Sitting of 3 July 1903

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH.
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Birmingham District Tramways Bill [Lords]; Kip's Patents Bill [Lords], Bradford Corporation Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (Extension of time) Bill As amended, considered. To be read the third Time.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Scottish American Mortgage Company, Limited, Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Jewish Colonisation Association Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—County Councils (Bills in Parliament) Bill, Education (Borrowing) Bill, Contracts (India Office) Bill, Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) Bill, Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill, without Amendment; Nelson Corporation Bill, Hampton Court Gas Bill, Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill, Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill, with Amendments; Amendments to—Southampton Harbour Bill [Lords], Scunthorpe Urban District Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Bangor to make a gift of a new site for Bangor College; to provide recreation grounds; to acquire the Penrhyn Hall; and for other purposes." [Bangor Corporation Bill [Lords].
  And also, a Bill intituled "An Act for incorporating and conferring powers on the Shropshire and Worcestershire Electric Power Company.' [Shropshire and Worcestershire Electric Power Bill [Lords].
  Bangor Corporation Bill [Lords], Shropshire and Worcestershire Electric Power Bill [Lords.] Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
  Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Bill. Reported with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
  London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [Lords]; Cardiff Railway Bill [Lords]; Didcot, Newbury, and Southampton Railway Bill [Lords]; Exeter Corporation Bill [Lords]. Reported with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: from Edinburgh; and Leith; to lie upon the Table.
  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Govan, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES (COMPENSATION FOR NONRENEWAL).
  Petition from King's Cross and other places, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  PHARMACY BILL.
  Petition of the Master Warders and Society of Apothecaries of the City of London, for alteration (praying to be heard by Counsel); to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL.
  Petition from Westminster, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Bristol, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Rule made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland determining the number of Centre Superintendents to be appointed for the Examinations, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  AFRICA (No. 7, 1903) (EAST AFRICA CONCESSIONS).
  Copy presented, of Return of Concessions in the East Africa and Uganda Protectorate [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MALTA.
  Copy presented, of Further Correspondence relating to the Political Condition of Malta (in continuation of [C. 715] 1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS (CONTINUOUS BRAKES).
  Copy presented, of Return by Railway Companies of the United Kingdom for the six months ending the 31st December, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRON AND STEEL, 1901.
  Copy ordered, "of Statistical Tables showing the production and consumption of Iron Ore and Pig Iron, and the production of Steel, in the United Kingdom and the principal foreign countries, in each year from 1890 to 1901, so far as the particulars can be stated."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Condition of "Exmouth" Training Ship.
  MR. TALBOT: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the condition of the "Exmouth" training ship, now under the management of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, from which, in the year 1901, 151 boys were sent into the Royal Navy, as against 160 from all other training ships other than industrial and reformatory ships; and whether, in view of the service thus rendered to the Navy, the Admiralty can assist the Metropolitan Asylums Board by placing some other ship at their disposal.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The attention of the Admiralty has been called to this matter. One vessel offered by the Admiralty has already been inspected on behalf of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, but was not considered
  1258
  suitable. The question whether there is another ship which can be placed at their disposal is receiving careful consideration, but owing to the very limited number of vessels that could possibly be suitable for a purpose of this kind, it is feared that it may be found impracticable to meet the wishes of the Board.

  Phthisis in Workhouses.
  MR. MANSFIELD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board will he give instructions to Poor Law inspectors to report as to the number of cases of phthisis there are in each workhouse visited by them; whether or not such cases are isolated; whether such cases are receiving special treatment, such as the open-air treatment, or in what way they are being treated as to diet, medicines and surroundings.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I propose to give instructions to the effect that each Poor Law inspector shall include in the report made by him after his ordinary inspection of a workhouse particulars as to the number of cases of phthisis there, and I am considering what further particulars on the subject should be added.

  Squire v. M'Bride and Williams—Appeal.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has finally decided to sanction an appeal in the case of Squire, His Majesty's Inspector of Factories v. Messrs. M'Bride & Williams, of Belfast, turning on Section 2, Sub-section 1, of the Truck Act of 1896.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I decided, after careful consideration, not to appeal in this case, but to take another opportunity of raising the question of principle involved as to the form which a notice under the Truck Act, 1896, should take. As regards the particular firm in question, their solicitor informed the Factory Department on the 4th of May that they would have a notice posted in the factory in terms which are not open to the objections taken to the form in use when the prosecution was instituted.

  Vacations of Lighthouse Keepers.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the length of the vacation annually granted to light keepers on islands situate at a distance from the coast of Ireland; and what arrangements, if any, exist on islands where there are two light keepers for the observance of their religious duty by the light keepers, there being no clergyman resident on the island.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that—(a) Light keepers at island stations are usually granted a fortnight's leave annually; (b) where practicable, periodical boat trips and car trips are allowed to enable light keepers and their families from islands and outlying stations to attend places of worship on Sunday.

  Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the remarks made by Lord Chief Baron Palles in delivering judgment in The King (Dorrion) v. Greer, commenting on an officer of the Inland Revenue constituting himself a Court of Appeal from the decision of the Recorder of Londonderry under the Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902; and, if so, will he introduce legislation this session to remedy this state of affairs.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) In the case referred to, and also in previous cases, the licensing quarter sessions had granted certificates for new licences contrary to the provisions of The Licensing Act, 1902. These certificates were in each case a nullity, and the Inland Revenue official declined, with the approval of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, to act upon them. The King's Bench Division in refusing to issue a mandamus to the Inland Revenue to compel the issue of the licence upheld the action of the Inland Revenue, and the Lord Chief Baron's observations merely indicated that before the Revenue official declined to act upon the certificate the opinion of the Law Officers should be taken, which of course is the usual practice in any
  1260
  doubtful case. The reply to the concluding inquiry is in the negative.

  Salmon Hauling at Mouth of the Erriff River.
  MR. O'MALLEY: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, whether he is aware that some six years ago the fishermen of Lee-nane, Glannagoolagh, and Bundorougha, in Connemara, county Galway, had a lawsuit with the Fishery Conservators to define the nearest limit up to which they could haul salmon from the mouth of the Erriff River, with the result that a Court of inquiry decided that salmon could be hauled at any point one statute mile from the river's mouth; and whether, in view of the fact that since that time the Conservators have never shown or defined a definite boundary, with the consequence that the fishermen are prevented by the owners of the Erriff fishery from hauling from one and a half to two miles from the river's mouth, thus depriving them of a portion of the best hauling portion of the bay, he will take steps to protect the interests of the fishermen from such action on the part of the owners of the fishery.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) Netting for salmon by the public is prohibited by statute within half a mile of the defined mouth of a river. The mouth of the Erriff River has been thus defined; but it would appear that an exclusive right of fishing is claimed by a proprietor in an area which extends further to seaward than the statutory limit; and that this exclusive right of fishing as against the public formed the subject of litigation some years ago and was upheld.

  Irish Congested Districts Board's Fishing Boats at Malin Head.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the success of the three Tralee fishing boats sent by the Congested Districts Board to Malin Head on 18th May last for the purpose of testing the deep sea fishing off that coast, and for the purpose of training the fishermen of Malin Head in the more approved methods of fishing, and of the fact that on the 16th June one of these

  1261
  boats caught up to £60 worth of herring, he will explain why the boats were taken away by the Board on 18th June.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The boats were withdrawn because the Board was advised that the summer herring fishing had practically closed, and also in consequence of the destruction of nets by dogfish, which had appeared in large numbers.

  Woolwich Arsenal—Pay of Persons away through Injury.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange that persons who are injured in the Arsenal at Woolwich, and who are detained in the Arsenal surgery by the medical officer, shall receive treatment and maintenance without deduction from their wages.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether all the men who have lost time suffering from shock in consequence of the recent explosion at Woolwich Arsenal will be paid in full their ordinary rate of wage; and, if so, will he issue instructions for them to be paid without undue delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) By the scheme of compensation certified by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies under The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, injured men receive half their weekly earnings while disabled, but workmen who were in the service when that scheme was introduced on 1st August, 1900, are allowed their full day-work rating under the former regulations. All workmen treated in the Arsenal surgery receive such treatment free; but those who get full pay while in hospital under the old regulations pay one shilling a day towards the cost of their food.

  Military Works Bill—Date of Introduction.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War when the Military Works Bill will be introduced.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Bill will be ready for introduction as soon as time can be found for it.

  Trinidad Riots Commission—Date of Publication of Report.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the Royal Commisison sent to investigate the Trinidad riots returned to this country a considerable time back, it would be possible to hurry the publication of the Report sufficiently to make sure that it should be in the hands of Members; before the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I hope the Report will be ready for delivery to Members not later than the 22nd instant.

  NAVAL WORKS [CONSOLIDATED FUND]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  *THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,)said that it had not been customary to make any statement on the introduction of this Resolution, but on the last two occasions on which the money Resolution had been brought before the Committee of Ways and Means, Questions were asked, and he understood it would be for the convenience of hon. Members that he should make a short statement on the general points affecting the Resolution on which there were any changes from former practice. He hoped hon. Members would defer general discussion of details until the Bill itself, which would be founded on the Resolution, came on for Second Reading. There were special reasons why he should take this departure from ordinary practice. There was a change in the form of the Resolution itself to which he wished to specially allude. That change was as to the method by which the money was to be borrowed. Under the Resolutions on which the Naval Works Loan Bills of 1895, and all those down to the present date were based, the money had always been borrowed for a term of thirty years dating from 1895. But it was evident that, under that principle, money which was now being borrowed, and still more the money which was to be borrowed in future years

  1263
  over the long period which these words would cover, would be repayable in a very short term of years between the borrowing of the money and 1925. Therefore, it was a much more reasonable principle that the sums now authorised to be borrowed, if this Resolution was passed and by subsequent Resolutions in future years, should be repayable in thirty years from the date of borrowing. He also wished to state that protests had been made as to the growth of this loan expenditure, and as to the extension of the number of items which had been added since the original Bill was proposed. That had been engaging the attention of the Admiralty, which thought at this time to make some final proposal as to the items which should be embraced in this series of Loan Bills. Of course, it was impossible for the present Board of Admiralty to bind their successors or the Committee for all time—because unforeseen circumstances might arise—but so far as they could foresee it was the policy of the Admiralty that the items which were to be inserted in the Schedule to the Bill should be final. He must guard himself, however, by stating that the total estimated cost over the whole area of expenditure was not final. The House might be asked for a further sum in respect of the total estimate, on items already inserted or to be inserted in the Bill on this occasion, but it was, not proposed to insert any new items. The total sum which the House was asked in this Resolution to vote was within £4,000 of £8,000,000. That was arrived at in this manner. The total sum already voted on previous Resolutions was £13,750,000, and the total which would be voted if this Resolution was carried was £21,000,000, leaving £8,000,000 to be voted. The total expenditure would be just over £8,500,000. That extra £500,000 came out of the £13,750,000 voted in preceding Bills, £500,000 having remained unexpended. Of the amount of £8,500,000, £6,750,000 would be required for expenditure on the old items which had already been approved by the House; and £1,250,000 would be required for beginning the new items to be proposed in the Bill. The total estimated cost in the Bill was increased by about £4,000,000, but, as he had already stated, that would not be absolutely final. The total estimated cost for the whole area was £31,750,000.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: That will still leave £10,000,000?
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that that was the total estimated cost of all the items, old and new, which would be included in the Bill; but it would be necessary as regarded some of those items, as to which details would be given on the Second Reading of the Bill, to propose some further expenditure which would increase the total estimated cost.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Does that include the expense of the finished items?
  *MR. PRETYMAN: Yes; that includes the whole area.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I rightly understand that the total cost will be, roughly, £31,000,000, and that of this sum £21,000,000, when we have voted this £8,000,000, will already have been provided for; and that therefore there will be another £10,000,000, to be provided for in the future?
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that was the case; but not in addition to the £31,000,000; in addition to the £21,000,000. There would be something further than that, which would be proposed later, but no new items. Supposing the total expenditure, including the Scotch naval base and all the new items which were now to be proposed, amounted to £40,000,000, that would be spread over twenty years, and amount to no more than £2,000,000 a year for the period during which the expenditure took place. Adding the average annual expenditure on works and maintenance generally, which was about £1,000,000 that would give an amount of £3,000,000 a year for naval works all over the world as actual expenditure for twenty years in order to carry out current needs and meet new requirements, and at the same time fill up the vacuum left by the great increase of the Navy in the form of ships, and the necessity of providing for these new ships dock accommodation, etc. He would state to the Committee the proposed new items. The first new item was for introducing into our naval establishments throughout the world, and that comprised nearly all of them, electric light and power. The second item was

  1265
  for converting the present dockyard at Sheerness, where the docks were somewhat antiquated, and did not at present give their full value to the work of the Navy, into a special depôt for the large repairs of the entire flotilla of destroyers. That would be the destroyer base, so far as repairs were concerned, but not the strategic base for all the destroyer fleet at home. It was also proposed to construct a new torpedo range on the Medway, and to lengthen the torpedo range at Portsmouth. A new gunnery school was to be constructed at Trevol, Devonport. There were two considerable dockyard items. One was for increased dockyard accommodation at Chatham, as to which only a small sum was taken in the Bill to enable the work to be started. The final estimate would be before the Committee in two years time. Secondly, an item for the new naval base on the Forth at St. Margaret's Hope. There had been some misapprehension as to the name. The Admiralty called this new naval base, so far as the shore was concerned, Rosyth. Rosyth was to St. Margaret's Hope exactly what Portsmouth was to Spithead. St. Margaret's Hope was not the name of the land but of the anchorage, and Rosyth was the name of the barony, castle, farm, and therefore the name of the establishment proposed to be constructed would be Rosyth, and the anchorage of the ships would be St. Margaret's Hope. The last item, which was on a different basis from the others, was for coastguard reconstruction. That was proposed on purely financial grounds. At present a very large proportion of our coastguard establishments were rented. That created a great deal of trouble. The leases and tenures varied very much in character, and were constantly falling in. The rents were being perpetually raised, and great difficulty occurred as to the allocation of repairs as between landlord and tenant. He had most carefully gone into the financial aspect of this question, and he found that it was possible, without increasing the annual charge, which now fell upon the Votes, to take a capital sum under this Bill to be applied, in some cases, to the purchase of existing coastguard stations now rented and which were suitable; and in other cases to buying sites and building new stations. The interest on that charge would be no
  1266
  greater than the sum we were at present paying for short term and other tenures of coastguard stations. At the end of the time when capital and interest were paid off—he included capital and interest in that statement—the country would be the actual freehold owners of their coastguard stations, and would have no mote rent to pay. That seemed to him to be an ordinary business principle which anybody who had the capital would carry out, and he did not see why the country should not act upon it.
  MR. BUCHANAN: What is the total cost of the Forth naval base?
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that the sum taken would be £200,000 to cover the purchase of land and any necessary beginnings; but it was quite impossible to consider that as a final estimate. No final estimate could be given until the plans were presented. There was one statement in regard to Rosyth which he was in a position to give to the Committee. The total area of the land which had been acquired for the Rosyth base was 1,178 acres of dry land, and 286 acres of foreshore, making a total of 1,464 acres. The total price paid for the land was £122,500, and the present rental was £1,620. There was one point which was not as yet finally settled—viz., whether there was to be any special valuation of minerals in a part of the land, as to which there might possibly be some increased charge, though he hoped that might not be the case. That point was now under the consideration of experts. The area of land acquired would enable the Admiralty to provide not only for present but for future needs; and when the cost of the land per acre was compared with the cost of purchasing small quantities of land in existing dockyards, where civil and commercial interests had grown up, he thought the Committee would see that at any rate future generations, and even the present generation, would benefit largely by this extensive purchase. He did not desire to say anything more at present, but merely to lay before the Committee this bare statement of facts showing the grounds on which this

  1267
  Resolution was asked for. He hoped the Committee would vote the Resolution and defer detailed criticism until the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to make further provision for the construction of works in the United Kingdom and elsewhere for the purposes of the Royal Navy, and to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding £7,996,000, as may be required for those purposes, and to make provision for raising, in the manner provided by Section 5 of the Naval Works Act, 1895, the sums so issued by terminable annuities for a period not exceeding thirty years from the date of the borrowing."—(Mr. Pretyman.)
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he thought the novel feature of this Resolution was sufficient justification for the course adopted by the hon. Gentleman in the statement he had made. He did not propose to go into details, but he was quite sure that the announcement made that day would be received with satisfaction by the Committee and the country—viz., that this was to be a final Bill; that no new items would be added to the list of works to be provided for by means of loans. Seeing the enormous development of this system from its humble beginnings in 1895, it was gratifying to know that there would be no more additions to the Loans Works, and that when they got this Bill off their hands they would have seen the last of them. With reference to the financial novelty of extending the borrowing powers, his own impression was that, considering how largely they had been throwing burdens on posterity this year and last year in connection with military expenditure the Government should have been very well content to have brought the whole of this expenditure to an end in 1925, according to the original scheme of the Naval Works Bills. He did not commit himself at all to approval of the course proposed in that respect. As to Rosyth, he did not understand what the hon. Gentleman meant when he said that plans would be exhibited. As far as he knew, no plans were yet in existence.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that charts and maps had been issued.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he understood that was as far as the Admiralty had proceeded at present. The hon. Gentleman omitted to make any reference to the most important thing in connection with Rosyth, and that was what sort of a naval establishment it was to be, and what precisely was to be its character. It was said in the Report that it was found necessary to have another naval establishment, and that Rosyth had been selected. But what was to be the exact nature of that establishment? Was it to be a manufacturing dockyard or a housing dockyard? Was it to be a place like Dover or Portsmouth? That had an important bearing on the annual cost, which was a very serious element in the situation. One of the most important matters in connection with Rosyth was what was to be the annual cost which this naval establishment, unlike most of the other works in the Bill, would involve after it was completed. They were done with expenditure in other cases after the principal and the interest of the loan had been repaid; but, in this case, after the establishment was erected there would be an establishment of men and a certain amount of money would be wanted every year for its maintenance. The hon. Gentleman might be able to tell the Committee what was the intended scope of the proposed establishment; and what the financial cost per annum of its maintenance would be, when completed. The only other item to which he would allude was that which referred to electric lighting in the dockyards. It required serious consideration as to whether it was right to put the cost of installing electric light into a Naval Works Bill. It was a policy to which he for one was not prepared to commit himself. He did not intend to offer any opposition whatever to the Bill. He understood from the First Lord of the Treasury the other day that the Second Reading would betaken on Wednesday; and he would ask, if before then any further information beyond the statement of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, would be laid before the House of Commons.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he wished to respectfully congratulate his hon. friend on his very clear statement, as far as it went; but he did not follow him in his suggestion that it would not be convenient to debate his proposals now. He desired to take advantage of the present occasion to put some very general considerations before the Committee with reference to the choice of the new naval base in the Firth of Forth, and its general strategic position. First of all, he would say that the statement of his hon. friend had a very serious financial side to it. They had already borrowed £20,000,000 for naval works; they were now asked to add another £8,000,000; and the hon. Gentleman told the Committee that they would be asked to add another £10,000,000; and, in all probability, yet a further £10,000,000. The consolation which the hon. Gentleman offered—and he seemed to think it was a consolation—was that although he proposed that further expenditure dated from to-day yet there was to be no increase in the items. He himself confessed that, considering the enormous financial burdens which were being placed on the country, he would rather have been told that the sum now asked for would be final, rather than be told that the sum was not final though the items were. He was beginning to be quite appalled at the manner in which burdens were being laid upon the country. There was to be an indefinite number of millions for Irish land; an indefinite number of millions for Morgan subsidies; nearly £30,000,000 for naval works; and other sums in every direction were being put on the country. It almost made him sometimes believe that His Majesty's Ministers did not know the difference between £1,000,000 sterling and a £5 note. It was really a very serious matter, but he would not dwell upon it now. First of all, he would say that he entirely disagreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite who suggested that he had some doubt as to the advisability of introducing electric light into the dockyards.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he referred only to the inadvisability of
  1270
  introducing such work into the present Bill.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he could well understand that the cost of introducing electric light would be so great that he could not think anything could be more proper in a Bill of this kind. If they had electric power in the dockyards it could be switched on and off and great economy could be effected. The only objection that would be entertained to it would be by members of dockyard constituencies when they found a large number of men discharged, their places being taken by electric power. The other matter on which he wished to congratulate his hon. friend was the purchase of coastguard stations. That was an exceedingly proper thing to do. It was an ideal thing to be put into a Bill of this kind; and, in fact, it was the only ideal thing that was connected with this method of raising money. He wished he could say that of the other works mentioned in the Bill. He wished to place before the Committee what he thought was a matter for the gravest consideration with regard to the new naval base. The hon. Gentleman opposite asked what sort of a naval base it was to be. He could not conceive any doubt in the matter. He imagined—he spoke subject to correction—that it would be nothing less than a Portsmouth or Plymouth; and until his hon. friend corrected him, that was the assumption on which he would argue. There was, of course, another and a secondary kind of naval base, which was extremely useful—a jumping-off place which might be established in the Scilly Isles or in the Orkneys. He always deeply regretted that he had not been able to induce His Majesty's Ministers to establish secondary naval bases where ammunition, coal and rations could be kept, but where there would be no repairing facilities. He regretted that such bases were not established in the Scilly Isles and in the Orkneys. The establishment of a naval base in the Firth of Forth, as was now proposed, was a matter of extreme importance, because it was one of the most important acts of strategy, properly so

  1271
  called, that could be taken by any Government. It was upon the choice of naval bases, the spots where the fleets were to be centred, where ships were to be brought for repairs if injured in action, that the exercise of the power of this country in time of war would depend; and, therefore, it was of the most essential importance that those bases should be chosen properly. To his mind, this country was already provided with the right places, and only places it wanted. The long line of 600 miles from Brest to the mouth of the Elbe represented the naval front of Europe towards England, In the centre of that line was Calais; and if a perpendicular line were drawn from Calais it represented the battle coast of England and Scotland. The line from Brest to the mouth of the Elbe was the only line that this country had to deal with; and it was dealt with most admirably by the present establishment at Chatham for that part of the line which extended from Calais to the mouth of the Elbe, and by the establishments at Portsmouth and Plymouth for that part of the line which extended westward from Calais. Having laid down that broad principle, he would ask permission to read two extracts from that great strategetic authority, Captain Mahan. The first was—
  "The geographical position of a country may not only favour the concentration of its forces, but give the further strategic advantage of a central position and a good base for hostile operations against its probable enemies. This, again, is the case with England: on the one hand she faces Holland and the northern Powers, on the other France and the Atlantic. When threatened with a coalition between France and the naval Powers of the North Sea and the Baltic, as she at times was, her fleets in the Downs and in the Channel, and even that off Brest, occupied interior positions, and thus were readily able to interpose their united force against either one of the enemies which should seek to pass through the Channel to effect a junction with its ally."
  The other short extract he would read was as follows—
  "If in addition to facility for offence, Nature has so placed a country that it has easy access to the high sea itself, while, at the same time, it controls one of the great thoroughfares of the world's traffic, it is evident that the strategic value of its position is very high. Such again is, and to a greater degree was, the position of England. The trade of Holland, Sweden, Russia, Denmark, and that which
  1272
  went up the great rivers to the interior of Germany had to pass through the channel close by her doors.
  That was the case to-day, and all that trade still passed our doors. The position was the same to-day as it was a hundred years ago and as it would be a hundred years hence. The strategic position of England for naval purposes was probably unmatched in the world. The naval doors in this country were always open and were almost incapable of being closed by a hostile fleet. The conclusion he had arrived at was this, that if they drew a straight line from Brest to the mouth of the Elbe, and a perpendicular line from that line, in Chatham, Portsmouth and Plymouth, this country had not only every naval base it required, but the best that were to be found in any part of these Islands, for acting on the coast of Europe. Chatham was nearer to Belgium, Holland and Northern Europe than the Firth of Forth was. There was no part of the northern coast of Europe to which Chatham was not as near as the Firth of Forth, and, as regarded most places, it was nearer. The advantage was in keeping this country's fleets in positions from which they could concentrate, and, therefore, in his opinion it was a mistake to make a great naval repairing base on the Firth of Forth. What ought to be done was to make secondary naval bases, one in the Orkneys and one in the Scilly Isles. The effect of establishing a great naval base at Rosyth would be that the squadron stationed there would be separated from the greater part of the other naval armaments of the country, if ever a naval combination were formed against this country. He considered that strategy to be entirety false. He had ventured to give the Committee the general principles of what he conceived to be the true strategy to be adopted.
  The principal point the Committee had to consider was that the £200,000 now asked for was not to be the total sum. It would involve the expenditure of millions upon millions in the construction of new docks, new arsenals, and new workshops, and further millions for the maintenance of them when they were there. He had thought over the matter with considerable

  1273
  anxiety. His own belief was that a great mistake had been made; and that it would have been very much better to increase the accommodation they now had in what he considered to be the unmatched naval centres at Chatham, Portsmouth and Plymouth, rather than to establish a new naval base at Rosyth. No doubt this matter of high strategy was one which it was presumptuous for a person like himself to deal with. Nevertheless, he had given a great deal of consideration to strategic questions, although he put forward his views with the diffidence which became him. He wished to ask whether this new naval base and its establishment was, as a strategic question, submitted, considered, and decided upon by the Defence Committee—he meant the new Committee of Defence instituted by the present Government about a year ago. That Committee of Defence was very far from being perfect. He was conscious of its defects, and it seemed to him to be very imperfect indeed. But, at any rate, it was the only body they had in this country competent to deal with strategic questions. He should like to ask the hon. Gentleman definitely whether the question had been considered by the Defence Committee and whether in the Second Reading of this Bill the House would have the advantage of the presence of a member of that Committee to defend this plan on strategic grounds. He would not vote against the Motion; but he was opposed to the enormous and largely increasing burdens which were being placed on the country; and he expressed his very serious doubt as to the strategic value of the proposed new naval base.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid he wished to put a few questions to the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman stated what the new items were and he should like to know what the items were in the existing Act for which the Estimates had been considerably increased. Those details were given in previous Naval Works Bills. In 1901 the Controller and Auditor-General reported that the total estimated cost of new works was something like £2,000,000, and the total amount of the increased Estimates for existing works
  1274
  was also £2,000,000. He could not follow some of the hon. Gentleman's figures as to the future expenditure. It was now apparent, as many of them had foreseen, how the system of Naval Works Bills had increased hand over hand and had become more and more expensive every year. When the practice began the expenditure was only £1,000,000 per annum. Then it went up £2,000,000 and then to £3,000,000 and now this Bill was calculated on the basis of £4,000,000. That was an enormous sum for the Admiralty to borrow in the course of its ordinary year to year transactions. Then the hon. Gentleman called attention to an alteration as regarded the terminable annuities, and said that instead of being paid off in 1925 they would run for thirty years. He agreed with his hon. friend the Member for Dundee in thinking that that was an alteration which should be fully considered. It was an alteration which did not commend itself to him, and he viewed with the utmost distrust the continual use of the borrowing powers of the Government for objects which did not appear to him to be suitable for the exercise of such powers, but which should be paid for out of the annual Estimates. Some of the items mentioned in the Bill did not seem to him to be matters which should be regarded as capital expenditure. His hon. friend alluded to the installation of electric lighting in the dockyards. He should imagine that that might be paid for out of the annual Votes. As regarded the following three items he was not sufficiently acquainted with naval affairs to express an opinion, and therefore he would suspend his judgment. There was, however, a very large and substantial financial alteration in the Bill to which his hon. friend had already alluded—the form of the Bill had been altered considerably. There was no estimate given of the total cost of Rosyth.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that £200,000 would be inserted.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that the hon. Gentleman was much better acquainted with the facts than he was, but he thought it was in the recollection

  1275
  of the Committee that Column I of the previous Naval Works Bill conveyed to the House of Commons what was the total estimated cost of the works which were in process of construction. As far as he gathered from the statement of the hon. Gentleman, the Committee had received no intimation as to the estimated total cost of Rosyth. In the early days of those Bills they always contended that the Military Works Bills should conform to the Naval Works Bills because the latter gave the House of Commons very important information as to the cost of the works, but apparently the House of Commons was not to enjoy for the future the information as to the amount of their commitments on naval works. As far as he understood the hon. Gentleman, they would only be able to learn from year to year and by degrees what was to be the total cost of the new naval works, especially the two most important works—Keyham dockyard and the new naval base in the Firth of Forth. As he understood that the Second Reading of this Bill was to be taken immediately after the Irish Land Bill had passed through Committee, he thought they should have the fullest possible information given them on the present occasion.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLANsaid he desired to congratulate the hon. Gentleman upon the statment he had made. The Bill was said to be final, but he knew of no finality when they were dealing with Government requirements. He thought the hon. Gentleman would have done better to have kept that word out of his speech. He agreed with the policy of installing electric light and power in the dockyards. The Admiralty would save a great deal of money by adopting that course, and they might long ago have stopped the wasteful burning of coal by adopting electricity for purposes of power. He hoped all the principal machinery in the dockyards would each have its own motor attached to it, so that it could be run without interfering with other machines. He quite agreed with the necessity of making Sheerness a torpedo-destroyer base. It was eminently suited for that and for nothing else. The Government had been building sloops there to keep
  1276
  the place going. Then with regard to torpedo ranges that was also a necessity. In regard to Chatham dockyard he had visited it last week and was surprised at the cramped condition of the dockyard. The Admiralty had no room to do the work. It was essential that there should be extension there. In regard to the new naval base at Rosyth. Scottish people did not like that name. The historical associations of the place were linked with the other name, St. Margaret's Hope. But they were quite proud and glad as Scotchmen to think that the Admiralty had at last awakened to the necessity of giving back to Scotland something of what they had taken from her in bygone years. He thought the Government would be wise to establish an arsenal at Rosyth. He did not agree with the Member for King's Lynn. But if they were to make an arsenal at Rosyth he hoped it would be a proper one. The place was eminently suited for an arsenal, and it ought to be established at a minimum cost. They had deep water there, and he hoped they would have plenty of docks—large docks. He appealed to the Government not to make it a mere repairing factory, but to lay down works so that ships might be built there if required. The place was in the centre of a coal district, and in the centre of an iron district. The Admiralty could get its armour plates delivered there at very little cost, much less than they were paying for the carriage of these plates to the southern dockyards. He quite understood that the Admiralty could not yet give information as to the probable cost of the new establishment. Until the plans were drawn and the quantities taken out it was impossible to give even an approximate estimate. Alluding to the remarks of the hon. Member for King's Lynn he said it was all very well for Captain Mahan to say what Britain did in bygone days with her fleets down in the south. But it must be borne in mind that this is the steam age. Vessels from the Baltic might reach the coast of Scotland in twenty-four hours. If we had a naval engagement in the North Sea, what would happen if our ships had to go down to Portsmouth or Chatham to be mended? The proper thing to do

  1277
  was to have a base in Scotland, so that in the event of a battle in the North Sea, damaged vessels could put into the Forth and get Scotchmen to put them right again and ready for sea as quickly as possible. He hoped the new base would be a credit to the Admiralty. He hoped it would be thoroughly up-to-date in every particular, and that every appliance, every tool, every machine, would be of the most modern type. With regard to the land, he thought the Government had got it very cheaply. It had only cost about £80 an acre. They had made a very good bargain. He thought the proposal to purchase the coastguard stations a good stroke of business. He congratulated the Admiralty again upon the course they had taken in regard to Rosyth. They required more docks. Their present docks were all congested. They had to send their ships to private yards to be repaired, and were running up bills year by year for repairs. They would find it would be cheaper in the end to have such a place as was contemplated constructed on modern lines. He hoped the new dockyard would be built and equipped in the most modern style, and that it would be not only a credit to the Admiralty, but also of great value to the Empire as a whole.
  *MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid the speeches dealing with the new naval base ought to be divided between its economic and strategic value. While he had great respect for the opinion of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who examined these subjects so studiously, he was bound to say that if the Council for National Defence had decided that Rosyth was a reasonable position for a new naval base, he was satisfied. He could not doubt that it would be more economical to build a dockyard at the new base at Rosyth than to enlarge the dockyards in the south where land was so much more expensive. He congratulated the hon. Gentleman on the steps that had been taken, and would support the Resolution before the Committee.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid the decision of the Admiralty to establish a naval station in Scotland had given great satisfaction. The great object of the Admiralty was
  1278
  the development of the national system of defence, and the economical spending of public money. The question divided itself under the heads of strategy, and efficient and cheap construction. As regarded strategy, it was no doubt unfortunate that the matter had not been considered by a regularly working and properly constituted Committee of Defence, but the country had considerable confidence in the direction of naval strategy by the Admiralty, and there would not be any general disposition to question the wisdom of the determination to have a naval base in the north. The same remarks would apply to the question of the convenience of any selected station for repairs. These were mainly matters for experts, and in the main the country would have to be guided by the experts' advice. With regard to construction, however, they might be permitted to have an opinion. The manner in which shipbuilding naturally gravitated to the north of England and Scotland, showed that construction was more economically conducted there than in the south. The shipbuilding yards in the south would not have been very considerable apart from the Government establishments. There was always a considerable amount of waste in the older establishments—though he admitted that great efforts had been made for some time past to inculcate economy, and to bring those establishments up to date—and he conceived that in laying out a perfectly new station in a country where construction was conducted most economically, there would be a great opportunity to reduce the cost of construction for the Admiralty as a whole. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would say whether this station was to be a real constructing base. Such an object could be secured, either by having the proper docks and construction arrangements on the spot, or by carrying out the project of connecting the east and west coast by a deep-water canal. He shared the view that the construction Votes left the Committee somewhat in the dark as to the real amount of the expenditure on the Navy. They reminded him of the extraordinary Budgets of foreign Powers, and he thought it would be much better if the country could know from year to year

  1279
  the exact cost of the Navy, including the amount spent on construction. As a matter of fact, the sum was nearer £40,000,000 than the amount which appeared on the Navy Estimates.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that from an Imperial point of view, apart altogether from the question of strategy, the Government were to be congratulated upon their decision to establish a naval station in Scotland. As far as the building and repairing of ships was concerned, no more economical site could have been secured, seeing that it was in close proximity to skilled labour and raw materials. Enormous sums had to be paid for the carriage of plates to the establishments in the south, in addition to other expenditure, which would be practically avoided in connection with this new station. The Admiralty had acted wisely in taking plenty of land, as frequently Departments of State took too little to begin with, and then, when it was necessary to extend the works, huge sums had to be paid for additional land, the very existence of the Government establishments having largely increased the value of the neighbouring property. He did not altogether agree that the land had been secured very cheaply. There were 1,200 acres, of which the rental was £1,600, and the price the Admiralty had paid was £122,000, figures which seemed to support the view of those who urged the taxation of land values, because the rental was a very small item compared with the land value claimed from the Government. He asked whether the Admiralty possessed an open mind on the question of connecting the east and west coasts by canal. This site would be rendered much more valuable as a naval base if that could be done, as it would then be in touch with the great shipbuilding yards of the west coast.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid the debate rather showed the inconvenience of making any statement at all at the Resolution stage of these matters. There might be advantages in so doing, but there was clearly one disadvantage—viz., that whereas, if he brought in a Bill which included such a question as that of
  1280
  the new dockyard at Rosyth, it would have been his duty to explain exactly the grounds on which it was proposed; the present stage was not the occasion on which to do that, and it was somewhat inconvenient that Members should be put in the position of having to discuss such questions without having had placed before them any reasonable arguments in favour of the proposals. He therefore thought the old practice of making no statement at all was the better one in that respect.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESdissented.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid the hon. Gentleman's experience extended over a longer period than his own, but certainly in regard to the present series of Works Bills, which went back only to 1895, the uniform practice had been to make no statement. He would defer going into details until the Second Reading of the Bill, when he hoped to place a reasoned statement before the House, but one or two Questions had been asked, in reply to which he might say a word. He did not think strategists would agree with the hon. Member for King's Lynn that the only road from the Baltic and the North Sea was through the English Channel. He doubted whether under the new tactics it was desirable to be quite as near the enemy's coast as it was under the old conditions. He did not propose to go further into that question. He agreed with the remarks made upon both sides of the House as to the advantage which this naval base site would have from the point of view of construction. His hon. friend had asked whether the strategical question had been considered by the Defence Committee. This matter was fully considered and had been decided upon before the new Defence Committee was constituted, but every member of the new Defence Committee was fully aware of the nature of this proposal, and every one of them concurred in it. It had also received most careful consideration from the naval advisers of the Admiralty. With regard to the Question asked by the hon. Member for Perthshire, he might say, without going into details, that the total amount of increase upon the whole items was £4,000,000, and of this total £2,500,000 was due to the new items and £1,500,000

  1281
  for old works. With reference to the increase in the annual expenditure, the hon. Member opposite had remarked upon the fact that, during the first beginnings of spending under these Acts, the sum spent in a year was at first £1,000,000, and it had grown first to £2,000,000, then to £3,000,000, and now it was £4,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, who was responsible for this system, defended it on the ground of equalising the expenditure over a series of years. If these works had been undertaken and placed upon the annual Votes, they would have been very uneven, and one year the expenditure might have been £1,000,000 and another year £2,000,000, and some years £3,000,000, and even £4,000,000 in individual years. The expenditure was small when the work was first begun and when it was finished, but during the intervening time the expenditure was large, therefore they must have increasing and decreasing expenditure. Therefore, though the expenditure varied largely from year to year by this Act that varying expenditure was converted into an even method of payment, and that was one of the main reasons why this system had been adopted. The hon. Member had stated that he considered that the electric lighting should have been placed on the Votes, and not on this Bill at all. He thought that was a very reasonable observation to make, but he would see that when a great work of this kind was to be undertaken it was very desirable to treat it as a whole, and deal with it upon a comprehensive basis. It would be hard on any one year to place upon it this large item, and on those grounds it appeared to him to be more reasonable to put it in the Loans Act. He trusted the hon. Member for Lanark would excuse him not following him into detail upon the question he had raised, because he hoped to make a full statement upon the Second Reading of the Bill. He hoped they would be able to get to the Report Stage on Monday and then the Bill would be printed and distributed. By Friday next he thought they might be in a position to take the Second Reading. He thanked hon. Members on both sides for the very favourable reception they had given to
  1282
  these proposals, and he hoped further discussion would be deferred until next Friday.
  Resolved, That it is expedient to make further provision for the construction of works in the United Kingdom and elsewhere for the purposes of the Royal Navy, and to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding £7,996,000, as may be required for those purposes, and to make provision for raising, in the manner provided by Seetion 5 of the Naval Works Act, 1895, the sums so issued by terminable annuities for a period not exceeding thirty years from the date of the borrowing.—(Mr. Pretyman.)
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committe), further considered.
  Proceedings resumed on Amendment proposed [23rd June] to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 5, to leave out the word 'any,' and insert the word 'every.'"—(Mr. Tennant.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'any' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid the reasons which led him to suggest and support the making of the Bill obligatory upon local authorities seemed to him to be still conclusive. On the Second Reading of the Bill he pointed out to the Home Secretary the inconvenience of having in two adjacent localities a different state of the law with regard to these matters. He was sorry that his right hon. friend was not able to be present during the discussion of the Bill in Grand Committee. He himself maintained in Grand Committee, and he still maintained, that if a Bill of this kind was to be satisfactory they must make the administration uniform. If they took two adjacent towns like Manchester and Salford, it would be found that they would raise an enormous amount of hostility to the authority which put this Bill into force if the other authority

  1283
  did not do the same thing. They would raise in the minds of people who did not come under the law a sense of injustice which was most undesirable, and a feeling which was not, at all events, for the well-being of the community. If there was any class of legislation that ought to be made compulsory on the local authority, it was that class which affected the well-being of the people, and for these reasons he thought that it would be much more satisfactory if the law were made compulsory instead of permissive. In Grand Committee his hon. friend the Under Secretary stated certain objections to this course. He pointed out that they might have a local authority making and submitting for the approval of the Home Office ridiculous by-laws which the Home Office would not sanction, and in that way the Department would be put into a position of conflict with the local authority. He admitted there was some force in that argument. It was above all desirable that local authorities should look upon the Departments with which they had to deal rather as their friends than their masters. That argument had some weight with him, but he felt, on the other hand, that it would be a weapon against such a course being adopted by the local authority, inasmuch as public opinion would not be likely to support the local authority making, if he might use the expression, fools of themselves, for that was really what they would be doing. That, however, was not the argument which had led him to take the course he was going to take on this particular Amendment. He understood from inquiries he had made among those who were interested in the Bill, that there was an absolute opinion that unless this Bill was to be permissive there was to be no Bill at all. If that was the case he, for one, was not prepared to risk the Bill for a principle which he thought was very vital, but not absolutely essential. There was this to be remembered, if the Bill was passed in an unsatisfactory form — and he thought it would be passed in an unsatisfactory form if made permissive, and the local authorities did not make use of it throughout the country—they would have an even stronger argument than
  1284
  they had to-day for making it compulsory when they afterwards proposed to have it amended in that direction. In the matter of the regulation of child labour, he could not suppose that this House would allow any abuses of the law to be perpetrated by local authorities without requiring the Home Office, or some Department to see that these abuses, were dealt with. He very greatly regretted that his right hon. friend would not give way on this point, but as it was absolutely a choice between having no Bill at all, or having it permissive, he would, notwithstanding the vote he gave in Grand Committee, and the opinion he still held on the matter, give his vote against the Amendment.
  DR. MACNAMARAhoped it was not a choice between a permissive Bill and no Bill at all. That was not the opinion expressed upstairs.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid he did not state that it was the opinion expressed upstairs. He said that was what he understood from inquiries he had made.
  DR. MACNAMARAhoped the hon. Member's inquiries would turn out not to be well-founded. Upon Clause 2 which raised large conflict in Grand Committee they got the word "shall" introduced by a majority of two. At another stage of the Bill and on another Clause a large majority got the word "may" inserted. They might compel the local authorities to make by-laws, but they could not compel them to carry them out. He reminded the House of what had been the experience in connection with the Education Act of 1870. By that measure it was enacted that local authorities "may" make by-laws, in respect of attendance at schools. Many authorities did not make by-laws and the result was that by the Act of 1876 it was enacted that they "shall" make by-laws. They would have to make two bites of a cherry in this matter also, unless they made the matter compulsory now. If they made it a statutory obligation that local authorities "shall" make by-laws, these by-laws might not be, in the first instance, thoroughly carried out, but

  1285
  the result eventually would be that local authorities would carry out their obligation. He thought the Home Office was a little timorous in dealing with this matter. This Bill was about eighteen months old, and public opinion had gone ahead of it a long way. The Depart mental Committee was quite clear in recommending that certain regulations which were not very exiguous should be laid down. Another recommendation of the Committee was that the local authorities "shall" make by-laws. The mere obligation of making by-laws would develop a conscience on the part of the local authorities. He would suggest as compromise that the Home Office might take away the controversial words "any" or "each," involving as they did "shall" or "may." He had not a shadow of doubt that if they passed the clause in that form the local authorities would feel it to be their duty to make by-laws and carry them out.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLhoped that the House would leave the matter free for the exercise of discretion by the local authority. He had looked into the statutes which authorised the framing of by-laws, and he found that with the single exception of the Education Act of 1876, these matters were left open and at the discretion of the local authorities. The Municipal Corporations got power in 1882 to make by-laws regarding matters of local government, and similar powers were conferred by the Local Government Acts. They had been found to be fully efficient. The fact was that they could not drive local authorities which had to act according to public opinion. If public opinion favoured such by-laws they would be adopted, but if public opinion was against them they would not operate in so favourable a manner. He had reason to know that difficulties in connection with the Vaccination Acts were recurring on account of the endeavour to force local authorities in that matter. There was also another difficulty. They could not compel an authority which had discretion in a matter to act according to an opinion other than its own. In the West Riding of Yorkshire, which was an absolutely moorland district, they did not need to have the same by-laws
  1286
  as in large towns. It was quite clear that the by-laws must vary in different parts of the country, and any attempt to build up a uniform system would be utterly impracticable, and disappoint those who wished to carry out this useful legislation. He felt quite sure that in this matter of the employment of children, as in all other matters, it was necessary to proceed carefully and cautiously. They must at once guide public opinion, and not go too far in advance of it. Steady, continuous pressure of public opinion on the local authorities would be far more efficient in the case of education than drastic measures on the part of a central authority.
  *MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid that the question whether the by-laws should vary was quite a different matter from the question whether it should be the duty of all authorities to make by-laws. He understood the legal view to be that, in practice, the word "may" was equivalent to "shall"; but if the Government would accept the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University, no doubt would remain as to the duty of the local authorities to make by-laws. That would get over all the difficulty.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid he was in favour of the word "may." An hon. Member had spoken very slightingly of local authorities, but he did not pay any attention to the instance which the hon. Member had given in connection with the Act of 1870, because the authority referred to was not a representative body at all. He believed there had never been an occasion in which it was necessary to coerce bonâ fide representative authorities. They could not go in advance of public opinion, and he believed that as soon as the Bill passed into law, all the local authorities, who were always on the watch for new legislation, would make by-laws if they considered them necessary, and if they did not consider them necessary no compulsory clause would induce them to make bylaws. The Departmental Committee reported that they did not propose that the making of

  1287
  by-laws should be compulsory on local authorities, and that it was possible that some local authorities might not make by-laws, or only make them for certain employments. That was a very sensible and practical recommendation; and he trusted that the Government would adhere to the word "may" and not accept "shall."
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE HOME OFFICE (Mr. COCHRANE,)said that ostensibly this was a drafting Amendment, but a more important question lay behind it, viz., whether the Bill should be optional or compulsory. His view was that it was not advisable to run any risk of setting up a conflict between the local authorities and the central authority. The better way was to persuade local authorities as far as possible to adopt the Bill. If the Bill were made optional at the beginning, he had no doubt the result would be such that the necessity for compulsion would not arise. On the other hand, if the Bill were made compulsory, some local authorities might take up an attitude hostile to it, and fail to carry out its provisions properly. In that case the central government would be powerless. They could bring their horse to the water, but they could not make him drink. During the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife recommended that the matter should be left to local option, as it would be extremely difficult to lay down rules for the whole country when the local conditions varied so much. He agreed with that argument, and he thought it should have some weight with hon. Gentlemen opposite. As to the practical point, the Department with which he was associated intended to send a circular round to the local authorities calling attention to the Bill and the powers which could be adopted under it. He was not prepared to accept any Amendment which would give the Bill a compulsory character.
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid he was opposed to the Amendment, on the ground that the local authorities should be trusted to exercise their discretion. Some of these authorities
  1288
  might only be willing to make by-laws applicable to some occupations.
  MR. TENNANTsaid that he was anxious not to delay the Bill, and he was conscious that it would be futile to take the division after the statement of the hon. Gentleman, which he greatly regretted. The House, however, should remember that the Government was reversing the decision arrived at by the Committee upstairs. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,)moved—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 5, to leave out the word 'shall,' and insert the word 'may.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas).
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLASmoved to omit Sub-section 2 of Clause 2—
  "No licence for street trading shall be granted to girls under sixteen years of age, nor shall any girl under sixteen be engaged in street trading without a licence,"
  In order to insert the following new sub-section—
  "(2) The local authority, in making by-laws under this section, shall have special regard to the desirability of preventing the employment of girls under sixteen in places or under conditions prejudicial to morality."
  He said this sub-section was carried in Committee by twenty-one votes to eighteen, and he had moved this Amendment in order to meet the views of those who, like himself, wished to regulate the street trading of girls below the age of sixteen, but did not wish to prevent their trading altogether. He thought it would be better to allow the local authorities to frame by-laws in regard to this matter than to adopt a general regulation. In many towns with which he had personal acquaintance it was the custom for farmers to supply

  1289
  milk direct to the inhabitants, and to send it in by girls in the morning. He would be sorry to see so useful an employment stopped, and hence he would leave it to the local authorities to make such regulations as would be in the interests of the girls. That would be preferable to laying down a hard and fast line by general law. There was a desire on both sides to place some limitation on street trading by girls, without absolutely prohibiting it in all cases. Some of them would like to see it stopped in the case of all girls between fourteen and sixteen years of age, but he was going as far as possible towards meeting that desire by moving this Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, to leave out lines 10 to 12, and insert the words 'The local authority, in making by-laws under this section, shall have special regard to the desirability of preventing the employment of girls under sixteen in places or under conditions prejudicial to morality."'—(Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  DR. FARQUHARSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman must have dwelt so long in the sweet security of the Home Office that he could not be aware of what was going on in the London streets. He was told by lady trends that it was impossible for a young girl, if she was in any way attractive, to walk through the streets without being spoken to in the most inconvenient and insulting way by men who spent their whole time hanging about the streets for the express purpose of annoying young innocent girls. In the interest of these young girls he should strongly oppose this Amendment, because he believed that it would make matters worse rather than better. He was unable to understand what was meant by suggesting that they would be driving the girls to worse methods. Surely because a girl could not obtain employment on the streets, she did not necessarily become a prostitute. Undoubtedly young girls who traded in the streets were exposed to great physical and moral danger. Let them consider for a moment what the condition of
  1290
  those girls was. They were reaching the most delicate and critical period of human life—the period of puberty, when sexual passions were beginning to work in their systems. That was what rendered this street employment most dangerous. And the physical danger was equally as great as the moral, for it was an age when exposure to inclement weather was most likely to lay the seeds of consumption, and to undermine their constitutions, while long and late hours were calculated to stunt their growth and their physical development. He did not want to labour the point, but he was bound to say he would prefer to raise the age of prohibition up to seventeen or eighteen rather than to lower it.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman had found a happy solution of a most difficult problem. This matter had been inquired into by a Departmental Committee which received some most careful and thoughtful evidence. It was also discussed at great length by the Standing Committee on Trade, and though there was some feeling in favour of entirely prohibiting street trading by girls under sixteen years of age, they were driven to the conclusion that this was one of the cases in which it was the duty of Parliament to regulate rather than to prohibit. These girls commenced the battle of life under most difficult circumstances, and he felt in this case, as he did in the case of young children employed in theatres, that it was no kindness to them to close every avenue of employment. The evidence laid before the Departmental Committee on the subject was highly valuable. The whole tenor of that given by the witnesses from Liverpool and Manchester was that the labour of these young people ought to be regulated and not forbidden. This was a difficult subject to consider in the House of Commons, for they really must consider what would happen to many of the girls if they were not allowed to pursue these avocations. Many assisted their parents, who were costermongers—a useful and homely if not very elevating employment—and among the labours of Lord Shaftesbury none were more successful

  1291
  than those which had for their object the raising of the condition of the costermongers. Let any hon. Member spend an hour one Saturday afternoon in a street in which costermongers plied their calling, and they would see how young girls assisted in the sales under their mother's eyes. As a rule they were honest, industrious, and properly conducted, and he for one would be sorry to see their calling interfered with, for if they were not engaged in work of this kind the probability was that the young girls would be exposed to far greater dangers, and their condition would be worse than it now was. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the solution he had offered and hoped that the House would unanimously adopt it.
  *MR. TENNANTsaid that with him it was a question, not of "some limit," as the Home Secretary had put it, but of absolute and definite prohibition. He could not agree that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would conduce towards the result which he believed the whole House had sincerely at heart. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire had told them it would be better to prohibit street trading by girls up to the age of seventeen or eighteen, and the proposal embodied in the Bill was really a compromise between the views of those who held that the restriction should be upon much older girls and those who were against restriction. The Lord Mayor and Chief Constable of Birmingham both stated that they desired to see the restriction of street trading by girls up to the age of eighteen or nineteen and it was urged that the danger was greater to a girl of eighteen than to one of sixteen years. But the House was accustomed to do things by steps—it did not like to "go the whole hog" at once. Again, if they wanted to keep the streets clear of girls up to the age of eighteen, they must, before they arrivedat that age, teach them some decent calling, or give them some training for an occupation which they could pursue, and if they allowed them to trade in the streets up to the age of sixteen they deprived them of the power of learning any industry. He would like to quote a point or two from the Blue-book, even at the risk of the
  1292
  displeasure of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. The Chief Constable of Liverpool said—
  "I think in the case of girls it is a considerable danger to them; they come so utterly to the bad in street trading."
  Sergeant Lloyd of Liverpool spoke in the same terms, and was in favour of entirely prohibiting it. Councillor McCabe of the Watch Committee and the Chief Constable of Manchester both considered prohibition desirable. Mr. Russell, of Manchester, Mr. Thomas, manager of a Home in Liverpool, Mr. Lord, the headmaster of a board school in Manchester, were all against street trading. Mr. Burke, Chairman of the Liverpool Schools Committee, said—
  "It utterly unfits them for any other form of employment."
  There was a good deal more evidence to the same effect. Indeed, as the Chief Constable of Birmingham said—"once a street trader always a street trader," and if they allowed these young girls to go into the streets at this delicate age, they denied to them the opportunity of being taught the means of earning a livelihood. The majority of street traders developed into loungers, loafers, and thieves.
  Upon the question of the future of these girls he would like to bring to the notice of hon. Members the Report of a Committee appointed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in 1902: Mrs. Tolerton said—
  "437.'… Street trading for girls is very bad for the formation of their characters and their habits. A girl, if she is to get work … must have a certain training which the street is entirely opposed to. … They object to the restraint of domestic life.'
  "439. 'Do you make any distinction between girls trading by themselves and girls with their mothers?' 'It all depends on the character of the mother. I have known cases of children trading with their mothers who were very much demoralised.'"
  "441. Asked whether she thought street trading might be so regulated that girls might trade in the streets without very great danger. 'No, I do not. I say that even with your regulations you would only reduce the danger.'
  Many societies had made it their business to investigate this subject most thoroughly, and had memorialised the House of Commons or sent resolutions to hon. Members. The Committee on

  1293
  Wage-earning Children had gone into the subject with an energy which commanded the admiration of all of them, and had reported strongly in favour of the I Amendment which originally stood in his own name on the Paper. The Christian Social Union, the Glasgow Charity Organisation Society, and the Glasgow Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children were in favour of the retention of Sub-section 2, Clause 2, and the Glasgow Juvenile Delinquency Board were equally anxious that that particular provision should be passed into law. They state—
  "They are specially pleased with the proposed exclusion of girls from trading in the streets."
  There was, too, in its favour, a resolution passed by the "Women's Co-operative; Guild," representing 16,000 working women. The School Boards of the great cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow had both petitioned in favour of his proposal. The Glasgow School Board state—
  "That they are strongly opposed to the Amendment standing in the name of the Home Secretary as interfering with the usefulness of the Bill. It is their hope that the subsection may be left as it is or in the form now proposed by Mr. Tennant as a new clause."
  And might he suggest to hon. Members who were not in favour of woman suffrage, that on them rested a peculiar obligation to listen to the voice of women on this subject, expressed in the only manner in which they could express it by memorialising Parliament. This was, indeed, a most important question, and as proving its gravity and urgency, he would like to remind the House that the Chief Constable of Birmingham in his evidence said that of 713 boys and girls who were found trading in the streets in March, 1901, 458, or nearly two-thirds, had been prosecuted for various offences within the previous six months—115 for felony, and 185 for gambling. What was it they were seeking to do? They were not disturbing trade by the position they were taking up; if they were disturbing anything it was vagrancy, which was daily productive of such serious consequences in the streets. As to the proposal of the Home Secretary, how could they "have special regard to a desirability," and who was to be the judge of what were
  1294
  "conditions prejudicial to morality?" The right hon. Gentleman was casting on the local authorities a most invidious task, and one which they would rather not have. The protection the right hon. Gentleman was going to offer to these poor girls was of a shadowy and nebulous character. The House now had a great opportunity of securing a reform, the fruits of which might be reaped in the lifetime of many of them. As there was an opportunity so was there a corresponding responsibility, and he appealed to hon. Members to realise their responsibility, and to remember that the young girls in whose interests they were asked to legislate were the mothers of future generations of Englishmen, on whose shoulders would devolve the destinies of this great Empire.
  SIR JOHN GORSTagreed that there was an overwhelming weight of testimony in favour of the total prohibition of street trading by young girls in the crowded streets of cities, and particularly in the Metropolis. But those who were in favour of giving effect to that opinion were placed by the present Amendment in an extremely difficult position, because the clause as it stood at present was in the wrong place in the Bill. The only effect of the clause as it stood would be rather to discourage the making of any by-laws at all relating to street trading. If a local authority thought fit to make no by-laws girls as well as boys might still trade in the streets; but if they wished to make by-laws the effect of this clause was to compel them to make by-laws excluding young girls from trading in the streets. That might very well discourage some local authorities from acting. He thought that they would all assent to take this sub-section out of Clause 2, and when that had been done they could put it in its proper position. It was mischievous rather than useful in its present position and did not carry out the desire of the hon. Member for Berwickshire. The substitution which the right hon. Gentleman proposed would do no harm, but, on the other hand, he did not think it would do much good; it was one of those benevolent aspirations after better things which sometimes found their way into

  1295
  Acts of Parliament, but which had no force of law and did not very much improve matters. What really ought to be done would be to insert some provision in Clause 3 (General Restrictions on Employment of Children). There stood upon the Paper one in the name of the hon. Member for Berwickshire which he would have been disposed to vote for, and if the hon. Member would move, as a sub-section to Clause 3, that no girl under sixteen should be allowed to trade in the streets, except in accordance with a special by-law passed by the local authority, he would support him.
  *MR. TENNANT: On a point of order. If the Motion of the right hon. Gentle man now under consideration is carried, would it be in order for me to move this in Clause 3 as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman?
  *MR. SPEAKER: If Clause 2 stands as it is now, or if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman now under consideration is carried, the House will have affirmed that under certain circumstances street trading by girls under 16 is legal, and therefore the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwickshire to Clause 3 would be out of order.
  SIR JOHN GORST: But if the House were to omit Sub-section 2 as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman other words could be put in, and then it would be open to the hon. Member to move them on Clause 3.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Yes, if the Question "that these words stand part of the clause" is decided in the negative, and if also the proposal of the Home Secretary is negatived, then it will be open to the hon. Member to move his Amendment on Clause 3.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he would strongly urge the Home Secretary to allow the words here proposed to be omitted to be negatived, and not to press for the insertion of the words which had been proposed, so that it would be open to them on Clause 3 to insert a sub-section dealing with the matter. He should be most favourable to the entire prohibition
  1296
  of street trading on the part of young girls, provided that such prohibition were confined to streets in populous places. He thought there would be considerable danger in making the prohibition so wide that it would include the case of girls in country towns who sold milk, or flowers, or fruit in the market place, a kind of trading to which there was not only no objection, but which he could conceive to be an extremely desirable employment for children on Saturday afternoons.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid he hoped the Government would settle this matter now, because the proposition now was to put it on to the next clause where the provision was a statutory one. He heartily agreed with his hon. friend with regard to the necessary employment in country districts of girls under sixteen years of age, but the Home Secretary had met that point in the Bill in a manner in which it could not possibly be met in any other way. They all sympathised with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Berwick, but they must be careful, lest in aiming at perfection in one locality they inflicted hardship upon other localities. The vice and difficulty of the Bill was that while a part of it referred to the big towns other parts referred to the country outside the big towns, and, in his opinion, unless they were very careful they would injure the rural districts where numbers of girls were engaged in selling milk or vegetables. From the wide character of the definition clause, every girl under fifteen might be shut out from employment, and, owing to the penalties placed upon employers, this would practically prevent their employment in agricultural districts. In that way they would be harassing and persecuting the poor people in country districts whose condition they would like to see improved, but they must take things as they were and treat them as they were. [An OPPOSITION MEMBER: And let them remain as they are.] No, the Gentleman who said that had apparently not had so much experience of the country districts as he possessed. In some districts they saw children under sixteen selling programmes; in others, children of from

  1297
  twelve to thirteen offering books about the birthplace of Shakespeare—poor children, taking home a few pence to the household. Were they going to put an end to that? Well, he would not. He knew what value a penny or two pence was to a poor family. He advised the House not to try, by Act of Parliament, to override the miserable exigencies of poverty.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he did not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman into the many topics on which he had descanted. At one period, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to him to approach perilously near to the one prohibited topic, the topic which was apparently in everybody's thoughts, but to which they were not allowed in that House to make more than the vaguest reference.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Do not make fun of a serious subject.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he wished to reinforce the appeal made by the right hon. Member for Cambridge University—that at this stage they should deal only with that part of the Amendment which, he thought, would have universal assent—the proposal, namely, to omit these three lines, and that they should leave over till the third clause the discussion of the prohibition of this kind of labour and the conditions attaching to that prohibition. He made that appeal in no contentious spirit, because he could not see that the words proposed to be inserted would have any practical effect whatever. To say that the local authority in making by-laws should have special regard to this thing or that thing was merely to offer a kind of Parliamentary advice for which there was no sanction, which every local authority was perfectly entitled to disregard, and which there was no reason to believe local authorities would feel themselves in any way constrained to follow. It was surely better to deal with the matter by laying down a general rule applicable to the country at large, and by then considering, as he himself was prepared to consider with a thoroughly open mind, whether or not certain relaxations should be introduced in order to give local
  1298
  option to particular places in the matter of exemptions of particular trades. He therefore strongly appealed to the Home Secretary to be content for the moment with the omission of these lines and to leave the general discussion over till the third clause.
  *MR. COCHRANEsaid his right hon friend proposed that the decision should be taken on the present Amendment, for an obvious reason. Section 3 made certain provisions compulsory on the whole country, but the framing of bylaws by the local authority had now been made optional. As the Bill at present stood, they had a general enactment that no girl under sixteen years of age should be allowed to trade in the streets. Now it would very likely happen that just those local authorities within whose area such trading was no evil at all, and who would wish to make an exception in favour of it, would have taken no steps to frame any by-laws, and would have to draw up a complete set for this particular purpose. Therefore, his right hon. friend considered that the present was the right occasion on which to come to a decision on the general question. What was the real point at issue? They all agreed that street trading was undesirable, but that was as far as they liked to go. After all, many of these girls had to earn their own living, and he entirely disputed the contention that in every case street trading was undesirable. In many cases these girls were exceedingly respectable. Were they to make it impossible for a girl under sixteen years of age to assist her mother in keeping a fruit stall in the street? He asked the House to consider what they were doing. What they really desired was to prevent these girls from engaging in street trading as a cover to something evil—walking about, for instance, in docks or public places in the great cities where it was obviously undesirable that girls should be engaged in trading or should be able to make their trading an excuse for going to. They could not lay down a general provision to deal with the question—they must in these cases leave the matter to the local authorities, who understood the situation. There was something to be said as

  1299
  regards girls under eighteen years of age, but girls under sixteen were already very stringently protected by the Criminal Law Amendment Act. He did not want to labour the point, as it was one upon which most people had already made up their minds. The plain fact he desired to point out was that they must leave it to the local authority to make by-laws restricting the power of these girls to engage in street trading.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid if the Home Secretary had taken the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University the House of Commons might have had an opportunity for legislating to-day for the overwhelming bulk of cases of street trading. They might have ruled out the very few instances of rural trading which the hon. Member for Bordesley had in his mind when he made his eloquent but irrelevant speech, but the Home Office had decided not to adopt the sensible course, and the result was that while the House of Commons was extremely anxious, as was shown by the voting upon this Bill when it was before the Grand Committee, to prohibit altogether street trading for girls under sixteen years of age, they were denied the opportunity of doing so. In this case they were going to give local option to the local authority to make by-laws; they were going to give local authorities under this Bill power which had been denied to them in the matter of regulating half-time labour which was made universal, and in the matter of the factories which was also made universal. This ought not to be left to the local option. This Bill ought to be made universal to save these children from temptation in the streets, factories, or workshops. The speech of the Under Secretary for the Home Department supported that view, because he had stated that all street trading was undesirable for girls of under sixteen years of age, and the reasons which underlay that speech were reasons that should compel the House to provide means of preventing it. The hon. Member had quoted the costers, but in the case of the costers, the fathers and mothers sold fruit or flowers in the streets, and possibly the big brother was there also, but the girl was at home
  1300
  looking after the little ones, and to the coster's credit be it said he kept her there. They would not find a coster girl in the docks, and if found in the docks she would be much safer there than selling flowers round the beautiful statue of Gilbert, or in Piccadilly Circus selling flowers and listening to the libidinous conversation of the gentlemen who purchased. He could not help being a London boy, and when he went to Victoria, Charing Cross, and Liverpool Street stations, and saw the girls subjected to these temptations, he held they had no right to allow them to be subjected to the risk of them. What was that risk? He would quote the chief constable of Birmingham. He would go to Birmingham for his facts, and would quote the chief constable of Birmingham because he knew more about this case than all the House of Commons put together. His duty took him into the streets night and day, and he had great sympathy for these girls. He said of the 713 boys and girls who were found selling in the streets in March, 1901, two-thirds of the entire number had been prosecuted for various offences; that 115 had been prosecuted for felony, and 185 for gambling. That reflected a picture of street trading which ought to be rendered impossible between this and ten years hence. The Chief Constable of Nottingham was of opinion that girls under sixteen should be prohibited from trading in the streets at all, but the hon. Member for Bordesley thought that if that was made compulsory, injustice would be done in a few cases. If there was one class of labour which had an opportunity of obtaining better and more moral work and more highly remunerative work than any other, it was girls between fourteen and eighteen, as was shown by the great dearth in domestic service, in café and restaurant service, and in factory work. There was no argument to be applied in support of the few trades touched upon by the hon. Member for Bordesley except the view that there was a disposition in the House of Commons to over-legislate for certain classes of people. He could understand that argument being applied to the case of adult men and women in certain circumstances, but these children were absolutely defenceless and were

  1301
  subjected to temptations to which they had no right to be subjected. He represented a district, mainly working-class, of which a large number were street traders, both men and women, and he ventured to say if their view were expressed in this matter, they would vote in favour of girls under sixteen being prohibited from street trading altogether. In these days, when they heard so much of the deterioration in the physique of the people, in these days when the House of Commons was sympathetically considering how the future men and women should be reared under better circumstances than the present, he might suggest that the best way to get healthy children of the future out of healthy mothers was to save the girls of to-day—the potential mothers of the future—from the temptations which surrounded them in street trading, which was not needed; that being so, they should prohibit it for girls under sixteen years of age as a general rule, and if the House desired to except such trades as the sale of milk and vegetables in the villages of the rural districts they could do so by another clause in the Bill.
  *SIR J. STIRLING MAXWELLsaid he felt very strongly opposed to the proposal put into this Bill by the Grand Committee, and was glad that the Government had decided to take it out. It struck him that the hon. Member for Battersea had argued his case entirely from the condition of things in London and Birmingham, and while he listened he could not help wondering why the power of local authorities to make bylaws could not meet this case. He did not think that local authorities would fail to deal with this subject if they had the power to deal with it. It seemed to him, that in this kind of legislation there was one thing they overlooked. The House ought to bear in mind that, if they overstepped the line which divided what was necessary from what became tyrannical, they would incur the danger of bringing the whole of this class of legislation into discredit. In his opinion this provision overstepped that line, and therefore he should vote against it.
  DR. MACNAMARAthought there was some obscurity of view as to what was street trading. He doubted whether the delivery of milk would be regarded as coming within the definition. In any case, the definition was confined to large towns ["Oh"]—and there was no reason why that should not be made clear. All were agreed that there was more objection to girls trading in the streets of big towns, particularly at night, and he would suggest the adoption of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University that all towns of, say, over 20,000 inhabitants should be scheduled as places in which such trading was prohibited. In small towns and villages the force of public opinion was more direct, and there were not the dangers that undoubtedly attended such trading in populous centres. The testimony from all the large towns was in favour of prohibition, and he hoped that, before they reached Clause 3, some agreement would be come to by which licences would be forbidden to girls under sixteen in towns of over 20,000 inhabitants.
  MR. SEELYsaid the House were practically agreed that street trading by girls under sixteen should be stopped in the big towns, but that to prohibit it in smaller places might cause a certain amount of hardship. Under these circumstances he suggested that the clause should be dropped, and the Amendment of the Home Secretary not inserted. It was said that the provision was intended as a finger-post for the local authorities. He was not in favour of finger-posts in Acts of Parliament, and the voting on this clause would probably act as a finger-post in the wrong direction. If the clause were now omitted, provision could be made in Clause 3 for permitting, under proper safeguards, street trading by girls under sixteen.
  MR. BRYCEregretted the Home Secretary would not allow this matter to be discussed on Clause 3, as it was really a question of whether or not there should be absolute prohibition. Whatever limitations were necessary or desirable

  1303
  could be imposed upon the general restriction, and the case of the small towns or rural districts would thus be met. By universal consent, street trading was a dangerous course of life for children to follow; it prevented them getting regular occupation, it cultivated habits of carelessness and idleness, and it contributed annually a large proportion of the juvenile offenders who were convicted Primâ facie, therefore, street trading was a pursuit which should be discouraged. This was a matter in which the House ought to be influenced largely by the weight of the authorities who knew the actual condition of things with regard to the dangers and temptations which beset these children, and, going by their opinion, he thought the House ought to introduce something more stringent than the timorous advice which this Amendment would give to the local authorities.
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid he could not accept the suggestion that they should postpone the discussion on this question until Clause 3. To do so would be to entirely upset the principle on which the Bill proceeded. He had pointed out, over and over again, the object and the value of the voluntary principle, and he must oppose the suggestion that this point should be made compulsory and be dealt with in Clause 3. He did not suppose that the local authorities would fail to make proper by-laws, and those authorities knew best what was good for the children in their districts. He could not therefore accede to the appeal made to him on general grounds. If he did so they would only have a longer discussion on the point on Clause 3, and probably lose all chance of passing the Bill this session.
  *MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid that inasmuch as Clause 3 was mandatory, the present point was the place in which any provision such as that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University should be inserted. He believed the Government desired to go as fur as they could in the direction of preventing street trading by children without inflicting the hardships to which reference had been made. He suggested the insertion of words to the effect that "no licence for street trading shall be granted to girls under sixteen years of age unless the exceptional conditions of the locality seem to require it,"
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question proposed "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  DR. MACNAMARAthought the words "streets or public places" were much preferable to the words "places or conditions prejudicial to morality," and he moved their substitution.
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid that being anxious to get on with the Bill, he would accept the Amendment.
  Proposed Amendment to the Bill amended, by leaving out the words "places or under conditions prejudicial to morality," and inserting the words "streets or public places."—(Dr. Macnamara.)
  Question put, "That those words as amended, be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 178; Noes, 98. (Division List No. 138.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Grardner, James Tynte

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasg.)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. Worc

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Charrington, Spencer

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Bignold, Arthur

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

  Bond, Edward

  Coddington, Sir William

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Bowles, Col. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Bull, William James

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.

  Ritchie, Rt Hon Chas. Thomson

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

  Lonsdale, John Browniee

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lowe, Francis William

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Robinson, Brooke

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Flower, Ernest

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Forster, Henry William

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Garfit, William

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elginand N'rn

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Grant, Corrie

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Groves, James Grimble

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Myers, William Henry

  Stroyan, John

  Gunter, Sir Robert

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

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

  O'Doherty, William

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Tully, Jasper

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Valeutia, Viscount

  Hermon-Hndge, Sir Robert T.

  Percy, Earl

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Platt-Higgina, Frederick

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Horner, Frederick William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Welby, Lt-Col A. C. E. (Taunton

  Hoult, Joseph.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Purvis, Robert

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Pym, C. Guy

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

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn E. R. (Bath

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  TELLERS TOR THE AYES—

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Renwick, George

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Edwards, Frank

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Ambrose, Robert

  Elibank, Master of

  Lambert, George

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Brigg, John

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Levy, Maurice

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lough, Thomas

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lundon, W.

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Hemry

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Burns, John

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Caldweil, James

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Crombie, John William

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Murnaghan, George

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Newnes, Sir George

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheff., B'tside)

  Partington, Oswald

  Dillon, John

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Pirie Duncan V.

  1306

  1307

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Sullivan, Donal

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Rigg, Richard

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

  Wilson, Chas. H. (Hull, W.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thompson, Dr. E. C. (Monagh'n N.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Russell, T. W.

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

  Younger, William

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wallace, Robert

  TELLERS FOE, THE NOES—

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Sir John Gorst and Mr.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Tennant.

  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 34, to leave out Sub-section 7."—(Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.)
  Question proposed, "That the words of the sub-section, to the word 'shall,' in line 35, stand part of the Bill."
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he hoped the Home Secretary would agree to leave in those words and insert some modification in the sub-section which would be agreeable to the House. After a child under fourteen had been at school twenty-seven and a half hours a week, it ought not before and after school hours to be allowed to work more than twenty-five hours a week. One-third of the children who worked out of school were employed for more than twenty-five hours a week. He was prepared to modify the subsection in order to provide that it should not apply to children who worked in a factory or workshop, because their case was met by other legislation.
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid the objection to this subsection was that it had been found impossible to carry out a similar regulation in the administration of the Factory Acts, because a weekly limit of hours could not be enforced. Also the limit of twenty-five hours would interfere with work under the Factory Act, as the half-timers worked from twenty-seven to twenty-eight hours, and, in some cases, thirty hours one week and twenty-five hours the next. Moreover, he was informed not only by agriculturists, but also by the Agricultural Department, that this sub-section would have a serious effect in the agricultural industry. He
  1308
  thought the best course would be to omit the whole sub-section.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYmoved to add at the end of Sub-clause 1 the words, "provided it is proved that such person is aware of the age of such child." He said he wished to safeguard persons who employed children who were apparently over sixteen years of age, but, in fact, under sixteen. Very often a boy who might look sixteen years of age was often not more than thirteen or fourteen. In case a farmer employed a boy upon the statement of his father or mother or guardian that he was sixteen years of age, that farmer ought not to run the risk of the penalties proposed by this section. He was very anxious to see the Act put into force, but innocent people should not be fined in this, manner, and the consequence of this course would be that local authorities would refuse to put the Act into operation. He thought there would be the greatest disinclination on the part of English County Councils to put this Act into force unless it was made clear that those employing children on the strength of the statement of their parents or guardians ran no risk at all. At the present time there was great difficulty in the way of getting children between fourteen and sixteen years of age, and if they put more restrictions in the way of people employing those children the difficulty would be increased. With the view of making the Act work more smoothly, he begged to move his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 3, line 23, at the end of Subsection (1), to insert the words, 'Provided that it is proved that such person was aware of the age of such child.'"—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid the Amendment had only just been placed in his hands, but as far as he had been able to consider it, he did not think it was necessary. It had not been found necessary in other Acts, and he did not see why an exception should be made in the present Act. He would, however, consult with his experts, and if it was necessary, and not exceptional, he would consider its insertion in another place. His own opinion was that it was not necessary.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he would accept the assurance given by the Home Secretary, and he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid the proposal contained in Sub-section 2 might lead poor people whose children were at work during the day into a great deal of trouble. He wished to; restore the words which appeared when the Bill was first drafted. It was not advisable to mix up the crime of work with the crime of cruelty or bad treatment. This was quite a different offence to that of parents being charged with cruelly neglecting their children.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 3, line 25, to leave out from the word 'sixteen,' to the word 'he' in line 27, and insert the words 'causes or knowingly permits a child to be so employed.'—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)—instead thereof."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid the effect of this Amendment would be
  1310
  practically to restore the clause to its original form. The clause was amended in this way after considerable discussion, and as it stood it was more effective, and in substance differed very little from the word, suggested by his right hon. friend.
  MR. GALLOWAYthought the Home Secretary might agree to insert the word "knowingly," which was originally in the Bill.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid that in order not to take up further time he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid the next Amendment standing in his name on the Paper was merely a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 27, after the word 'liable' to insert the words 'on summary conviction.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSmoved to leave out Sub-section 4, which provided that in lieu of ordering a child to be sent to an industrial school the Court might order the child to be taken out of the charge or control of the person who actually had the control or charge of the child, and committed to the care of some fit person who was willing to undertake the same until the child reached the age of sixteen years. Here it was proposed to take a child out of the control of the parent and send it to some other person to take care of it. That meant that if children violated the by-laws connected with work the parents were liable to lose them. That was a very strong order. A Departmental Committee had already reported that interference between parent and child for anything short of cruelty would produce worse evils than those it attempted to remedy. For cruelty and bad treatment they had ample provision already under the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Acts,

  1311
  and therefore this provision was absolutely unnecessary. Having regard to the fact that there was power to send the child to an industrial school, which was, in his opinion, a strong enough power, he did not think the additional provision was at all necessary. It was an interference with parental authority which this House ought not to sanction, and he would ask the Government whether they were not creating fresh crimes rather rapidly. Although the surroundings of some of the poor people were not what they ought to be they did their best. Fancy a charwoman going out to work, and upon returning home finding her child taken a way from her and sent to someone else to look after, and she would be obliged to pay so much a week towards its maintenance! If a parent thrashed or starved a child they had ample power to deal with the offence under the Cruelty to Children Acts, but if a parent broke a by law through letting a child go to work it was not the same kind of crime, and ought not to be punishable in any circumstances by depriving parents of their children.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 3, line 34, leave out Sub-section (4)."—(Mr. Jesses Collings.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'provided,' in line 40, stand part of the Bill."
  *MR. COCHRANEreplied that this provision, which was inserted in Grand Committee, created no new crime. A child was often more offended against than offending, and all the sub-section did was to give power to the magistrate, if he saw fit, to place the child in the care of an uncle or aunt, sister or grandfather, if such person was willing to undertake the charge, instead of committing the child to an industrial school.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked the Government to introduce similar proceedings into the houses in Belgravia. He asked permission to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 40, to leave out the words 'Provided that,' and insert the word 'and.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 13, at end, to add the words '(2) Where an employer is charged with any offence under this Act he shall be entitled, upon information duly laid by him, to have any other person whom he charges as the actual offender brought before the Court at the time appointed for hearing the charge, and if, after the commission of the offence has been proved, I the Court is satisfied that the employer had used due diligence to comply with the provisions of the Act, and that the other person had committed the offence in question without the employer's knowledge, consent, or connivance, the other person shall be summarily convicted of the offence and the employer shall be exempt from any fine. (3) When it is made to appear to the satisfaction of an inspector or other officer charged with the enforcement of this Act, at the time of discovering the offence, that the employer had used all due diligence to enforce compliance with this Act, and also by what person the offence had been committed and also that it had been committed without the knowledge, consent, or connivance of the employer, and in contravention of his order, then the inspector or officer shall proceed against the person whom he believes to be the actual offender in the first instance without first proceeding against the employer.'"—(Sir Francis Powell.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSmoved an Amendment with the object of preventing officers of the local authority from entering private dwelling-houses. He said this was a new clause which was introduced in Grand Committee, and it appeared to him that it would give power to any police officer to enter any poor man's house where children were suspected of being at work at a time when they ought not to be employed. That was a very great power to confer on a police officer, and he thought it would be very hard on poor people in this country that they should be harassed to death, not on account of any crime, but because,

  1313
  perhaps, they might be keeping their children up knitting or sewing. If he could get a teller he would tell against this proposal. It was a farce in these circumstances to call a poor man's house his castle. The Prussians had a proverb "Poverty is no crime, but it is ten times worse." This country was tending towards the adoption of that idea in its legislation. To be poor was an offence in the eyes of some. He wished they could do away with poverty and its sad incidents, but, while they had it, let them not turn poverty into a crime or ten times worse. They would never propose such legislation for the dwellings of any other class of people. He moved—
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 4, line 17, after the word 'place,' to insert the words 'not being a private dwelling-house.'"—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid he could not accept the Amendment. He entirely sympathised with the view of the hon. Gentleman with regard to a man's house being his castle, but what were they going to do? Were they going to prevent an officer who was armed with a magistrate's warrant from entering a dwelling-house where the Act was being contravened?
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid it appeared to him that this was a specimen of legislation of the grandmotherly kind. Apparently the State was going to assume the entire responsibility of bringing up families. He thought legislation of this kind was entirely contrary to the general opinion of the country. Every man ought to be master of his own house, and so long as no crime was being committed in it no one should have a right to go into the house without his consent. He strongly deprecated this ridiculous proposal, and he thought the Committee should set themselves against this grandmotherly system.
  *MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid he quite understood the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division, and the right hon. Gentleman
  1314
  the Member for Thanet. They defended the right of an Englishman to do as he pleased in his own house. That claim would include the right of a man to thrash his wife, to starve and sweat his children and sweat other people's children in his own house. The supporters of the Amendment sympathised with the poor no doubt, but he did not believe that what they proposed was an intelligent method of securing that the children who would be the next generation of adults should not be sweated. He was very glad that the Government had not given way on this matter.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid if the previous Speaker had known the two hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House longer he would not have cast aspersions upon them. The Amendment went very much further than he thought was desirable. It would, in fact, prevent the carrying out of the Act where it was well known offences were being committed. He asked whether the words in the clause were the best that could be put in to carry out the object in view. He was sure it was not the intention of the Government, or of his right hon. friend the Home Secretary, to injure the Bill, but the words seemed to carry the matter further than was intended. While there should be absolute power given for the carrying out of the Act, he did not think every local authority should get power to obtain from a magistrate an order for an officer to enter a dwelling house because the authority might have the idea that the law was being broken.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid if the hon. Member for South-West Manchester had been longer in the House he would not have been guilty of the discourtesy of implying that his hon. friend the Member for the Radcliffe Division had cast aspersions on the Members for Thanet and Bordesley. In former years the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet had often charged the right hon. gentleman the Member for Bordesley with supporting grandmotherly legislation. It was a touching spectacle—although it had its comic side—to see these two right hon. gentlemen now sitting together on the same side of the

  1315
  House reproaching others with a desire to introduce grandmotherly legislation. With regard to this particular Amendment the Home Secretary had pointed out that if it was accepted it would destroy the value of the Bill. Clause 7 was one on which the whole Bill turned, and if the Committee refused to give power to have the warrant of a magistrate executed inside a dwelling-house where children might be employed, they would reduce the whole of this legislation to an absolute farce. He was very glad
  that the Home Secretary had made up his mind to resist this Amendment.
  *MR. TENNANTsaid there were three trades which were carried on extensively in the home, namely, file-cutting, match-box making and brush-making. He should certainly support the clause as it stood.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 15; Noes, 252. (Division List No. 139.)

  AYES.

  Bond, Edward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Flower, Ernest

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

  Mr. Jesse Collings and

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Mr. Powell-Williams.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheff., B'tside)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Horner, Frederick William

  Tully, Jasper

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Garfit, William

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

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

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Halfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

  Crombie, John William

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bignold, Arthur

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Grant, Corrie

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardign

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Groves, James Grimble

  Bowles, Col. H. F. (Middlesex

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Bowles, T. G. (Lynn Regis)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londond'y

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Bull, William James

  Edwards, Frank

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Burns, John

  Elibank, Master of

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Caldwell, James

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasg)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

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

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Hoult, Joseph

  Channing, Francis Allston

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Hutchinson, Dr. CharlesFredk.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Forster, Henry William

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Coddington, Sir William

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Joyce, Michael

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Gardner, Ernest

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Labouchere, Henry

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Law, Andrew, Bonar (Glasqow

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Spear, John Ward

  Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Partington, Oswald

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks.NR

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Stewart, Sir M. J. MTaggart

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Percy, Earl

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn, M.

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  levy, Maurice

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lloyd-George. David

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stroyan, John

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.

  Price, Robert John

  Taylor,Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Purvis, Robert

  Tennant, Harold John

  Lough, Thomas

  Pym, C. Guy

  Thompson, DrEC.(Monagh'nN

  Lowe, Francis William

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm E. M.

  Lucas. Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lundon, W.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Remnant. James, Farquharson

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. EH.Sheffield

  Macnamara, Dr.Thomas J.

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Wallace, Robert

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Renwick, George

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Ridley, Hn. M. W (Stalybridge

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Rigg, Richard

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas.Thomson

  Weir, James Galloway

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Welby, Lt.-Col.A.C.E(Taunt'n

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  White. Luke (York, E.R.)

  Maxwell, Rt HnSir H.E (Wigt'n

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Ropner, Colonel sir Robert

  Wilson, Chas. H. (Hull, W.)

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Salop)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Morgan, Hn. F.(Monm'thsh.)

  Russell, T. W.

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

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Yerburgh, Robt. Armstrong

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Samuel. Herbt, L. (Cleveland)

  Younger, William

  Murnaghan, George

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Murphy, John

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Murray, RtHnA.Graham (Bute

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Sir Alexander Acland

  Myers, William Henry

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

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

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  O'Doherty, William

  Smith. Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  MR. TENNANTsaid that he had endeavoured to improve this Bill, but what had been done to-day had very largely taken away from any success they had in Grand Committee. He did not think the Bill was worth very much now. He begged to move—
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 4, line 26, at end, to insert the words, 'Proceedings may be brought by or in the name of any officer of the Corporation or County Council, or by an officer of the school attendance committee, or by a constable.'"—(Mr. Tennant.)
  Question proposed, "That those word be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid he could not accept this Amendment, because it would introduce a difficulty in carrying out the Act if he did. The words of the Amendment had a limiting and not an extending effect. At present as the Bill stood any person might take proceedings, but if these words were accepted they would limit the power to certain specified officers, and exclude the possibility of private persons or other proper officers taking proceedings.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 7, agreed to.
  Clause 8, agreed to
  Clause 9
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 37, to leave out the word 'rate,' and insert the word, 'fund.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 40, at end, to add the words, 'Provided that a County Council shall not raise any sum on account of their expenses under this Act within any borough or urban district the Council of which is a local authority under this Act.'"
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSmoved' an Amendment to leave out the word "means" at the end of line 17 and to insert "the Council of any county, or municipal borough, or urban district". He regarded this Amendment as a most important one. They were now for the first time in their legislation providing that the great mass of the population of England should have no power to administer their own by-laws. He thought he could make it clear to the Government that that was not only a bad thing in itself, but a bad thing in the interest of the administration of this Bill—
  And, it being half-past Five of the clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), stood adjourned
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered upon Monday next.

  PUBLIC OFFICES (DUBLIN) (RECOMMITTED) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  Clause 2.
  MR. MURPHY (Kerry, E.)said the hon. Member for East Mayo, who had something to say about this Bill, had left the House in the belief that there was no chance of its coming on this evening. He moved to report Progress.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  POOR LAW (DISSOLUTION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND ADJUSTMENTS).
  Bill to give power to dissolve School Districts formed under the Acts relating to the relief of the poor, and for facilitating adjustments or alterations of areas or authorities under those Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Long.
  POOR LAW (DISSOLUTION OF SCHOOL. DISTRICTS AND ADJUSTMENTS) BILL.
  "To give power to dissolve School Districts formed, under the Acts relating to the relief of the poor, and for facilitating adjustments or alterations of areas or authorities under those Acts," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 237.]
  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend The Infant Life Protection Act, 1897, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Spear, Mr. Duke, Mr. Schwann, Mr. Hogg, and Mr. Melville.

  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend The Infant Life Protection Act, 1897," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. (Bill 238.)
  Adjourned at twenty-three minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Romford and District Tramways Bill; A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Great Western Railway Bill; Report from the Select Committee, that the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 18th of June and Monday last discharged; and Bill committed.
North Eastern Railway Bill; Report from the Select Committee, that the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read and ordered to lie on the Table, The orders made on the 18th of June and Monday last discharged; and Bill committed.
Lancashire and Yorkshire and London and North Western Railways (Steam S Vessels) Bill; leave given to the Select Committee to adjourn over Monday next.
Harrow Road and Paddington Tram-ways Bill; Moved, that the order made on 16th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Bangor Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to Commons.
Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire Railway Bill. Read 3a, and passed.
Shropshire, Worcestershire, and East Denbighshire Electric Power Bill [H.L.], now Shropshir and Worcestershire
1246
Electric Power Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill, Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Brought from the Commons.
British Gas Light Company (Norwich) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
New Hunstanton Improvement Bill. Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
Military Lands Provisional Orders 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 Order Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to Order); The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Third Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Tuesday next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 154.)

PETITIONS.
  LAND REGISTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition against: of Society of Law Agents of Dumfermline District of Fife, read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  Further correspondence relating to the political condition of Malta (in Continuation of [Cd. 715], July, 1901).
  AFRICA No. 7 (1903).
  Return of concessions in the East Africa and Uganda Protectorate.

  RAILWAYS (CONTINUOUS BRAKES).
  Return by the railway companies of the United Kingdom, for the six months ended the 31st December, 1902.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Rule made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland, determining the number of centre superintendents to be appointed for the examinations, 1903; Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  HAMILTON BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of): My Lords, the reasons for suspending the Order made on March 16th in this case are these. Additional borrowing powers are very much required, and there was considerable conflict of opinion as to the period over which the repayment should be spread. Somewhat complicated negotiations had to be entered into, but I am glad to be able to say that the matter has now been arranged, and I believe in a way satisfactory to the officers of the House and in accordance with the usual practice. But those negotiations took a considerable time. I do not now anticipate any opposition to the Provisional Order, and I hope that in the circumstances your Lordships will agree to suspend the Standing Order in this case.
  Moved, that the Order made on the 16th March last, "That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a second time
  1248
  after the 18th day of June next,"be dispensed with.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to; and Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  BROUGHTY FERRY GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This is a comparatively small Bill. It was introduced into the other House early in May, and if it had not been for the intervention of the Whitsun holidays it would have been up in plenty of time. It only concerns an additional borrowing power of £20,000, and there is absolutely no opposition to it.
  Moved, that the Order made on the 16th March last, "That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a second time after the 18th of June next," be dispensed with.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to; and Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  IRISH LAND PURCHASE.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE: My Lords, as I understand there is no objection to the granting of the Return for which I have given notice to move, I will simply submit the Motion without further observations.
  Moved, for (1) A Return of the total amount of advances made to occupying tenants in Ireland, under the various Acts relating to land purchase since the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1870, to 31st March, 1903 (exclusive of tenants of glebe lands]; (2) A similar Return of the total amount of repayments made by such purchasers.—(The Earl of Belmore.)
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: The Government have no objection to the granting of the Return, but I am afraid it will

  1249
  not be possible to present it for ten days or a fortnight.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  *LORD REAY: My Lords, the first section of the Act of 1899, which it is proposed to amend by this Bill, provides that a school authority may make arrangements for determining what children in their district are defective or epileptic. By the second section of that Act the authority is empowered to make provision for those children by special classes, by boarding out near to the special classes, and by establishing schools certified by the Board of Education. The authority has also power to contribute towards certified schools maintained by others. The size of an establishment for boarding or lodging defective or epileptic children is restricted by the Act of 1899 to four buildings, in each of which only fifteen children can be accommodated. When the Act of 1899 left this House that restriction was not included in it; it was inserted in another place without any discussion, and was not contemplated in the Report of the Departmental Committee of 1896, which led to the introduction of the Act of 1899.
  The objections to the restriction are educational, administrative, and financial. From the educational point of view a larger number of children give more facilities for proper classification, and the teaching staff can, in a larger institution; be more adequately distributed among the children in accordance with the varied stages of their development and deficiencies. The children can, moreover, be divided into proper classes, separating those who, when they are not suffering from epileptic attacks, are equal in intelligence to those who frequent ordinary schools, from those whose mental capacity places them on a lower plane. From an administrative point of view it is equally desirable that these institutions should be in the
  1250
  country, where the chances of cure or improvement are naturally greater than they would be in towns, for in the case of these children everything depends on healthy surroundings and out-door exercise. A consequence of the residence in the country is that these institutions are isolated and dependent upon their own resources; and it is obvious that for the brightness and constant supervision of such a colony it is desirable to have a larger staff than that which you could have in an institution for only sixty children. Then, again, there must of necessity be an infirmary attached to an establishment of this kind, and the personnel of an infirmary for sixty children would be the same as that required for a larger institution.
  I need not say much with regard to the financial objection. It is obvious that the cost of schools restricted to four buildings in which only fifteen children can be accommodated is almost prohibitive, and at all events is quite disproportionate to that which would be entailed by an establishment comprising more buildings. There has been a perfect agreement between all the school authorities not to put the Act into operation with regard to epileptic children, and, as the Act is permissive, the Board of Education have no power to enforce it. The consequence is that epileptic children are at present excluded from institutions which the Act intended to provide for them, and their total neglect from an educational point of view results, of course, in their deterioration both physically and mentally. With regard to the only objection which this Bill has encountered, I would point out that the promoters of the Bill are as much opposed to the evil of excessive aggregation of children as its opponents, but the present state of things which renders the Act inoperative is intolerable. The Bill contains the safeguards which are required to promote the interests of the epileptic children. The Board of Education will make rules, and these rules will be subject to the criticism and control of both Houses of Parliament.
  I may, perhaps, give your Lordships the figures for London. The last schedules for London show that there

  1251
  were 374 epileptic children who were not imbecile, and it is only to those that this Bill applies. Of those, 256 were not attending any school, because they were excluded on account of severe epilepsy; fifty-seven were attending ordinary schools, twenty-nine special schools, and thirty-two non-Board schools. Now, if these 256 children had to be placed in institutions such as are contemplated by the Act of 1899, we should have to erect seventeen buildings and provide a staff for four separate establishments, whereas experts, I believe, agree that there is no objection whatever to an institution in which you might receive a larger number of epileptic children. Expert evidence does not warrant the wasteful procedure of the Act of 1899, and for a larger number of children you can secure better classification and greater individual care. The School Board for London hitherto has not put the Act of 1899 into operation, and has not incurred the charge of extravagance which is so often and so recklessly made against the London School Board. By removing this vexatious limit the Act of 1899 will cease to be a dead letter, and epileptic children will reap the benefit which the Legislature wished to extend to them. I believe that the noble Marquess has no objection to the Bill, and that he will support the Second Reading which I beg to move.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Reay.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): The noble Lord has stated that I, as President of the Board of Education have no objection to the Second Reading of this measure. He has spoken perfectly correctly. On the contrary, if I may say so, I think the noble Lord has done great service to the cause of defective and epileptic children by introducing this Bill. The noble Lord has dealt so fully and so clearly with the whole subject that it may be considered perhaps unnecessary for me to say any thing in endorsing the remarks he has made; but as, to a certain extent, the Board of Education will be responsible for the administration and the working of this Bill, it may not be out
  1252
  of place if I explain the reasons why I endorse the measure now before the House. The noble Lord stated with perfect truth that the Act of 1899 was the outcome of the Report of a Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the education of defective and epileptic children. The Act which followed that Report contained the following provision:
  "The Education Department shall not certify any establishment established after the commencement of this Act for boarding and lodging more than fifteen defective or epileptic children in one building or comprising more than four such buildings."
  As the noble Lord said, that was inserted after the Report of the Committee, for the Committee in their Report of 1898 stated that no home should contain more than twenty-children. Nothing had been suggested as to the limitation of the number of homes in each establishment. That has to some extent affected defective and epileptic invalids in a totally different manner. To a certain extent the defective children enjoyed advantages which were denied to the epileptic ones. It was possible for the defective children to attend day schools, to be boarded out—many in private homes—and also to attend special classes; therefore to a certain extent the limitation did not affect them. But it did affect very seriously those children who were suffering from epilepsy. No provision was made for them except the provision that they could be housed in what are known as certified homes.
  The noble Lord in the course of his remarks drew attention to the fact that up to now, owing to this limitation, no advantage had been taken by the local authorities of these so-called certified homes. We therefore are, to a certain extent, unable to speak from any past experience on that pointy but the noble Lord knows well that the London School Board has the control of what is known as the Anerley Deaf Boarding School, and we can take a lesson from their experience regarding that school as to what expense may be incurred, unless some step is taken to prevent unnecessary expenditure. I find that that institution comprises one school building and four cottage homes, built in two semi-detached pairs, each

  1253
  home containing fifteen children. The cost, including the site, was £28,000, and as only sixty children are provided for, that works out at £467 per child. Therefore I think the noble Lord has stated with perfect correctness that, if such expense is to be incurred, that part of the Act which was to benefit epileptic children becomes absolutely a dead letter.
  The present Bill, as the noble Lord has told the House, empowers the Board of Education to make rules for certified establishments which provide for more than fifteen children in each home, and for more than four homes in connection with each establishment. He has also, I think, very rightly brought to your notice that it is perfectly possible for either House of Parliament to render void any rule that may be passed by the Board of Education if notice be given within thirty days. This, I think, ensures to Parliament control over any action of the Board of Education. The Board of Education, from the experience they have derived, think it right to point out that this present limitation will undoubtedly prevent any improvement in the education of epileptic children. I know there are some who devote their time and attention to the question of education who do not entirely approve of this Bill. I think that they fear that what the noble Lord calls the aggregating of children, and what is called "herding" in the other House, will take place. That it will be the duty of the Board of Education to provide and guard against, and if proper care is taken there is no reason why supervision of the best character should not be given to each and every child in those homes. The character of the illness, and the character of the child itself, should be a matter of the gravest attention to those who are responsible for the administration of the Act. I therefore venture to say that while we are not the promoters of this Bill we cordially welcomed it in the House of Commons, and we cordially welcome it to-day, and I can assure the noble Lord that we will do our utmost to carry it out, not only in the letter, but in the spirit in which it is intended. I am confident that the Bill will be the means of rendering permanent assistance
  1254
  to those who are not in the enjoyment of that health which, I am glad to think, we all possess here.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES RILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  BISHOPRICS OF SOUTH WARK AND BIRMINGHAM BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.