhausting war and after borrowing £159,000,000! I think the country may congratulate itself upon this situation, which shows that, besides its magnificent resources from the military point of view, the financial resources and the credit of the country have been adequate to the occasion, and that we have no reason whatever to despair of the financial position of the country.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY): I am sure your Lordships are very much indebted to my noble friend for the very interesting statement with respect to the present financial position of the country which he has given to the House. It is very interesting on general grounds, but it is the more so that probably he is the only man in the House who is capable of making such a statement. It is of very great importance that we should be assured, upon authority so high, that our monetary dealings, which undoubtedly have not been distinguished by timidity of late years, have not seriously impaired, on the contrary that they seem rather to have strengthened, the financial position of the country. I can only repeat my thanks to my noble friend for a statement which will be widely read and which will give very great satisfaction. This House contains many elements of great expert knowledge. Perhaps we are a little too sparing in keeping it to ourselves; but I think we may press upon my noble friend, what must have already occurred to him, that though the attendance on the occasion of statements of this kind cannot be described as numerous or enthusiastic, nevertheless the information which it is in the power of men like him to give, and which through the medium of this House is scattered throughout the length and breadth of the land, is more important than many debates or discussions which might have a higher literary value. I hold that noble Lords who place their enormous, their unparalleled acquaintance with public

9
affairs at the disposal of your lordships, and bring it within the knowledge of the people of this country, deserve our most sincere thanks.
On Question agreed to
Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.