Sitting of 19 June 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 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.:—
  Willesden Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Didcot, Newbury, and Southampton Railway Bill [Lords]; Scottish American Mortgage Company, Limited, Bill [Lords]; Fife Electric Power Bill [Lords]; Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill [Lords]; Liverpool University Bill [Lords]; Barry Railway Bill [Lords]; Taff Vale Railway Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—
  Alexandra Park and Palace Bill. Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, viz.:—
  Rochester Corporation Tramways and Improvements Bill [Lords]. Ordered,

  1421
  That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Harrogate Water Bill [Lords]; Rickmansworth Gas Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Broughty Ferry Gas Provisional Order Bill; Hamilton Burgh Provisional Order Bill; Military Lands Provisional Orders Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Derby Gas Bill [Lords]; Manchester Southern Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 250.]
  Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 251.]
  St. Luke's Church and Parish Quoad Sacra, Edinburgh, Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. As amended, considered, to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. Consideration, as amended, deferred till Wednesday next.
  Local Government Provisional Order (No. 18) Bill. As amended, considered, to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  Alexandra Park and Palace. Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

PETITIONS.
  BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Perth, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
  Petitions against: from Tenterden; Chichester; Bristol; Leytonstone; and Southport; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Petition from Southport, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL).
  Three Petitions from London, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petition from Callington, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL.
  Petition from Callington, against; to be laid upon the Table.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL, AND LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petitions against: from Plymouth (six); and Basford; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Bathgate, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against: from Wateringbury; and Southport; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Burnley; Newmilns; and, East Greenwich; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Westminster, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Two Petitions from Falmouth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
  Petition from Southport, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the county of Kent, in the county borough of Canterbury, and in the rural districts of Bridge and of Blean, and in the urban district of Hern Bay (Canterbury and Herne Bay Light Railway Order, 1903) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the County Council of Middlesex to take lands for widening roads on which Light Railways will be laid in the parishes of Edgware, Finchley, Friern Barnet, Hendon, Kingsbury, Little Stanmore, Southgate, Tottenham, Willesden, and Wood Green, in the county of Middlesex (County of Middlesex Light Railways (Lands) Orders, 1903) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways between Stockton Heath and Northwich, and elsewhere in the county of Chester (Warrington and Northwich Light Railways Order, 1903) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the compulsory purchase of lands for the purposes of Colne and Trawden Light Railways Order, 1901, and for other purposes (Colne and Trawden Light Railways (Acquisition of Lands Amendment) Order, 1903) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy Presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and
  1424
  modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the county borough of Warrington and in the parishes of Stockton Heath and Latchford Without in the county of Chester (Warrington Corporation Light Railways Order, 1903) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  AFRICA (No. 6, 1903).
  Copy presented, of Report by His Majesty's Commissioner on the East Africa Protectorate [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WELLINGTON COLLEGE.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Governors of Wellington College for the year ending 31st December 1902, with Accounts [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled. "An Act for further promoting the Revision of the Statute Law by repealing Enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary." Statute Law Revision (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Cobham Gas, Conisbrough Gas, Hailsham Gas, St. Ives (Hunts) Gas, and Woking District Gas." [Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Brading Harbour District Gas, Crossgates, Halton, and Seacroft Gas, Herne Bay Gas, Pembroke Docks and Town Gas, and Riddings District Gas." [Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for consolidating the capital of the Derby Gas Light and Coke Company; for enabling that Company to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [Derby Gas Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to incorporate the Manchester Southern Tramways Company, and to empower that Company to make and maintain tramways and other works in the county palatine of Lancaster and in the county of Chester; and for other purposes." [Manchester Southern Tramways (Lancashire) Bill [Lords], and Manchester Southern Tramways (Cheshire) Bill [Lords], now "Manchester Southern Tramways Bill [Lords."]

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  Third Report brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 212.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Inspection of "Registered Places" (Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876).
  DR. SHIPMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inspections of registered places have been made during the year 1902 by the inspectors appointed under the Act 39 and 40 Vic, c. 77 (The Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876), in England and Scotland and in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The number of inspections of registered places in England and Scotland made in 1902 is 118. As to Ireland, where the administration of the Act does not lie with me, I have made inquiries and am informed that no exact record has been kept of the number of inspections made.

  Suffragan Bishops and Parochial Appointments.
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the duties of Suffragan Bishops, His Majesty's Government will advise that in any future appointment of a clergyman to a Suffragan Bishopric it shall be made a condition that such clergyman shall not, during his tenure of the bishopric, simultaneously hold important parochial preferment.
  1426
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The hon. Member is perhaps not aware that Bishops Suffragan are nominated by the Bishop of the Diocese, and that the function of the Crown is merely to approve or disapprove the choice of the Bishop. As no emolument attaches to the office of Bishop Suffragan, as such, it no doubt does happen on occasions that the bishop is selected from the ranks of beneficed clergymen; but care is taken that in such case the needs of the parish are duly provided for when an incumbent is selected for appointment.

  Irish Lights Board—Report of Inspections.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the Commissioners of Irish Lights have given any explanation why in the four years 1898 to 1901 inclusive they forwarded no reports of inspections of local seamarks in Ireland, corresponding to those of the Trinity House and the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses; what is the number of Irish seamarks; the number inspected and reported on to the Board of Trade in the year 1902; and is the Board entitled by statute to insist on regular and systematic inspections by, and reports from, the Commissioners of Irish Lights.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Commissioners of Irish Lights urge that the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, does not render it incumbent upon them to make local inspections within any specified periods, but merely as they think fit. The number of Irish seamarks under local jurisdiction is roughly estimated at 350, including lighthouses, buoys, and beacons. Fourteen reports were received from the Commissioners in 1902, but the Board are unable to specify the number of seamarks covered by those reports. The Board of Trade are not empowered by statute to insist on regular and systematic inspections, but, as stated in my reply on Wednesday † to the hon. Member for South Dublin, I am in hopes that the representation which has been addressed to the Commissioners will receive their attention.
  †See page 1181.

  Preferential Tariffs.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the differential duties levied by the United States, Portugal, and other countries on certain classes of their imports from the United Kingdom, what were the values of those imports in each case for the five years preceding and the five years succeeding the imposition of such duties.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) As stated in my reply to the hon. Member for the South Molton Division on the 15th instant,† the differentiation against certain British products by the United States and Portugal does not take the form of imposing increased duties, but of withholding from such products the special concessions granted to certain other countries by reciprocal agreements and treaties of different dates. If the hon. Member will specify the years for which he desires to have statistics of any particular article, I will see what can be given.

  Goods Imported into the United Kingdom Ready for Use.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what proportion of the imports into the United Kingdom consists of goods which arrive ready for use by the consumer and have not to pass through any process of manufacture in this country, and the value of such goods, together with the corresponding figures ten years ago and twenty years ago.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I regret that it is not possible to give the information asked for.

  Hanwell Poor Law Schools.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will refuse to sanction any proposal of the managers of the Hanwell Poor Law Schools to increase the certificate of that school by 387 beds by certifying the old ophthalmic block for the reception of normal children.
  † See page 948.
  1428
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have not received an application from the managers for an increase of the certified accommodation at these schools, but I was recently informed by them of a proposal to utilise some of the iron buildings until lately occupied by ophthalmic children. Before expressing an opinion on this proposal I asked for further particulars, and at the same time I pointed out to the managers that I should not be prepared to sanction an increase of the maximum number of children maintained at the schools.

  Macroom Workhouse—Dismissal of Dr. Barrett.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Secretary of the Local Government Board, in April, 1902, intimated to Dr. Barrett, recently Medical Officer of the Macroom Workhouse, against whom no charge of neglect of duty has been made during his service, that if he did not resign within a week he would be dismissed without further notice and without pension; and, if so, will he state whether this action was taken with his sanction; and whether the Local Government Board would furnish Dr. Barrett with copies of its order and correspondence in relation thereto.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) For a number of years there had been constant friction between the officers of this workhouse, a condition of things for which Dr. Barrett was held to be mainly responsible. In 1899 the guardians suspended him from the performance of his duties, and the Local Government Board thereupon directed a sworn inquiry to be held into the matter, as a result of which the Board came to the conclusion that the step taken by the guardians was justified. Dr. Barrett was made aware of the charges preferred against him in the ordinary way. Subsequently to this inquiry he gave an undertaking to work harmoniously with the other officers of the union, and in view of this undertaking the Local Government Board did not at the time press for his resignation. He continued, however, to be a source of constant trouble to the

  1429
  guardians, and the Board accordingly formed the opinion that in the interests of good government of the workhouse he should be called upon to retire from the position of medical officer, failing which the extreme step of dismissal would be resorted to. An intimation to this effect was duly conveyed to him in April, 1902. He resigned, and was granted a retiring pension. It is not proposed to furnish him with a copy of the correspondence that has passed in the matter.

  Army Blankets from South Africa at Woolwich Dockyard.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that 20,000 blankets from South Africa have been recently discovered in store at Woolwich Dockyard; and will he state whether these blankets were used for service in the field, the date on which they were shipped from South Africa, and the circumstances under which they were dispatched to this country without being first disinfected.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) There are at Woolwich 20,000 blankets which have been handed over from transports coming home. These were washed before being handed over by the Admiralty, but as an additional precaution they are being disinfected. It is not known whether any of these blankets were used in the field, nor can any date of despatch from South Africa be specified, as they were only taken over by the War Department in bulk.

  Telegraphic Interruptions between United Kingdom and Australia.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the interruptions which have taken place in through telegraphic communication, via Canada, between the United Kingdom and Australia have been confined to that section of the line located in the island of Vancouver; and whether this section of the line was specially laid for the purposes of the Pacific cable.
  1430
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The interruptions which have taken place in through telegraphic communication, via Canada, between the United Kingdom and Australia have been confined to the Vancouver Island land lines, the western section of which was specially laid by the Canadian Pacific Railway for the purposes of the Pacific Cable.

  The Pacific Cable.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether the sea route of the Pacific Cable was that recommended by Lord Selborne's Committee, and if not, to what extent and why was it varied; and whether there is any proposal under consideration for linking the cable with the American cables at Honolulu.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The sea route of the Pacific Cable is that recommended by Lord Selborne's Committee. That Committee left open the choice between Panning and Palmyra Islands for the mid-Pacific landing place, but Fanning Island was found on further investigation to be the preferable station. The question of a connection with the United States Cable at Hono lulu has been raised, but no action has yet been taken in that direction.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state if the capital outlay in connection with the Pacific Cable includes the cost of special surveys made by the Royal Navy.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The cost of special surveys is not included. The soundings made by the surveying ships of the Royal Navy on the route of the Pacific Cable, though of great value, were incidental to and made in the course of their ordinary operations. The special detailed survey required for the determination of the exact route to be followed by the cable was carried out, not by the Royal Navy but by the contractors for the construction and laying of the cable.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that before he referred to the merits of the Bill he thought he ought to say a few words as to the method by which this measure had arrived at its present stage without one single word being addressed to the House by its promoters in defence of the Bill. This was a Bill to repeal the provisions of an Act passed in 1899, under which the Board of Education had acted ever since. Such a Bill should have been brought in and promoted on the responsibility of the Board of Education itself, and he congratulated the Secretary to the Board of Education upon having discovered a new method of passing through this House Departmental Bills.
  MR. PURVIScalled attention to the fact that there were not forty Members present.
  House counted.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Less than forty Members being present the proceedings will be suspended until a quorum is formed.
  SIR JOHN GORST, resuming his speech at five minutes past one, said that when he was interrupted by the Motion to count the House he was endeavouring to show that the Bill under consideration was intended to deal with a provision of an Act of Parliament under which the Board of Education had acted for some years. In his opinion, a proposal to repeal such a provision ought to be made on the responsibility of the Board of Education, and not of a private Member. He might call this "surreptitious legislation," because the Board of Education, instead of bringing in the Bill itself, had had it brought in by a private Member,
  1432
  although, no doubt, it was concocted and prepared at the Education Office.
  *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): May I say I never heard anything of the Bill until it was introduced.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I said the Bill was prepared by the Board of Education, and I will undertake to prove it.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: May I at once correct the right hon. Gentleman. I drafted the Bill myself without any previous communication with the Board of Education.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he had never heard of a Bill intended to deal with the policy of the Board of Education, and to repeal an Act of Parliament, being brought in under such circumstances, and he still felt that it had been done with the approval and sanction of the Board of Education. The Bill had been run through its various stages without a single word being said upon it, and although the hon. Member for Horsham knew it was to be opposed on the Motion for the Third Reading, he did not get up in his place and say anything in support of it. It was only by the purest accident that he himself happened to be present when the Bill was about to be read a third time, and was enabled thus to secure, at least, that some discussion of it should take place before it was finally passed. He was afraid that the arguments he was about to address to the House would not reach the ears of those who would presently vote upon the measure, and he could only say that he deeply lamented that that should be so.
  Now he came to the merits of the Bill. The object of the Bill was to repeal a clause in an Act, passed in 1899, to protect unhappy, defective, and epileptic children. It was intended to protect them from being herded together in large institutions. There were two methods of dealing with children who were under public management, and the better way, in his opinion, was to make a kind of home for them—a small home

  1433
  where a child could have individual attention, and where there was someone whom it could look up to and love, and also where it could mix with a few companions of its own age. That was the natural and best way in which a child should be brought up. When deprived of a natural home, the best thing that could be done for it, in the interests of the child itself, was to provide it with an artificial home. This method of providing small homes had been adopted in various cases, with the greatest advantage and success. The other method of bringing up children was the more popular one of herding them together in grand institutions and fine buildings, with large staffs and all the modern appliances. There they were brought up by a sort of machinery, they could not have individual attention, nor was there any particular person to whom they could look up and love, and they, therefore, lost the greater part of the advantages in the moral education of a child not attached to the atmosphere of home life. These institutions always had been and always would be extremely popular. There was, of course, the patronage of appointing the secretary, the superintendent, and the matron, there was the delight of building, and of having plans prepared and altering them from time to time. Then there was the ceremony of laying the foundation stone, which was attended by the principal persons in the county, sometimes even by a Member of Parliament, or a Member of the Government, and in some cases actually by Royalty itself, and, finally, there was the institution itself, a magnificent building which constituted a record of the charity and public spirit of the promoters. But, after all, these institutions were not favourable to the children put into them. On this point there was a Committee appointed in 1893 or 1894 by the Government of the day, and the chairman of the committee was the late Mr. Mundella, than whom nobody took a greater interest in the welfare of children. A large number of persons of different political complexion and ideas in regard to children gave evidence before that Committee, which, although it was appointed to inquire into the treatment of children in workhouse schools,
  1434
  eventually came to deal with the care of children generally, and reported unanimously against the practice of herding them together in these institutions, and in favour of their separation in small families and small establishments such as he had described.
  If he wanted to occupy the time of the House he could quote many passages from the Report of the Committee, and from the evidence given before it, which would very strongly support the case he was endeavouring to lay before the House, but he would content himself with saying that both the evidence and the Report conclusively established two things. The first, that these great congregations of children were very dangerous to their physical health. Ophthalmia, ringworm, and other diseases became very rife among the children, and could not be easily controlled. Although the children were kept extremely clean, were under medical supervision, and were excellently well fed, there being nothing wanting in regard to their care, disease dogged these great institutions. Secondly, the great majority of opinion was that the aggregation of children in those large institutions was extremely detrimental to their moral character and to all those qualities which were produced by love, affection, friendship, and human, treatment and care. If this method of aggregation was deleterious to healthy children it was still more dangerous to children, suffering from any kind of weakness or affliction. In this connection he would like to quote the Report issued in 1901 by the Metropolitan Asylums Board, which body had charge of all the defective children in the Metropolis. This was what that Report said—
  "The original policy settled by the Board on the recommendation of the Special Committee re children, and approved by the Local Government Board, was to provide for defective children by 'small houses on the vicinity of the special schools of the School Board for London where groups of children, say eight in each, could be properly attended and eared for by foster mothers.' … the word small coupled with the emphatic mention of individual care stands out on every page of the evidence given before the Poor Law Schools Committee of 1894–6 as the characteristic sought and advocated by witnesses of experience, and the Committee themselves adopted this view. Speaking of homes for normal children (the

  1435
  ease for the borderland children is naturally much stronger) the Committee say that it is of the first importance to keep the homes small."
  He would also read a letter he had received that morning from Mr. James Brown, an energetic member of the Metropolitan Asylums Board—
  "Feeble-minded children attend a Board school close by, and only in classes of small numbers. To house them in large buildings or to put a number of houses close together would ruin the scheme, the essence of which is that they should mix with strong-minded children and have bright surroundings. We tried to get self-contained houses for eight each, but finding this difficult we took several larger—one up to twenty. We all lament this now, and from experience shall not, repeat it. In another case we took three small houses and joined them together, but the matron or mother strongly recommends us in any future case to take houses not accommodating more than eight children, and to make them self-contained and a house mother to each. These children require constant and individual care, and we have many cases of great improvement resulting from this course. The whole scheme would fail if the numbers of those thrown together were large—they would imitate each other and so deteriorate. We have also taken away from Darenth Asylum 150 children of the educable type, and put them into a large home at Ealing. The removal from a large asylum into a comparatively small home with garden and playgrounds has had a marvellous effect even on those children who were imbeciles, In the smaller homes the medical care is much more personal and effective, and this is very important—also the feeding. The effect of the smaller homes is that the mother is able to detect and know intimately the mental and physical condition of each child, which would be impossible in the larger numbers. We have now obtained sanction to keep children up to twenty or twenty-one years of age, and shall have them taught, as far as possible, simple trades. This again makes it imperative to keep the number small so as to insure careful personal attention."
  That was the testimony of a gentleman who had given a considerable portion of his time to the care of these unhappy children. The colonist system, whilst it had not all, had a great many of the defects of the great institution system, and one of its greatest was that it was enormously costly. It had been very much taken up by Boards of Guardians for the children of paupers, and he would like to give an instance of the cost of carrying it out. The Board of Guardians of Greenwich had adopted it, and they had to spend £178,000 to house 600 children, or £290 for very child housed. St. Olaves spent £148,000 for 600 children, or £246 for every child.
  1436
  He now came to the genesis of the Bill. It referred to the defective as well as the epileptic, and all the opposition came from some persons who had established a great epileptic institution, and who desired to have the children sent there at the cost of the ratepayers of the various districts sending them. That institution was not established for children, and at the present moment there were only two boys in it under the age of sixteen, and no girls, whilst there were 130 grownup people. What was proposed by the manager of this school was to put among these grown up men and women a number of children, who would be sent into the institution and paid for by the various School Boards and other educational authorities. This system of mixing children with adults was extremely objectionable, and ought not to be adopted except after very careful inquiry. A good deal had been said at times in that House about children in workhouses, and about the evils which attached to keeping them there, especially in cases where they were mixed up with older people. In his opinion, if they were going to have institutions for children, those institutions should be retained exclusively for children, and the Board of Education ought not to allow the children to be mixed up with adult people. Now the Chalfont Colony was a most excellent institution, and he had no desire to say a single word against it. The objection which he was putting before the House in regard to the treatment of children in the institution did not apply to the treatment of adult people. The authorities of that institution after it was opened lost no time in applying to the Board of Education for a certificate which would enable the educational authorities to pay the cost of maintaining defective and epileptic children in their institution. They applied to the Board of Education to certify it, and to exempt it from the operation of the Act on the ground that the colony existed before the Act was passed.
  MR. HEMPHILL: Where is this institution?
  SIR JOHN GORST: In Buckinghamshire. The authorities of it applied first to be exempted from the Act on the ground that they were in existence before the Act was passed. They then applied to be allowed to have twenty-four instead of fifteen children in each home. Their only reason for that application was that the cost of maintaining a home for only fifteen would be disproportionately large. They alleged in their memorial that it would increase the cost of maintaining the children by £4 a child a year, or, roughly speaking, 1s. 6d. per week, so that the Board of Education was invited to act contrary to an Act of Parliament for the sake of saving 1s. 6d. per week in the maintenance of these children. In the memorial which the managers of the institution addressed to the Board of Education, they said—
  "It must be admitted that there would be advantages in very small homes for, say, six or eight children each, but in the case of epileptics this would obviously be impracticable on account of the excessive cost of supervision."
  The managers were, in fact, really convicted out of their own mouths, for, while recognising that it would be very much better to have the children in small homes, they wanted to place them in larger numbers for the sake of saving 1s. 6d. per week in the cost of their maintenance. He was surprised that the Board of Education should suggest giving up the interest and welfare of the children on such grounds.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I think the right hon. Gentleman should read the whole of the paragraph.
  SIR JOHN GORST: The hon. Member will have an opportunity afterwards of replying to me, and he can do so.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: Evidently the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to place the whole paragraph before the House.
  SIR JOHN GORST: If the hon. Member talks in that way I certainly will read the whole paragraph.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: It is on page 50.
  SIR JOHN GORSTcontinuing—
  "It must be admitted that there would be advantages in very small homes for, say, six or eight children each, but in the case of epileptics this would obviously be impracticable on account of the excessive cost of supervision. If this number be exceeded, it is believed that all the essential points of the home system that are capable of being retained with fifteen children can equally well be retained with twenty-four, while the latter number has also some actual advantages. If there are as many as fifteen children in a home, it will certainly happen that they will not all be quite congenial to one another, and in the smaller home the children are thrown more together than in the somewhat larger one for, say, twenty-four, in which also more opportunity is given to the inmates to form pleasant companionships. In short, in the somewhat larger home there is a possibility of a modified classification within the home itself, as distinguished from the stricter classification as between one home and another."
  It came to this, that 1s. 6d. a week was the measure of the difficulty which they detailed in their memorial. They went on to say that epileptics, more than ordinary children, needed to be kept bright and happy. That was what he himself had contended. It was necessary in the case of ordinary children, and it became still more necessary in the case of these unfortunate epileptic children. This institution wished to be allowed to have free growth. It evidently contemplated a very great increase of its establishment and a very great extension of the present buildings. Well, he had no objection to its free growth and development so long as it was not carried on at the expense of these unhappy children. In regard to small homes he would like to quote a few words from another Report. It was a passage from a letter sent by the Society to the Local Government Board on the 20th March, 1900, and was in the following words—
  "A large proportion of the cases received at the Chalfont Colony are paupers, and my Committee have thus had opportunities of observing the effects upon epileptics of workhouse life. The pauper cases received at the colony may be divided broadly into two classes—those on the one hand whose previous residence at the workhouse has been of short duration, and those on the other hand who have been subjected during more lengthy periods to the depressing influences of those institutions. Among the former class have been many of the best and most hopeful cases received at the colony; the latter class, almost without exception, have been found to have already sunk to such a hopeless degree of

  1439
  mental and moral deterioration as to have lost, not only the capacity, but even the desire, for any improvement of their condition."
  These were the people among whom it was desired to place the epileptic children, greatly, as he ventured to say, to their deterioration and disadvantage. However much it might tend to economy and saving, he did not think that such a practice should be permitted. The motives which he had mentioned in the earlier part of his speech for the creation of these institutions for the congregation of children were very powerful with some people, and certainly would tend to encourage them to go in for establishing more of such institutions. It had been said that the colony system was an excellent one because it brought epileptic children into out door life. No doubt living in the open air was one of the best things that could be arranged for these children, but the colony system was not necessary to enable them to lead such a life. They could lead it under much more favourable conditions if they were placed in small homes. Before he sat down he wanted to say a word or two about the proposals of the Bill. It would probably be said by the Secretary to the Board of Education that the Bill did not interfere with the carrying out of the views to which he had given expression, because the Board of Education would have power to make rules and regulations. He, however, had had longer experience of the Board of Education than his hon. friend. He should not in the least doubt his perfect sincerity and genuineness in making use of that argument, but he would like to tell him, and he would like to tell the House, that these public Departments were like wax in the hands of influential people who pressed for these licences to enable them to evade the letter of the law. These institutions possessed enormous influence; he defied the Board of Education to stand against the pressure that would be brought to bear upon it unless it had the protection of an Act of Parliament. If a case had been made out for an alteration of the law the change ought to be in the direction of making the limits more elastic by increasing the number in each house or institution, and not in the direction of
  1440
  abolishing the limits altogether and substituting the feeble resistance of the Board of Education to the strong pressure, social, political, and Parliamentary, which would be brought to bear upon them by these institutions. Then there was the ridiculous farce of laying upon the Table of the House for a certain period the rules made by the Board of Education. Everybody who had much Parliamentary experience knew how perfectly futile and ridiculous was such a safeguard. It was really not worth the paper upon which it was printed. It made no difference whatever to the action of the Board, and it in no way protected the Board from the pressure to which it would be subjected. He had detained the House at considerable length, but it was because he felt very strongly on the matter. He was indignant that these poor children should be deprived of the safeguards and the protection provided by the enactment it was now sought to repeal. All he asked for was an inquiry, and he thought he had made out a case. At an earlier stage he had suggested to the promoters that a Select Committee should hear what there was to be said on the two sides, undertaking, that if the Committee reported in favour of the further progress of the Bill, to withdraw his opposition. His overtures were rejected, but he thought he had shown that the law ought not to be altered without the matter being discussed and inquired into. He therefore moved that the Bill be recommitted to a Select Committee.
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELL, in seconding the Motion, said he had been interested in the Bills of 1893 and 1899, which were really sister measures and required to be taken together. It was impossible to enter into the investigation of this subject without feeling the great danger involved in the multiplication of overgrown institutions. When the measure of 1899 was under discussion in another place, the then President of the Council declared that the Council would not look with favour on very large institutions, but would strictly limit their numbers. There was a similar condemnation of overgrown

  1441
  institutions in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Defective and Epileptic Children, upon which the Bill of 1899 was founded. Under that measure security was taken that the houses should not be larger than a certain size, or more than four in number, in other words, each colony was not to exceed sixty. That was a sufficiently large number, and to go beyond it would be mischievous to the cause which all had at heart. If larger numbers were permitted, the institutional spirit was apt to arise, making mechanical the arrangements which ought to be free, and destroying the elasticity and adaptability to constantly varying circumstances, which were absolutely necessary in dealing with young people of the class under discussion. The Government reports on education last year, while speaking of a considerable increase in the provision for the blind and dead, stated that except in day schools no provision whatever had been made for defective children. Before they conferred larger powers, Members were entitled to demand that the powers already existing should be fully exercised. According to the Report of last year, no provision at all had been made for epileptics under the Act. That showed that the existing powers were not fully exercised, and it was the duty of those interested in this subject to see that the children received the full benefit of the legislation already passed before larger powers were sought. Reference was made in the Memorandum on the print of the Bill to the colony system. It appeared that in Germany there were now thirty of these homes, and fifty more would probably be added in the course of a short time. In Norway there was one large institution with 180 pupils. That was a sufficient warning as to the very great danger of proceeding in the manner proposed with the risk of establishing overgrown institutions. In the Copenhagen Institution there were three departments. The first department was preparatory for testing whether the child was suitable for the training; the second department was for manual training; and the third was of an elementary character. In one of these institutions they had eleven different
  1442
  kinds of looms and other machinery, a condition which, in his opinion, was more calculated to cause insanity among these afflicted children than to cure it. From the remarks he had made he thought he had shown that there were grounds for an inquiry. Having before them the warning of the promoters of the Bill elsewhere in 1889, the warning of the Commissioners themselves whose Reports he had read, and the warning given by the constitution of these overgrown, and, therefore, undesirable institutions abroad, they should walk warily and cautiously, and not sanction this legislation until after the most careful inquiry and the most careful consideration of all the facts which such an inquiry would lay before the country. He begged to second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'be,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 're-committed to a Select Committee.'"—(Sir John Gorst.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid the speech they had heard this afternoon from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, a former Vice-President of the Board of Education, was one which deserved attention, for, of course, in a matter of this sort his opinion must carry very great weight with the House. He hoped, however, that he might be able to convince the House, or such portion of it as he might reach, that it was unnecessary to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. It was greatly to be regretted that the question would be decided by the votes of those who had not had an opportunity of listening to the arguments used on either side. He could assure his right hon. friend that his misgivings in regard to this system of aggregation were, at all events, misplaced on the present occasion. His right hon.

  1443
  friend the Member for Cambridge University and the hon. Member for Wigan had directed their speeches not to the rejection of this measure, but only to its suspension until it had been considered by a Committee. They asked what they are pleased to term an inquiry. Of course that was a familiar form of procedure in this House, and hon. Members were very well aware that if they wanted to see the end of a Bill at this time of the session, one of the best ways was to try to get it referred to a Select Committee for inquiry, because they might be reasonably certain that after that inquiry there would be no time for it to get through the House, He wished to point out that inquiry might be twofold. There might be inquiry into the subject at large, or into the working of the Act which this Bill sought to amend. With regard to inquiry into the subject at large he was not sure that either of his hon. friends had made it clear to the House that there had been close inquiry into the subject already. There was an inquiry undertaken by a Departmental Committee in 1896. On that Committee there were various eminent persons whose names he need not read to the House. In due time that Committee reported, and its Report covered thirty-eight pages of large print, followed by minutes of the evidence amounting to 283. A very large number of witnesses of all descriptions were examined on that occasion. In the face of that Report he did not think that any human being could hope successfully to contend that the subject had not been sufficiently inquired into. In the Report there was no suggestion of any such limitations as was established by the Act of 1899 which it was sought by this Bill to amend. There was no need for a Committee to inquire into the working of the Act of 1899, because that Act had never worked at all. That was the real answer, and that was in one sense the foundation of his case. The Act of 1899 contained an unfortunate clause by which the Board of Education were precluded from certifying any establishment for boarding and lodging defective or epileptic children if more than fifteen children were boarded and lodged in any one building, or if the establishment comprised more than four such buildings. He submitted
  1444
  to the House, with entire confidence, that owing to the introduction of that limit the Act had been made absolutely unworkable. There never had been a Report presented in regard to the working of the Act, because nothing had ever been done, and so far as this part of his argument was concerned, he might leave it with the statement, which he did not believe could be contradicted, that there was no need for an inquiry into the working of the Act of 1899 because it had never worked at all.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that the Metropolitan Asylums Board had a great number of defective children under their charge.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEaccepted the statement of his right hon. friend, but the Act required that a Report should be laid before both Houses of Parliament annually, and he had been unable to find that such a Report was ever laid before Parliament.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid the hon. Member would find mention of this subject in the Report of the Board of Education.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid his case was that no application had been made for certificates, and that none had been granted. He would, with the permission of the House, state the provisions of the Act itself. The first section provided that the school authority might make arrangements for determining what children in their district were defective or epileptic. By Section 2 they were empowered to make provision—for these child ten—(1) by special classes, (2) by boarding out near thereto, (3) by establishing schools—certified by the Department. They had also power to contribute towards the maintenance of certified schools. But that section also imposed the limitation of fifteen which he had already described. Therefore it was particularly desirable that there should be home life at the disposal of these children. The local authority had power to provide for home life by arranging for boarding out. The present Bill proposed to amend Sub section (6) of Clause 2. The right hon. Gentleman

  1445
  the Member for Cambridge University had made some allusion this afternoon to what he was pleased to term the method by which this Bill had been dealt with up to the present stage. They all understood that discussion was not very easy or likely to be attained after half-past five on a Friday, or after midnight on other days. No one had had an opportunity of explaining this Bill as he himself would have liked to do, and it was by the goodwill and good feeling of the House that it had been allowed to pass the earlier stages. It was not on account of any inherent wickedness on his part that he had not addressed the House on the subject. But when his right hon. friend alluded to the method by which the Bill had got to the present stage, he wished that he had also alluded to the method by which the clause it was proposed to amend found its way into the original Bill. He had referred to Hansard for the purpose of informing himself on that subject. The Bill in 1899 came down to them from the other House. It came to them without this clause in it, and he could not find anything in Hansard to show how it was put in the Bill in this House. The record of their proceedings simply stated that certain Amendments were made and the Bill read a third time. He could only believe that the clause was put in somehow or other without proper consideration by the House as to what the effect of it would be. His right hon. friend would correct him if he was wrong, but so far as he could see there was no discussion or opportunity given for discussion by the House when the Bill of 1899 was before them.
  SIR JOHN GORST: The Bill was passed in the regular course. The Amendment was proposed and accepted, and there was every opportunity for discussion.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid he was much obliged to his right hon. friend. What he suggested was that this Amendment was never on the Paper.
  SIR JOHN GORST: It was certainly on the Paper. So far as my recollection
  1446
  goes, it was on the Paper for a considerable time, because it was certainly considered by my noble friend the President of the Board of Education and myself before the Bill came on.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid he could not say more than that he had carefully searched the pages of Hansard, and that he could not find the slightest trace of this Amendment there. He accepted the statement, however, of his right hon. friend that it was on the Paper, and that it was considered by himself and the President of the Board of Education. Whatever might be the history of its incubation, when it was brought forward it had a favourable reception from the Board of Education. His right hon. friend had represented that this Bill was an example of the modern fashion for aggregation. He wished to point out to the House that that did not follow. Under this Bill the power of control would still remain with Parliament. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman could not get away from the fact that the Board of Education would take care that the rules made under the Bill were such as would reasonably ensure that nothing would be done which might promote the herding together of children in large establishments, or promote those consequent evils which they very well knew followed from that—evils which were so graphically described in the Report of Mr. Mundella's Committee already alluded to by his right hon. friend.
  He wished to point out what the actual defects of the clause had been hitherto, and for that purpose he would draw the attention of the House very briefly to certain letters he had received on the subject, and also to the opinion expressed by the National Society for Employment of Epileptics. He had received a letter dated March 9th, 1903, from Miss Townsend, a lady connected with the National Association for Promoting the Welfare of the Feeble-Minded, who was a member of the Departmental Committee to which he had already referred. She said—
  "The 'fifteen' clause has been a stumbling block all along in the way of the establishment of Homes, more especially for epileptics, and it

  1447
  was certainly never contemplated by the Departmental Committee, who confined themselves to deprecating the founding of large institutions. Now that it becomes increasingly evident that institution life must be the lot of the majority of these children all through their lives, there is the less reason for maintaining the clause—always provided that they receive the individual care and training which is essential."
  In another letter, dated March 18th, Miss Townsend said—
  "Although personally I prefer small Homes to large ones, yet we all found the limitation to fifteen a vexatious one and shall be glad to have it removed. My cottage home for eight children works admirably, but if that number is exceeded one may as well have thirty as fifteen, and the greater number is an economy."
  A correspondent informed him that a Catholic body in the East End of London had provided the first epileptic school under the Act of 1899, and they were all anxious that the numbers should not be limited to sixty. The Report for 1901 of the hon. Medical Staff of the National Society for Employment of Epileptics contained the following:—
  "It is very unfortunate that the Board of Education have not seen their way to repeal or amend Section 2, Sub-section 6, of the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899, which prevents any establishment being certified under the Act if more than fifteen children are boarded and lodged in any one building, or if the institution contains more than four such buildings. … It is grievous to think that all Act which was intended to benefit these children should have so contrary an effect."
  In a Memorial, dated March 6th, 1900, to the Board of Education, that Society pointed out their objections to the conditions imposed by Section 2, Sub-section 6, and asked the Board to recommend Parliament to amend the Act. And then the Memorial went on to say—
  "It is a most important feature of the colony or family system that boys and girls should be received in the same establishment, though in different Homes, and this would limit the number of Homes for each sex to two, which is quite insufficient for purposes of classification. In classifying the inmates of such an establishment, it would be necessary to have regard to the mental condition and the severity of the epilepsy, and also to character and previous bringing up. If this latter point were disregarded, serious danger would be incurred. It is obvious, therefore, that two Homes would not give scope for such classification as is necessary, even if no provision were made for those most necessitous of all cases—the epileptic children who are also blind, or deaf and dumb, or otherwise afflicted."
  1448
  And then the Memorial went on to speak of the difficulty of arranging the children in different classes—
  "In an establishment limited to sixty epileptic children, of all ages and of varying degrees of physical and mental capacity, it would be impossible without an unreasonably large teaching stall' to arrange for the proper division of the children into clashes. The same objection would apply still more strongly to the necessary industrial training. For the proper industrial training of the children, according to their respective inclinations and capacity, and with a view to their becoming wholly or partially self -supporting, it is essential that a considerable variety of occupations should be taught, and, consequently, that there should be a variety of capable instructors, which would, economically speaking, be impracticable in an establishment limited to about thirty children of each sex, of whom, at any time, only the minority would be of such, an age as to be receiving regular industrial training. This difficulty could not properly be avoided by having separate establishments for these elder children, because it is an essential feature of the family system upon which such establishments should be based that children of various ages should be brought together."
  And then they refer again to the colony system as it is worked abroad. Of Bielefeld they said—
  "It is undoubtedly the one which is least institutional—the one which gives the fullest scope to individual character and development. It is at the same time the largest, having a population of over 1,500 epileptics of all ages, children and adults."
  And then they go on to say—
  "Even if there were à priori grounds for believing the limitations of Section 2, Subsection 6, to be wise, it would, nevertheless, appear to be extremely undesirable to stamp in advance a uniform pattern upon all epileptic establishments in this country, and to prevent their free growth and development upon such lines as time and trial may show to be best. Such restriction as is justifiable under any circumstances would appear to be so only when formulated as the result of experience, not when imposed in anticipation of it."
  The Board of Education stated in reply that the subject had been recently brought before them in connection with similar memorials from the London and other School Boards—
  "The Board are, however, unable to hold that a sufficient case has been made out for the repeal or amendment of the clause in question in an Act which has not as yet had a practical trial."
  He quite admitted that that was a very good answer at the time, viz., in June 1900; but the Act had now been in existence for four years, and it was quite

  1449
  impossible for the Board of Education to give the same answer to a similar memorial addressed to them at the present time. It was easy enough to speak lightly or deprecatingly of the work done by this great society; but he and his friends wished by means of the Bill under discussion to enlarge their sphere of usefulness, and to relax the conditions under which they were fettered and bound by the Board of Education.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that after the exceedingly powerful speech of the right hon Member for Cambridge University, it would be well to have some further public inquiry before they committed themselves to the passing of this amending Bill. The hon. Member said that the Act of 1899 had not worked well, but if he would refer to the Report of the Education Department he would find a couple of pages devoted to the subject in which it was stated that the Act had been adopted, and satisfactory arrangements had been made in no fewer than 109 day schools and classes.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid that that referred to schools and not to institutions.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that the Report went on to say that there was a tendency to board out children and make arrangements in regard to institutions. He thought, therefore, that the Act had not been the dead letter described by the hon. Gentleman. One of the recommendations of the Select Committee was that the school authorities should have power to send their children to these institutions the numbers in which did not exceed twenty; and apparently the Bill under discussion did, to a considerable extent, run counter to the recommendations of the Committee. The object of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University was not to reject the Bill, but that it should be sent to a Select Committee for inquiry.
  *SIR JOHN BATTY TUKEsaid that the Act of 1899 had not worked, inasmuch
  1450
  as it was unworkable. He supported the Bill, the object of which was to extend the usefulness of the existing machinery. It was a great relief to his mind when he heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University say that he had not visited any of these institutions. He was perfectly certain that if the right hon. Gentleman had visited Rickmanshurst he would never have confused the issue by mixing it up in his description of establishments in which large numbers of epileptics and weak-minded persons were aggregated. He knew that institution by personal inspection. It occupied a ridge of high-lying land with pretty surroundings, and was composed of various houses scattered over the area, in which were distributed some 150 or 160 epileptics. He could assure hon. Members that he had never seen a similar institution for epileptics in such admirable condition He had made careful inquiry and could speak very highly of the work done by this organisation. It had failed in a certain number of cases, but in the vast majority of cases it had prevented the degradation to which epileptics were so liable. To compare their condition with that of the ordinary occupants of alunatic asylum was ridiculous. His argument was that if so much good had been done by such institutions to adult epileptics, how much more would they benefit young epileptics whose disease was not confirmed.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he wished to say that this was a private Member's Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had stated that the Bill had emanated from the Board of Education, and that he was even prepared to prove it. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he knew nothing of the Bill until he saw it in print. The hon. Member for Horsham, who stated that he had drafted the Bill himself, was good enough to send him a copy of it, asking him to express his opinion about it. He thought it was a measure which would turn the Act of 1899, which, so far as epileptic children were concerned, was a dead letter, into a

  1451
  useful and valuable Act. He had had representations of a very forcible character from the London School Board, and also from the National Society for Epileptics, as to the impossibility of working the Act under present conditions. He had taken export opinion, and was advised that this Bill would serve a useful purpose, and that epileptic children would benefit if the Bill were passed. He wished to correct a misapprehension on the part of the hon. Member for Cleveland who talked about the difference of opinion as to the operation of the Act He thought if the hon. Member looked over the Act he would see that there were a good many provisions which did not affect epileptic children at all, but which related entirely to defective children. The portion of the Act which provided for schools and classes for defective children had come into operation, but it had been found impossible under the Act to provide homes and colonies for epileptic children who could not go to school without risk of injury to themselves or to others, or of disturbance of the work of the school. A Return showed that in the case of defective children four small boarding-houses had been established, accommodating thirty, twenty, fifteen, and six children in separate homes, and these children were taught in schools in the immediate neighbourhood, and separate schools for such children had been started in many places. But the Bill of his hon. friend was intended to lead to the possibility of boarding out and teaching epileptic children who
  could not go out to a school. The only way of dealing with such children was to provide homes for them in which they could be nurtured and taught in sufficient numbers, to enable the children to be properly classified and the school properly staffed. What had been said about the danger of aggregation of children arose from the confusion between Poor Law children, who were normal children, and who should associate as far as possible with other children, and epileptic children, who could not associate with other children, because they might injure themselves or others. There was no desire to bring together a great number of these children; but it was desirable, if not essential, that they should be brought together in sufficient numbers to enable them to be properly taught and have opportunities of companionship. These were the reasons which induced him as a private Member; and not as a representative of the Government in any way, to vote for this measure.
  SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid that the Act of 1889 had been a dead letter so far as epileptic children were concerned, and he supported the Bill because it would make provision for the education and training of such children.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes 149; Noes. 87. (Division List No. 123.)

  AYES.

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

  Chapman, Edward

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Flower, Ernest

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Forster, Henry William

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Austin, Sir John

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Garfit, William

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gilhooly, James

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & N'rn

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Denny, Colonel

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Groves, James Grimble

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Campbell, Rt Hn J. A (Glasg.)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.)

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Helder, Augustus

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H. (Somers't, E

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Hoult, Joseph

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Knowles, Lees

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

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfird (Cornwall)

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Stroyan, John

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Sullivan, Donal

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Tully, Jasper

  Lowe, Francis William

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Randles, John S.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Williams Rt Hn J. Powell-(Birm

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Wilson, John (Clasqow)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

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

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh N.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Russell, T. W.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Sir William Houldsworth

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  and Mr. Heywood John-

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  stone.

  Myers, William Henry

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  NOES.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt, Hy.

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Jones, David Brynmor (>Swansea

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Black, Alexander William

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Boland, John

  Kitson, Sir James

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Brigg, John

  Lambert, George

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Caldwell, James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cameron, Robert

  Lloyd-George, David

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lundon, W.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Crombie, John William

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardign

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Delany, William

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

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

  Doogan, P. C.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

  Ure, Alexander

  Edwards, Frank

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wallace, Robert

  Emmott, Alfred

  Moss, Samuel

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Fenwick, Charles

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

  Williams O. (Merioneth)

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

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

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

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Doherty, William

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

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

  Younger William

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Priestley, Arthur

  Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.

  Pym, C. Guy

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Sir John Gorst and Sir

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Rea, Russell

  Francis Powell.

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E

  Reddy, M.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  OUTDOOR RELIEF (PENSIONERS) BILL. [THIRD READING.]
  Order read, for resuming adjourned
  1454
  debate on Question [12th June], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that this was a Bill to enable boards of guardians not to take into consideration, in connection with an application for outdoor relief, the amount of a pension given to a pensioner from the Army or the Navy where the amount was under 5s. a week. It was the result of the Friendly Societies Bill which the House had previously passed. That Bill provided that boards of guardians, in granting outdoor relief to members of friendly societies, should not take into consideration any sum received from such societies as sick-pay except where it exceeded 5s. a week. To his mind that was an invidious measure. It dealt entirely with one class of the community; but it had the support of the Government, and when it went through the House no hon. Member appeared inclined to embark on a discussion on it. If the House empowered boards of guardians not to take into consideration sick pay received from friendly societies where it did not exceed 5s. a week, how could it refuse to grant a similar exemption in the case of pensioners where, although the pension was not due to thrift, it was, at any rate, due to a better cause—namely, service to the country. He himself did not see why thrift which had taken the form of purchasing an annuity or income from investments should not be taken into consideration by boards of guardians also. He thought it was a great mistake on the part of the Government not to have dealt with the subject as a whole, in order to provide that thrift, no matter in what form it might develop itself, should be entitled to recognition. The Government having assented to the Friendly Societies Bill, it seemed to him reasonable and proper that this Bill should have been brought in. He did not object to it; on the contrary, he was friendly to its being passed through the House. But the Friendly Societies Bill having been thrown out in another place altered the position of matters a great deal. That put this Bill in a rather peculiar position.
  He had received a statement from which it appeared that the position of Army pensioners had been so improved under the present Secretary of State for War and some of his predecessors, that it would be only in very rare instances that the Bill would
  1456
  apply to Army pensioners. He wished to point out that the House was now dealing with this matter on its own merits and without precedent. There were three objections to the measure. The effect of the Bill would be to almost invite a pensioner with a pension of 5s. a week to claim relief from a board of guardians. Again, in the case of the Friendly Societies Bill there was this difference. The amount that was not to be taken into consideration was sick-pay; but in the present Bill there was no reference to sick-pay, and the pensioner might be an able-bodied man. That was a very material difference. He quite agreed that every man who had served in the Army or the Navy, and who had received a pension, however small, which showed that he had given service to his country, ought not to be put in the invidious position of being offered the workhouse. If there were any legislation whereby the offer of the workhouse should not be given in such cases, he would personally support it. But there ought to be other provision by the State for such pensioners as might have been disabled either by wounds or ill health. There ought to be a fund, whether under the management of the Government or not, to provide minimum pensions for keeping pensioners out of the workhouse or from the necessity of applying to boards of guardians for relief. He would not move the rejection of the Bill. He would, however, suggest that it should not be passed this session, but should await the fate of the other Bill. He thought that some measures might be taken whereby pensioners with small pensions might be dealt with in such a way as would obviate the necessity of their applying to boards of guardians at all. He was entirely sympathetic with the case of pensioners, and he did not want to see them applying for relief or for admission to a workhouse. They had given their best service to the country as a whole, and no particular locality should be I asked to provide for them. It was a matter which should be provided out of Imperial funds. While not expressing any opposition to the object in view, he thought that there would be no harm in delaying the Bill in order to see what would be the fate of the other measure.

  1457
  If the other measure were eventually passed, he would be quite prepared to support the present Bill. He thought he had suggested a way whereby pensioners with small pensions might not find it necessary to apply to boards of guardians at all; and he certainly would not have intervened on the present occasion had it not been that the Friendly Societies Bill had been rejected in another place.
  *COLONEL BLUNDELLsaid he was glad the hon. Gentleman had spoken with reference to insufficient pensions. Small pensions of from 6d. to 8d. a day could not, in his opinion, be dealt with in any other way than by such a measure, because when a man is discharged for "disability" arising from wounds or sickness and is partially able to earn his living, it is not fair to call upon the State to give him a full pension. The Bill was brought forward with the general intention that a pensioner should receive the benefit of the thrift which was exercised for him and at his expense by the State during his service. Therefore a pensioner was in precisely the same position as a member of a friendly society. He also wished to support the measure in the interests of the State. He felt certain it was a very serious thing indeed for the State to have pensioners in the workhouse of the country. One man there deterred ten men from entering the service. He had received a letter from a pensioner, who was now an inmate of St. George's Union in the Fulham Road. He wrote—
  "I have only got 8d. per day for one year and six months; and not being able to do any work through having contracted disease in South Africa, and my pension being so small, I made application for admission to the above workhouse, and because I did not tell the relieving officer that I was in possession or receipt of 8d. per day I was charged at the Rochester Row Police Court and got fourteen days imprisonment. Not only that, but the guardians want me to forfeit all my pension for every day I am in the house; which means that, they will take all I have and leave me without the price of a smoke of tobacco. As I am not sixty years of age I have to put up with the same food as the younger men; one pint of gruel night and morning, dry bread, and four pounds of oakum to pick every day, and to pay 8d. a day to be allowed to do it."
  That was a sort of thing which was very prejudical; and he certainly hoped that
  1458
  the House of Commons would take steps to prevent it as far as possible. He would urge hon. Members, whatever their views on thrift might be, that, it was desirable for the sake of the State that pensioners should be kept out of the workhouse.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid everyone sympathised with the object of the Bill, so far as it proposed to relieve the lot of those who were in distress after having served their country. Indeed, had it been relevant to the present issue he should have said with great emphasis that he thought the terms which the Government now gave to those who fought their battles abroad were unduly restricted. A man who was wounded in the service of his country ought to receive a pension sufficiently large to place him in the same position as he would have been had he not been wounded. Therefore, he was full of sympathy with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the purpose he had in view in introducing the Bill. It was largely on that score that he did not propose to oppose it. But he could not help calling attention to the very important principle which was embodied in the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman opposite said very truly, the main objection to the Bill was that it would throw on a locality the duty of supporting those pensioners. There was no doubt that those who had served in the Army and Navy had great claims on the Imperial Exchequer; but they had no special or peculiar claim on local rates. There was a very serious objection to increasing the burden on the rates as distinct from the Exchequer. One of the most notable features of the present system was that whereas they had the most elaborate apparatus for checking extravagance in connection with the Exchequer, there was practically no check whatever on the local bodies which spent the rates. Under this Bill expense would be thrown on the ratepayers, many of them persons of great poverty themselves, and struggling against difficulties. The equitable claim of his hon. and learned friend was not against the local authorities, but against the State. There was another graver objection to this Bill. It recognised, as did the other Outdoor Belief (Friendly Societies) Bill,

  1459
  that the people had a right to outdoor relief independently of their circumstances. The right the people now had to outdoor relief was their poverty and misery, but it was said in this case they were not in granting outdoor relief to have regard to the position of the pensioner at all, they were to look on the relief they gave not as relief given to save from acute distress, but relief to which in some degree the recipient had a right. Once that principle was admitted it would be a logical impossibility to deny that they ought to give the same right of relief to every person in a locality who had been thrifty, and who could establish the fact that it was not through his own fault that he was in distress. That was a principle with which he agreed. It was the principle of old-age pensions. It was a principle of the greatest possible importance, and was in exact opposition to the principle of the Poor Law of 1834, which was that everybody was to have a right to relief if they were in poverty and misery. He, however, thought it was an illogical and slipshod method of dealing with a great question that we should have a lot of little bills dealing with different classes of people and making exceptions of this kind. It would be a far more reasonable way of dealing with this great question if it were laid down once and for all that those who could show that it was not through want of character or thrift that they were in the position they were, had a right to claim relief from the people at large. If that were laid down as a definite proposition, and one which might be made to work, it would claim the support of the whole House. It was a matter for regret that they dealt with this great question of relief by piecemeal measures and upon particular grounds which excited their strong sympathy, but that did not alter the fact that the house in agreeing to this Bill was agreeing to a principle of far-reaching importance; a principle which ought to be extended to a very large class. Though the Bill might not be passed when sent to another place these debates were not without value, because they tended to make the House recognise the nature of the act they were undertaking. It was not desirable to make exceptions
  1460
  of this kind, and less desirable to do so without knowing what they were doing.

  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee) considered.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the Amendment he proposed to move was to substitute £60 for £100 in Clause 3. The object of the Amendment was to insure that the reasons for which, the County Courts were established should prevail. It was thought desirable to give small suitors and people in poor circumstances a less expensive method of resorting to the process of the law, and therefore the County Courts were established with limited jurisdiction. He was afraid if the jurisdiction of those Courts was extended it might possibly deprive the people for whom they were established of the privileges which they now had. If the promoters of the Bill could show that the work the County Courts had to do was so small that the jurisdiction could be profitably extended, then he would be prepared not to press his Amendment to a division. He regretted very much that in the ordinary course invoking the assistance of the law should be so expensive, and he would be glad to hear from some of the Members, of what was called the senior branch of the profession, whom he saw present, whether a means of cheapening the cost of the law could not be invented. He had been told that the whole administration of the County Courts was bad; that the fees were higher in proportion than the fees in the other Courts of law, and that the proper course to pursue in a case of this sort would be to overhaul the administration of the County Courts. Whether that was so or not he did not know, but seeing so many eminent Members of the bar around him, he hoped they would be able to throw some light upon the question. With regard to the suggestion to increase the number of Judges at the County Courts, he did not think that was in the power of the promoters of the Bill. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 13, to leave out the words 'one hundred,' and to insert the word 'sixty.'"—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'one hundred' stand part of the Bill."
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITopposed the Amendment. The hon. Member himself had expressed his desire for cheaper law and quicker administration, and anyone familiar with the block of business which had taken place at times in the Courts would see the great advantage of supplementing the higher Courts by increasing the jurisdiction of the County Courts. He pointed out that the clause had passed the House without a division, and with regard to the £100 all the discussion that had taken place upstairs was as to whether it should not be increased to £200. As the former registrar of a large Court he ventured to say, that while the Courts had fulfilled their original purpose they had also shown themselves capable of dealing with higher business with advantage, especially to the commercial community. In regard to the suggestion that more Judges would be required, he wished to point out that in many cases the present Judges, excellent as was the work which they did, had not their time fully occupied. As to fees, practice, and procedure, the Rules Committee of the Judges and the Lord Chancellor were able to deal with those matters. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
  SIR WILLIAM HOLLANDsaid he would have preferred to have seen the limit raised to £500. He had been pressed by the Chambers of Commerce to come here to-day and say that they would very much rather see this Bill passed, even with the limit of £100, than that it should be hung up for another session. He opposed the Amendment.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid in his constituency no confidence at all was felt in this Bill. He thought a good case had been made out for the Amendment, and he supported it. It raised the limit by £10, and he did not see that any case had been made out for extending it further.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEsaid the district of the hon. Member was singular in the respect of having no confidence in this Bill. If everybody had been of that opinion they would not have had resolutions passed so unanimously year after year urging this reform on the Government as had been passed by the various Chambers of Commerce. That was a convincing proof of what the country felt upon this matter. The principle of the Bill had been accepted over and over again in this House. The workman's liability and other Acts which incorporated this principle had been referred to the County Courts for decision. And under the Bankruptcy Acts they had practically an unlimited jurisdiction. Under the circumstances he was surprised that so retrogressive a course should be suggested as was proposed by this Amendment. He hoped the House would reject the Amendment.
  *MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSurged his hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment which, if carried, would, he said, practically render the Bill useless. At the request of the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce he had ventured in Grand Committee to move an extension to £500. Our large centres of industry were demanding more economical and speedy methods of obtaining justice. The ability of our County Court Judges was great. They had to administer the same principles of law as in the High Court, and why should not the poor have the same advantages as the rich? Our County Courts had unlimited jurisdiction in bankruptcy, and in other special cases could go much beyond £50. Surely they ought to be considered competent to deal with a common law action of £100.
  MR. DUKEsaid all who had any knowledge of the Chambers of Commerce in our great towns were well aware of the strong public demand for some change to expedite the administration of justice, especially in commercial suits, and he regarded this Bill as more of a protest against the present system than as a practical means of remedying the existing evils. He could not help feeling at the same time that

  1463
  there was a desire for an extension of the jurisdiction of some of the County Court Judges in some towns where there were Chambers of Commerce. It would be idle, however, to disguise the fact that, there was a great deal of difference in the constitution of the County Court bench in various districts. At the present time any two suitors who really desired to settle a dispute could give the County Court Judge in any common law matter unlimited jurisdiction, but what was proposed in this Bill was that the plaintiff, at his own will, should be at liberty to bring an unwilling defendant into jurisdiction which was not the ordinary jurisdiction of the country. There was a strong local demand in some districts for this extension, but this Bill was so defective in failing to provide the necessary means for carrying out the scheme—for instance in not providing for the payment of salaries to County Court Judges corresponding to the very great extension of their duties. They were appointed Judges of small debt Courts forty or fifty years ago at precisely the present terms of remuneration. It might be desirable, if the change proposed by the Bill was to be made, to remodel the County Court system, and to appoint County Court Judges with a view to their discharging the duties which High Court Judges were now appointed to fulfil. It might also be necessary, seeing that the Bill would transfer a great volume of work from the High Court, to revise our present circuit system, which was the foundation of our administration of the common law. There was no doubt a strong feeling in this country in favour of some change in the administration of justice, but he was not satisfied that this Bill, if carried, would have those beneficial results which its promoters anticipated. He regarded the Bill with a good deal of apprehension, though he did not intend to vote for the Amendment.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHURsaid the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce and the Liverpool Law Society had expressed opinions averse to the extension of the jurisdiction of County Courts. They said these Courts were originally organised for the collection of small debts, and as such
  1464
  were effective, but that their usefulness in this respect would be impaired by the introduction of High Court business which the Courts had not the machinery to deal with and which the Bill did not provide. If a complete change were made in the County Court system, and if it were affiliated to the High Courts, it might then be provided with an organisation fitted to deal with both classes of cases, but that was not provided in the Bill now before the House, and therefore if the matter were pressed to a division he should support the proposal to extend the jurisdiction by only £10 instead of £50.
  MR. EUGENE WASONsaid that so far as Liverpool was concerned that city already had a Vice Chancellor's Court as well as two County Courts; it was therefore well provided with machinery for dealing with all kinds of cases. He hoped the Bill would be allowed to proceed, and mentioned the Sheriffs' Courts in Scotland as analogous, to show that such Courts were well qualified for the business. He saw no reason why the extra labour should not be put on the County Court Judges.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,)desired to make a few observations, that it might not be imagined that if the Bill went through it would be possible to carry it out in practice. He was not saying that our County Court system might not be enlarged, but he wished to point out that there was absolutely no machinery in the Bill which would make it operative. With an extension of the jurisdiction, it became absolutely necessary to survey the whole system of County Courts, which were originally established as a poor man's Court for the collection of small debts in a rapid way, and the enlargement of the jurisdiction would not be equally satisfactory in all parts of the country, for the work would be clogged by the Court having to deal with larger cases. A serious question arose whether there should be no appeal from the decisions of the Court except on points of law. In its present shape, so far as he could see, the Bill would not be a workable measure. There was no provision for machinery or for the

  1465
  appointment of the necessary officers, and he did not think it right to let the Amendment pass with the idea on the part of the House that the Government thought there was the least possibility of the Bill working in a satisfactory way.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid those Members who had interested themselves in the subject were familiar with these arguments, which were those used when the extension of the Courts to the present limit was made in 1888.
  SIR EDWARD CARSON: You set up your officers then?
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: No, it was a great measure of consolidation. These very same objections were raised, and the answer was that experience in the working of the Act would show what additional machinery was required. But he had not since heard of any public inconvenience having arisen, and in reply to the present objections, therefore, he might again say that experience would show what additional machinery would be required. He quite agreed with the Solicitor-General it was necessary to overhaul the whole County Court system,
  and a promise was made that this should be done in 1888, but never fulfilled. Chambers of Commerce and the mercantile community were anxious for the change; Liverpool, with its Court of Passage with unlimited jurisdiction, with its two County Courts, and with its Vice-Chancellor's Court, was the only exception. The feeling in Manchester was very different, and he did not think the House would be well advised to allow this Bill to drop simply because of difficulties which were purely administrative. Such difficulties the Treasury could provide for. A rearrangement and redistribution of staff might be necessary, and it was not the case generally that County Court Judges were overworked. The Government had not opposed the Second Reading, and it was too late now to declare the Bill unworkable. The House of Commons was bound to respond to the desire of the mercantile classes, and the responsibility for further Amendment should be left to the Government in the other House.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 197; Noes, 53. (Division List, No. 124.)

  AYES.

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

  Crombie, John William

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshend)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin and N'rn

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

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

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cullinan, J.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Asher, Alexander

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardign

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Delany, William

  Groves, James Grimble

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Denny, Colonel

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Austin, Sir John

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr. Haml'ts

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Doogan, P. C.

  Helder, Augustus

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Bill, Charles

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Black, Alexander William

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E.

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Edwards, Frank

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somerset E.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Emmott, Alfred

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Caldwell, James

  Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Cameron, Robert

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Causton, Richard Knight

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

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Flower, Ernest

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Joicey, Sir James

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Joyce, Michael

  Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

  Garfit, William

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Kitson, Sir James

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Knowles, Lees

  O'Doherty, William

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Lambert, George

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

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham,

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Parkes Ebenezer

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Stroyan, John

  Leamy, Edmund

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.)

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Perks, Robert William

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

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

  Leng, Sir John

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ure, Alexander

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Priestley, Arthur

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. Sheffi'd

  Lowe, Francis William

  Pym, C. Guy

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Lundon, W.

  Randles, John S.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Rea, Russell

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Williams, Rt Hn. J. Powell-(Birm

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Rickett, J. Compton

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

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

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

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh. N.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Moss, Samuel

  Russell, T. W.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wylie, Alexander

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Young, Samuel

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Myers, William Henry

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Sir Albert Rollit and

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Mr. Brynmor Jones.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

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

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Purvis, Robert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Chapman, Edward

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

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

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Coddington, Sir William

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Malcolm, Ian

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

  Sir Frederick Banbury and

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Mr. Griffith Boscawen.

  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONmoved an Amendment to Clause 3, providing that in actions brought within the limits of the jurisdiction of a County Court by the provisions of the Act, and in which proper steps had been taken by either party to require a jury to be summoned, Section 102 of the County Courts Act, 1888, should be read as if the word "twelve" were substituted for "five." He freely admitted that the
  1468
  County Courts possessed, and deservedly so, a large amount of public confidence, but still there was one element in their administration which was not fully approved by the public. At the present time, if a case had to be tried by a jury, only five jurymen were empanelled, and if the jurisdiction of the Courts were to be extended as proposed by the Bill the result would be to bring in a class of case which now was tried by an ordinary

  1469
  jury. He did not think that suitors should be deprived of their constitutional right and privilege to have a jury of twelve, and his object was to give the parties this right. It was impossible for five men to thresh out the questions brought before them in the same manner as twelve.
  Amendment proposed—
  "That in actions brought within the limits of the jurisdiction of a County Court by the provisions of the Act and in which proper steps have been taken by either party to require a jury to be summoned Section 102 of the County Courts Act 1888 shall be read as if the word 'twelve' were substituted for 'five.'"
  *MR. BRYNMOR JONESrecognised the spirit in which the Amendment had been moved, and freely admitted that there was no magic in the mere number five; but there were very strong practical objections to increasing the number to twelve. It would impose great additional burdens upon persons residing in our different country districts and large towns. He had never in his own experience heard of a case in which the mere fact of the jury being composed of five had in the least degree diminished the weight of the verdict of the jury. Cases under the Employers' Liability Act, for instance, involving very large sums were decided by juries of five, and he failed to see that the hon. Baronet had made out any case for increasing the number to twelve.
  MR. CRIPPSagreed that there would be considerable inconvenience in increasing the number of jurors to twelve, and pointed out that very few, if any, County Courts had accommodation for so large a jury. It would be out of order to discuss the question of whether actions involving large sums should be tried in the High Court or in the County Court, but if they were to be tried in the County Court it would impose a heavy obligation on persons liable to serve on juries if the number of jurors were raised to twelve. It would be a different matter if some number between five and twelve were suggested, but he did not think the suggested number would be practicable.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENrecognised the practical difficulties which had been referred to, but thought there was a great deal in the contention that as the limit of the actions was being raised from £50 to £100 the number of jurors should be correspondingly increased. He suggested, as a compromise, that eight should be substituted for twelve.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that if the proposal was to be taken as evidence of a desire to meet the feeling of the House, he would not object to the clause being amended, but he thought the number should be an odd number.
  LORD HUGH CECILmoved the substitution of "nine" for "twelve." Most people were accustomed to think of a jury of twelve as one of the institutions of the country which was never departed from, but they had learnt this afternoon that that was not the case. It was one of the advantages of such debates that Members were instructed in these matters. But if actions involving sums of £100 were to be decided by juries of either five or nine, he really could not see why there should be a jury of twelve in any civil action whatever.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out the word 'twelve' in order to insert the word 'nine.'"—(Lord Hugh Cecil.)
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid he would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment as amended agreed to.
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONmoved to omit Clause 4, which, he said, had been added by the Standing Committee. The Bill was described as one extending the jurisdiction of County Courts. Clause 4 had nothing whatever to do with extending the jurisdiction of County Courts, but had a great deal to do with the rights of suitors within those Courts. The clause raised the limit in the cases which might be heard by the registrar from £2 to £5, a provision which he

  1471
  thought would be liable to work prejudicially to the poorer suitors, who were entitled to have their cases tried by a Judge. There was no appeal from the decision of the registrar, consequently it was very necessary that the interests of the poorer suitors should be carefully watched.
  Amendment proposed.
  "To omit Clause 4."—(Sir William Tomlinson.)
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid the essence of compromise was give and take. The supporters of the Bill had yielded on the last Amendment, and he hoped the hon. Baronet in return would not press the Amendment he had now moved. The clause was fully discussed in the Grand Committee, and its form as it stood in the Bill was the result of a compromise. The exigencies of time might compel him to accept the Amendment, but he would appeal to the hon. Baronet to concede the point.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENpointed out that the Amendment just accepted dealt with an entirely different subject from that now under discussion. If the extension proposed in this clause was agreed to there was no reason why at some future time the limit in the cases which might be tried before the registrar should not be further extended to £20, £50, or even £100, and just as the County Court Judge was now taking the place of the regular tribunal, so in a short time the County Court Judge might be superseded by the registrar.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I will accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITmoved that the Bill be read a third time, and appealed to the Solicitor-General to offer no opposition to the Motion, having regard to the numbers in the last division.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—Sir Albert Rollit.)
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid it would be impossible at that stage, in a comparatively empty House, so to argue the matter so as to bring home to hon. Members the reasons why the Government thought the Bill unworkable. However, having made the protest that the Government considered the Bill unworkable, and that it would not be a useful addition to the Statute-book, he would not offer further obstacles.
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONexpressed the belief that there would be much difficulty in the working of the Bill, and the hope that the measure would be carefully considered in its future stages.
  LORD HUGH CECILthought it was very unreasonable to press for the Third Reading of a Bill at the conclusion of a stage in which it had been substantially amended. The difficulty was not made at all less by the attitude of the Solicitor-General who had declared the Bill to be unworkable.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITmoved that the question be now put.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that under some circumstances he might have assented to the Motion, but it was hardly worth while to put the House to the trouble of two divisions when the Bill could be put down as the first order on Friday next, and a decision certainly obtained.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he would not press the Motion.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid his object was simply to protest against reading the Bill a third time at the end of a sitting in which it had been substantially amended, against the protests of people who were entitled to be heard in the matter, and without a proper opportunity for discussion.
  And, it being half-past five of the clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.
  Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with: Alexandra Park and Palace.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Great Northern Railway Bill; The Lord Chancellor informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The orders made on the 14th of May and Monday last discharged, and Bill committed.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
Mid Yorkshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Manchester Southern Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill (No. 120); Broughty Ferry Gas Provisional Order Bill (No. 121); Hamilton Burgh Provisional Order Bill (No. 122); Military Lands Provisional Orders Bill (No. 123); Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (Transfer) Bill; Brought from the Commons; Read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
St. Luke's Church and Parish Quoad Sacra Edinburgh Order Confirmation Bill. [H.L.]; Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Winchester Water and Gas Bill; Midland Railway Bill; Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Order of yesterday for the Commitment of the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next discharged, and Bill committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Naval Work Provisional Order Bill: Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for this day), put off to Monday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AFRICA No. 6. (1903.)
  Report by His Majesty's Commissioner on the East Africa Protectorate.
  WELLINGTON COLLEGE.
  Report of the Governors, for the year ended the 31st December, 1902; with accounts.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade.
  Authorising the construction of light railways between Stockton Heath and Northwich, and elsewhere in the County of Chester.
  Authorising the construction of light railways in the County Borough of Warrington and in the parishes of Stockton Heath and Latchford Without, in the County of Chester.
  Authorising the construction of light railways in the County of Kent, in the County Borough of Canterbury, and in the rural districts of Bridge and of Blean, and in the urban district of Herne Bay.
  Authorising the County Council of Middlesex to take lands for widening roads on which light railways will be laid in the parishes of Edgware, Finchley,

  1407
  Friern Barnet, Hendon, Kingsbury, Little Stanmore, Southgate, Tottenham, Willesden, and Wood Green in the County of Middlesex.
  Authorising the compulsory purchase of lands for the purposes of the Cole and Trawden Light Railways Order, 1901, and for other purposes.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BISHOPRICS OF SOUTHWARK AND BIRMINGHAM BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, I understand that a wish has been expressed by some noble Lords that more time should be given for the consideration of this Bill. If that is the general wish of the House I will postpone the Second Reading until Monday.
  EARL SPENCER: I certainly did hear that there were certain persons very much interested in this Bill who did not have the print of it in their hands until last night. I understand that copies of the Bill were circulated to your Lordships early on Wednesday morning, and if that is so I think a little longer time should be allowed before the Second Reading stage is taken. It is true that it is on the lines of a Bill introduced last session, but it goes a great deal farther, as it deals also with Birmingham. I am glad, therefore, that the noble Lord has expressed his willingness to postpone it.
  Second Reading postponed accordingly until Monday next.

  PREFERENTIAL TARIFFS—GERMANY AND CANADA.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, who had given notice "To call attention to the statement of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, made on 15th June, that 'it has been intimated by the German Government that if other British colonies follow the example of
  1408
  Canada and give a preference to British imports, Great Britain probably will not be allowed to continue in receipt of the most - favoured - nation terms;' and to move that Papers may be laid upon the Table of the House as soon as the public interest will permit" said: My Lords, the Foreign Secretary the other night, in the course of the debate upon preferential tariff's, let drop certain very important words to which it was not possible to draw sufficient attention at that time. The subject which was before the House was not our relations with Germany, but the question of preferential tariffs. The noble Marquess, who never speaks without care and deliberation, made a very important statement, as I thought, and he concluded by saying that what had happened had created a very serious situation. I think, therefore, that it is desirable that the attention of your Lordships should be called, and that of the country directed, to the correspondence which appears to have been recently passing between our Foreign Office and the German Government. The noble Marquess, speaking at the time of the difficulties which had arisen between Canada and the German Government with regard to the preferential terms which Canada had conceded to this country, told us that it was quite possible, and, indeed, likely, that the German Government might proceed to put further surtaxes on Canadian produce; and then he used these words, that it had been intimated by the German Government that if other British colonies followed the example of Canada and gave a preference to British imports, Great Britain probably would not be allowed to continue in receipt of the most-favoured-nation terms.
  Now, my Lords, what is this notice that has been presented to us by the German Government? The German Government say that if any other British colony chooses to concede to this country preferential terms punishment is to follow. Who is to be punished? Is it the colony? That, I presume, goes without saying. But, in addition to the colony, Great Britain, although she may not have asked for this preference, although she may not even be desirous to have it, yet because one of her colonies has chosen to place her upon preferential

  1409
  terms, is to be removed from the most-favoured-nation clauses as far as Germany is concerned. That is a notice which is quite unprecedented so far as I know; I am not aware that any independent nation has ever sent such a notice to another. But, my Lords, what is Germany's position? Germany argues, in the first place, in this wise. She says—"We claim to differentiate against Canada because we contend that Canada, having a fiscal system of her own, and being a representative colony, is not, for fiscal purposes, part of the British Empire, and we have the right to treat her as an independent Power." But she alters her ground after that. Then she says—"But we inform you, Great Britain, that if any other of your colonies concedes to you a preference, then you are responsible for that colony, although it is representative, although it has a separate fiscal system of its own. We will punish it, but we will also punish you, and we will no longer concede to you the most-favoured-nation terms."
  My Lords, were such inconsistent arguments ever before brought forward? Can any one say that there is any justice in such a course? Now, what is the meaning of this notice? It must be one of two things. It may be a threat to terrorise the colonies and prevent them from drawing nearer to this country, and also a threat to this country that if she allows her colonies to draw nearer to her she is to take the consequences. Are German statesmen so ignorant of the whole character and temper of this country that they really believe that a course like this is likely to succeed? The policy of the "mailed fist" may do very well in Germany—though even there discontent and Socialism appear to be spreading very rapidly, according to what we see and read—but in this country that policy is of all policies the least likely to succeed. Yet we are told that Great Britain is to be placed on a stool apart from all the other boys as an example to the world of what happens to a naughty boy when he dares to disregard the directions of the master. If it is not this—and I see that some of the organs of the German
  1410
  Press have been contending just within this last day or two that it is not intended for a threat—then what else can it be except a direct challenge to this country to a war of tariffs? I can hardly believe that that is the case, but if it be so the levity of such a course as that is only exceeded by its unwisdom.
  Does Germany really wish to enter upon a commercial war with this country? Is it wise, in her own interests, that she should do so? If you look at the trade between Germany and this country—I take the three years which immediately preceded the South African war and which therefore may be regarded as the last normal years—you will find that in 1897 Germany exported to this country goods to the value of 699,000,000 marks, and imported from us goods to the value of 567,000,000 marks; in 1898 she exported to us 740,000,000 marks, and imported from us 566,000,000 marks; in 1899 she exported to us 801,000,000 marks worth of goods, and imported from us 672,000,000 marks. Therefore, if Germany chooses to enter upon a commercial war with us, she is doing away with one of her very best customers. Of course, Germany is the best judge of what is good for her own commercial interests, but I do not think that any of us would have advocated a course like that if we had been speaking of the interests of Great Britain. Germany has declared commercial war upon Canada. What is the effect likely to be there? The trade is not a very large one, but Germany's exports to Canada are five or six times what her imports from Canada are. Pray how is Germany benefited if she places a surtax on Canada which merely produces a surtax in retaliation on her own goods? But she promises to carry this policy further, and she says that if any other British colony gives a preference to Great Britain it will be treated in a like way. I presume she therefore wishes to throttle her growing trade with Australia—a trade which at the present time is a very important one; and I presume also that she wishes to throttle her trade with British South Africa if the resolutions which were passed the other day at the Bloemfontein Conference are adopted by the various British

  1411
  colonies there. One can only say how unwise this is, but it is for Germany to take her own course.
  Let us look nearer home. It is very evident from the German Press that this policy of preferential tariffs between this country and her colonies, which is at the present time under discussion, is a matter which creates considerable concern in Germany, and, as we know, the Secretary of State for the Colonies is not very popular in Germany. He has had to express his opinion, on one occasion at all events, very clearly to a German statesman, and he is not regarded with much favour in the German Press. He is the chief advocate of preferential tariffs. Pray how is Germany advancing her own cause by taking the line she has taken? If she had wished to assist to her utmost the cause which the Colonial Secretary is advocating, what better method could she possibly have adopted than by explaining to this country so graphically the lesson of retaliation? There is nothing like an object lesson to inform the public mind in this country with regard to any public question. This country never would have understood the South African question if ex-President Kruger had not declared war; and when Germany informs this country that if she draws nearer to her colonies she shall suffer by being taken out of the most-favoured-nation clause, that is a thing which, as soon as it is realised, will be thoroughly understood, and, as I believe, deeply resented.
  I say it with regret, but unfortunately this is by no means a solitary instance in which the German Government has done its best to annoy and to irritate this country in late years. When the German Empire was founded there were a very large number of people in this country—I believe the majority—who thought that the German Alliance was the natural alliance and the best alliance for this country. We all respect the energy, the steadfastness, the thoroughness of the character of the German nation, and we admire many other of their high qualities, and it would seem that an alliance and a close friendship between the two nations was most natural. But I regret to say that on many occasions—I need not give instances, for there is no use in ripping up old sores, and your Lordships know them
  1412
  well—German statesmen and the German Press seem to have been actuated by a desire, and they certainly have known how, to annoy this country deeply in more than one way, and a conviction has been gaining ground, during the last two or three years I am afraid rapidly, that when we look for friendship we had better look somewhere else than to Germany. What the reason of this may be I am sure I do not know. All I can say is that I deeply lament it; but you may depend upon it that irritating messages such as this, even if for the moment their effect may pass away, are not likely to be forgotten. It is very desirable, I think, that we should see the correspondence that has taken place on this matter, and that we should see it with as little delay as may be. I do not think that it is possible that this correspondence, or this part of it, can be long. To any such communication as that which the noble Marquess said he had received there could be only one answer—a very simple one. No British Government could give any answer but one. What is wanted, I think, in this matter is plain speaking, and it does not at all follow that plain speaking means a diminution of friendship. The German Government, I hope, has already been made to understand that the relations between ourselves and our colonies is an affair which concerns us alone, and that messages or threats or warnings which are conveyed to us by any foreign nation with regard to our colonies, whatever may be their object and their intention, are only likely to confirm us more in taking the course which we choose to take. I beg to move for the correspondence which has taken place with the German Government on this matter.
  Moved, That an humble address be presented to His Majesty for correspondence relating to the statement of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, made on 15th June, that "it has been intimated by the German Government that if other British Colonies follow the example of Canada and give a preference to British imports, Great Britain probably will not be allowed to continue in receipt of the most-favoured-nation terms."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I will not

  1413
  attempt to follow the noble Earl through the whole of the interesting speech which he has just delivered. That speech was mainly devoted to enforcing an argument which I used myself the other night, and I therefore listened to it with feelings of concurrence and approval. The noble Earl, of course, was able to speak with an amount of unofficial freedom which I could not use in the course of my remarks the other evening. I have, I think, however, said enough to show the noble Earl that I fully realise the great importance of the question which he has brought before your Lordships, and I do not feel that I am called upon to-night to add to, or to take away anything from, what I ventured to say on the subject the other evening. My Lords, I will only make this observation in passing. The noble Earl indulged in some severe strictures upon the conduct of the German Government on this and on other occasions. My Lords, I desire to deprecate the assumption that in this matter the conduct of the German Government has been actuated by deliberate hostility to the Government of His Majesty. I think the German Government have taken a course which it was perhaps nit unnatural that they should take, knowing, as they did, the manner in which up to the present time we have been in the habit of dealing with questions concerning the treatment of our colonies. What I think is necessary is that we should do what the noble Earl says we should, I mean that we should make our position in regard to these matters perfectly clear and intelligible to Germany and to all concerned, and I have very little doubt that when this is done we shall find it possible to bring about a settlement of these questions on terms satisfactory to ourselves and to the colonies. With respect to the Papers, the noble Earl and every Member of your Lordships' House is, of course, fully entitled, after the argument which I used the other evening, to require their production. I am having them got in in order. The noble Earl is, of course, aware that when Papers are laid including communications which have passed with a foreign Government that Government has to be consulted before the
  1414
  Papers are finally put in shape for presentation; but I see no reason why that process should take up any length of time, and I hope within a few days to lay the Papers before the House, and the noble Earl will find that they carry the history of this matter up to the present dafe.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: How far will the Papers go back? I understand that there are some important despatches going back as far as 1897.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My idea was to begin with the Papers of 1897, and bring the correspondence up to the last despatches which have passed. Some of the 1897 Papers have already been laid, but I think it would be desirable to include them in the new Blue-book.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: As the noble Marquess has consented to lay the Papers on the Table when they are ready, I beg to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

  THE SERVIAN MASSACRE.
  LORD NEWTON, who had the following notice on the Paper, viz.—"To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any common or concerted action with other Powers with regard to the new Government of Servia," said: My Lords, the Question which appears in my name has already been answered in another place, but I have left it on the Paper, and propose to put it so as to afford the noble Marquess an opportunity of making a more ample statement, if he thinks fit, than was made in the House of Commons. I do not wish to detain your Lordships at any length in discussing this matter, but I cannot help remarking upon the extraordinary apathy, amounting I might almost say to callousness, with which this most atrocious crime has been received throughout Europe. I cannot but think that if this event had taken place in the neighbouring country of Turkey we should have heard from many a platform and pulpit eloquent denunciations and assertions that such an occurrence could not have been possible in any Christian country. Although the

  1415
  statement has been made by the Provisional Servian Government that—
  "Highly satisfactory despatches have been received from the Governments of London, Paris, Berlin, and Rome,"
  I have very little doubt in my own mind that this is an impudent fabrication on the part of the Provisional Government. But the fact does remain that so far only two protests have been publicly made against this most atrocious crime—one in the message addressed by the Emperor of Austria to the newly elected king, and the other in the communiqué published to-day from the Official Messenger of St. Petersburg, in which the hope is expressed that condign punishment will be inflicted on the perpetrators of these murders. It is, however, extremely difficult to see how this can be carried out, because the new king, it is perfectly evident, can only be the creature of the conspirators who have been the means of securing his election. So far as Servia itself is concerned, the feelings of nobody appear to have been outraged at all. On the contrary, the assassins are glorified as heroes, the National Assembly has passed a vote of thanks to them, and their action has been effusively and solemnly blessed by the clergy. As a matter of fact, this is a crime that does not possess one single redeeming feature—it has no justification of patriotism. We are assured that the country sympathises with the disappearance of the Obrenovitch dynasty, and that popular feeling is in favour of the change which has occurred. Anyone who knows anything about the Balkan States knows perfectly well that popular feeling in the ordinary acceptance of the term is nonexistent, and that it is solely created, formed, and regulated by the set of politicians who happen to be in power, and who control it through the police and the other means at their disposal. This has been nothing but a sordid military conspiracy carried out in an atrocious way, and inspired by sordid motives. It is evidently a purely military conspiracy of the ordinary kind, and it has been carried out by an army which is obviously a much more efficient instrument for effecting a palace revolution than for encountering a neighbouring country on the field of battle. I am the last person who wishes to see sentiment imported into foreign politics. If the Servian people really like to be governed
  1416
  by assassins and conspirators that is their own look-out, and we have no title to interfere, provided British interests are not affected, but I venture to express the opinion that there is something actually revolting in the continuance of ordinary relations with persons responsible for a crime of this nature; and whatever may be the intention of foreign Governments, whether they propose to exact reparation for this crime or not, I trust that His Majesty's Government will take an early opportunity of expressing in the most emphatic manner their abhorrence of this crime, not only because it is a disgrace to civilisation, but because a crime of this kind must re-act in the very worst possible manner far beyond the boundaries of the country in which it has been committed.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that His Majesty's Government do not yield to him in the abhorrence which he has expressed for the events which have lately disgraced the capital of Servia. That abhorrence has not been diminished by any later intelligence which has reached us in regard to those events. I think it would be no exaggeration to say that it would be hard to find a parallel, even in the annals of States which have no pretence to be included amongst civilised communities, for outrages of such a character as those which we are discussing this evening. The noble Lord asked me "whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any common and concerted action with other Powers with regard to the new Government of Servia." I am not quite sure whether I understood him to suggest that it was our duty to concert with other Powers measures of a punitive character directed against the authors of these outrages. My Lords, no proposal of that kind has been made to us, nor, I conceive, could we usefully have made such a proposal to other Powers; but when we pass from that to the question of diplomatic relations, then I am certainly prepared to tell the noble Lord that nothing is further from our thoughts than to maintain what he spoke of as ordinary relations with persons who were implicated in these events. Our action in the matter has already been publicly

  1417
  explained. Our diplomatic relations came to an end with the death of the late King, and they have not been renewed. We had it at first in contemplation to mark our indignation by the immediate withdrawal of our representative, Sir George Bonham, from Belgrade, but we came to the conclusion that it was better, at all events for a time, that Sir George Bonham should remain at his post. We desired that he might be there to watch over British interests and to report to us as to the progress of events; but he was specially instructed, by a telegram which I addressed to him on the 15th inst., that his intercourse with the authorities was to be strictly limited to what is necessary for these purposes, and he was told that he was to be careful to do nothing which might be construed as an official recognition of the Provisional Government, whose freedom from complicity in the Acts of the night of June 10th has not yet been established, or as pledging His Majesty's Government to recognise the authority which may be set up in succession to the dynasty. With regard to the action of other Powers, although there has been no attempt at combined or concerted action, we have taken measures to inform ourselves as to what is intended, and I believe I am correct in saying that three, at least, of the Great Powers—France, Germany, and Italy — are maintaining an attitude corresponding to that which we have maintained. Two other Powers — Russia and Austria — are, we understand, prepared to recognise the new régime; but Russia, at all events, appears to have made it plain that she expected the punishment of the persons concerned in these crimes. I may, perhaps, add, that we have come to the conclusion that it would not be desirable that Sir George Bonham should be at Belgrade when the new reign is inaugurated. We have, therefore, instructed him to leave the capital for a time.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I only wish to say that I have heard with great satisfaction the statement of the noble Marquess. It seems to me that it would have been very unfortunate, and not at all in accordance with our position
  1418
  as a great civilised Power, to pass over without some marked comment the terrible tragedy which took place at Belgrade. What the noble Marquess has told us seems to put in a satisfactory way the view which His Majesty's Government very properly took of these events, and which the country will, I am sure, support. It is satisfactory to learn, at all events, that certain of the Great Powers are viewing them in the same way. I hope, therefore, that, though it may not be very strongly marked, it will show the horror which the action of the conspirators has aroused in all the civilised countries of Europe.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: My Lords, I wish to say that I have heard with great satisfaction the statement of the noble Marquess, especially the part of it which informed us that Sir George Bonham was not to remain at Belgrade during the investiture of the new Sovereign. That, at any rate, will be a sign of the intense disapprobation and horror felt universally throughout this country at the atrocious deeds perpetrated the other night, and I am pleased that the noble Marquess has placed that view of the case before your Lordships.

  MUSICAL COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
  [THIRD READING.]
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I have two Amendments to move, the first of which is rendered necessary by the omission of the original Clause 5 of the Bill, which took place in the Standing Committee. But I wish to make one small alteration in the wording of the Amendment which now reads—"If any person shall sell or offer for sale, or carry for the purpose of sale, in or through any street or place of public resort," etc. I propose to substitute the words "public place" for the words "place of public resort."
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 4, to insert as a new Clause, 'If any person shall sell or offer for sale, or

  1419
  carry for the purpose of sale, in or through any street or public place, any pirated copy of any musical work, such person may be apprehended by any constable without warrant, if the true name and address of such person are not known to, and cannot then reasonably be ascertained by, the constable, and on the request in writing of the apparent owner of the copyright in such work, or of his agent thereto authorised in writing, and at the risk of such owner, and shall be taken as soon as reasonably may be before a Court of summary jurisdiction to be dealt with according to law.'"—(The Earl of Lytton.)
  LORD BELPER: The Home Office approve of the wording of the Amendment with the slight alteration which the noble Earl has made and which appears to be necessary, as otherwise it might be possible, in a place of public amusement, or a station, or other place of public resort, to call in the police, which is not desirable.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF LYTTON: The second Amendment is a purely drafting one, which I am told is necessary to make the Bill work.
  Amendment moved—
  Clause 6, to leave out Sub-sections 3 and 4, and to insert as anew Sub-section: 'This Act and the Musical (Summary Proceedings) Copyright Act, 1902, shall extend to the Isle of Man (and all penalties recoverable and all acts authorised to be done by, or in any Court of summary jurisdiction in the island, may be recovered or done before or by a high bailiff, or two justices of the peace).'"—(The Earl of Lytton.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Moved, That the Bill do pass.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill sent to the Commons.

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  COAL MINES (CERTIFICATES) BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.