Sitting of 14 June 1907

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the absence of Mr. Speaker through continued indisposition.
Whereupon Mr. EMMOTT, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Shanklin Gas Bill, South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill. Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Manchester Ship Canal (Various Powers) Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified). Bill read the third time and passed with Amendments.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. Read the third time and passed.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway (General Powers) Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Lerwick (two); and, Thurso; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SPECIAL RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION) BILL.
  Petition from Wigan, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING ACTS.
  Petition from Leicester, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Burghead, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against; from Helmsley; Granchester; St. Leonards-on-Sea; Sherborne; and, Southampton; to lie upon the Table.
  PAUPER LUNATICS (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
  Petition from Whitehaven, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  WEEKLY REST DAY BILL.
  Petition from Harringay and other places, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE DEDUCTION FOR PROPELLING POWER) BILL.
  Petitions against, praying to be heard by counsel; from Undertakers of the Aire and Calder Navigation; Barry Railway Company; Caledonian Railway Company; P. and A. Campbell, Limited; Dee Conservancy Board; Glasgow Shipowners' Association; Clyde Steamship Owners' Association; Cardiff Shipowners' Association: Hartlepools Shipowners' Society; North of England Steamship Owners' Association; and various other Companies, Associations, and persons being, and representing Shipowners trading at Ports in the United Kingdom; Great Central Railway Company: Greenock; Hull and Barnsley Railway Company; Irish Pilots; Leith Harbour and Docks Commissioners; Midland Railway Company; Milford Docks Company; Port Talbot Railway and Docks Company; Corporation of St. Ives; Pilots at the Ports of St. Ives and Hayle; Sligo Harbour Commissioners; Taff Vale Railway Company; and, Companies, Associations, and persons representing Shipowners and Owners and Managers of Steam Tugs in various Ports of the United Kingdom; referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.
  Petition from the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Penzance, against; referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.
  Petition from Cork Harbour Commissioners, against alterations, praying to be heard by counsel; referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MINES AND QUARRIES.
  Copy presented, of General Report and Statistics for the year 1905, Part IV., Colonial and Foreign Statistics; Statistics relating to Persons employed, Output, and Accidents at Mines and Quarries in the British Colonies and in Foreign Countries [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the County of Glamorgan, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of Shops within the Blaengarw, Pontycymmer, Bettws, and Pontyrhil Wards of the Ogmore and Garw Urban District [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE RIVER COLONY.
  Copy presented, of further Correspondence relating to affairs in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS).
  Copy presented, of Report No. 41 (East Africa Protectorate; Report on the Forests of Kenia by Mr. D. E. Hutchins) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Dock Accommodation at Belfast.
  Mr. J. DEVLIN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the correspondence between Messrs. Harland and Wolff and the Belfast Harbour Commissioners with reference to the inadequacy of the graving-dock accommodation at that port; whether he is aware that within thirty-one days of 2nd July, 1906, this firm were compelled

  5
  to dock in Liverpool, London, and elsewhere six of their ships with a tonnage of 55,757 because of the lack of docking accommodation in Belfast; that in the six or seven months preceding the date given above fifteen large steamers which the firm of Harland and Wolff controlled had to be docked in either Liverpool, Southampton, the Clyde, Rotterdam, and other ports; that the loss in wages to the workers of Belfast in consequence of the removal of shipping contracts to other ports was over £250,000; that since then other contracts have had had to be refused for the same reason; that the need for graving-dock accommodation is urgent; that the necessary repairing of the Alexandra Graving Dock has been unduly delayed; that the construction of the new graving dock is likely to occupy ten years; that when Messrs. Harland and Wolff renewed their lease they were given to understand that the new graving dock would be completed in two years, and, in order to expedite this construction, contributed. £2,000 annually as a guarantee that the revenue from it would not be less than £6,000 per annum; that the harbour commissioners refused to entertain the proposal of Messrs. Harland and Wolff to build a dock themselves; that the situation with reference to graving-dock accommodation has grown so serious at Belfast that Messrs. Harland and Wolff have been compelled to establish a new repairing yard at Southampton; that in consequence of the failure of the commissioners not only the shipbuilding trade of the port of Belfast but the numerous local industries dependent upon it are seriously threatened; and whether, seeing that the harbour board is elected on a restricted franchise, and is immune from the influence or control of the overwhelming majority of the people of Belfast, he will introduce a Bill to place the franchise on a popular basis or, failing that, will undertake to support a Bill introduced by a private Member with that object.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) My attention has been called to the correspondence referred to by the hon. Member, and I have made inquiries into the matter. It appears to be the fact that within thirty-one days of the 2nd July, 1906, Messrs. Harland and Wolff docked elsewhere than at Belfast
  6
  six of their ships with a gross tonnage of 55,642 tons, and also that within six or seven months preceding the above date fifteen other large vessels were docked elsewhere. I am not in a position to say what was the consequent loss of wages to the workers of Belfast, nor have I any information as to the refusal of other shipping contracts. I am aware that the need of graving-dock accommodation is urgent, and that delay may imperil the prosperity of Belfast. The commissioners with whom I have communicated deny that there has been any undue delay in repairing the Alexandra Graving Dock, on which they state that men are working day and night, and which they hope will be available for use before the end of the year. They further state that the completion of the new graving dock is likely to occupy two years and not ten, as stated in the Question, and that they have offered a bonus of £600 to the contractors for every month that the dock is completed before the stipulated time. As the result, however, of further inquiries which I have made on this point, I find that only a few men have been employed at night, and I do not feel satisfied that the work has been expedited as much as possible. With regard to the guarantee offered by Messrs. Harland and Wolff, the Commissioners state that the company undertook that if the gross receipts from the new graving dock should in any year be less than £8,000, they would make good the deficiency to an extent not exceeding £2,000 a year. The Commissioners deny that they have refused to entertain any proposal of Messrs. Harland and Wolff to build a graving dock themselves, and state that they have informed that firm that they are prepared to consider any definite proposal on the subject. I understand that Messrs. Harland and Wolff are establishing a new repairing yard at Southampton, but I am not able to state the reasons which influenced them in so doing. The transference of a portion of the shipping with which they deal from Liverpool to Southampton may of course, has been a contributory cause. I am informed that Belfast industries, including shipbuilding, are very prosperous at present. The constitution of the Harbour Commission is fixed by the Belfast Harbour Act, 1883. The Commission consists of the Lord Mayor of Belfast and twenty-one other members

  7
  elected by a constituency of shipowners and occupiers of premises within the city rated at £20 and upwards. The number of such electors is, I understand, 9,869, which is a much larger number than at Liverpool, Glasgow, or Dublin. Comparatively speaking, therefore, the franchise can hardly be termed restricted, and I do not see my way to propose an alteration at present.

  Payment of Income Tax on Interest on Loans.
  MR. VIVIAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the repayment of Income Tax on interest paid to banks by borrowers, is there any reason why loans negotiated direct with a bank should be treated differently from exactly similar loans negotiated with a bank through a broker; and whether he will arrange that no disability shall accrue to a borrower who employs a broker.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) No difference is made between one loan and another, provided the immediate lender be a bank. But a loan cannot be treated as made by a bank, unless a bank be the immediate creditor. The fact that a loan from a bank was negotiated by a third person would not make the treatment of the interest of the loan different from what it would be if the borrower had himself negotiated the loan.

  Irish Education Commissioners and Insurance under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
  MR. MOORE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if that Department has received a remonstrance from the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland against the refusal of the Treasury to insure managers under the Board against loss from accidents to teachers within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906; if he is aware that the teachers are paid by the Commissioners and are, in fact, in their employment, and that the Commissioners are willing to undertake the liability of insurance if authorised by the Treasury; and whether, having regard to the fact that in many cases the managers are in no better financial circumstances than the teachers, the Treasury will authorise the Commis-
  8
  sioners to effect insurances of teachers, so as to secure an indemnity for them, as well as the managers, in case of accidents.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) A communication from the Commissioners of National Education on this subject was received by the Treasury on the 11th instant, and is now under consideration.

  Distribution of Seed Potatoes in the Glenties Union.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he has received any complaints relative to the distribution of seed potatoes, etc., in the Glenties union of county Donegal; whether he is aware that the Glenties District Council has requested the county council to discontinue the raising of a rate in that district in connection with the schemes of the Department, on the ground that the Glenties district, which is one of the poorest and most congested districts in Ireland, receives no benefit from the expenditure of this money; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) The Department have received complaints relative to the distribution of seeds and manures for demonstration purposes in the Glenties union, county Donegal. They are not aware, however, that the Glenties District Council have requested the county council to discontinue the raising of a rate in that district in connection with the schemes of the Department, and they consider it unlikely that this is the case, seeing that no part of the rates is applied to the scheme in question. The rate is applied to the schemes administered by the County Committee of Agriculture, while the cost from the public funds of the administration of the demonstration plot scheme referred to is borne by the Department's endowment. This scheme is supplementary to those administered by the County Committee. The Department do not propose to take any action relative to the future administration of these special and supplementary schemes, pending consideration of the question as to whether they are to be put into operation during the year 1908.

  Transfer of Head Constable Megarry from Depot Store.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say why Head Constable Megarry was transferred from the depot store; what was the nature of the irregularities carried on at the depot store prior to Megarry's transference; was an official inquiry held; and, if so, who comprised the court, and what was their decision.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Head Constable Megarry was transferred from the depot store to a country station upon his own application, made in consequence of his wife's ill-health. No irregularities took place at the depot prior to the transfer, and consequently no official inquiry was held. The Inspector-General informs me that this officer gave entire satisfaction during several years' service at the depot, and it is, I think, a matter for regret that the imputation conveyed in the Question should have been made.

  Irish Junior Assistant Mistresses under Eighteen Years of Age.
  MR. MOORE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland have junior assistant mistresses under eighteen years of age been recognised in any case and paid by the Commissioners of National Education.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners inform me that the Answer is in the affirmative. Under a recent modification of their rules a junior assistant mistress may be recognised at the age of seventeen years in a school of which the principal teacher is a woman.

  Payment of Irish Junior Assistant Mistresses.
  MR. MOORE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when a junior assistant mistress is recognised during the currency of a quarter, and where from the date of her recognition the attendance averages the prescribed limit of thirty-five, do the National Education Commissioners pay the mistress £6 per quarter for the period subsequent to her recognition in the same quarter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) In every school with an average attendance of
  10
  from thirty-five to fifty pupils the payment to a recognised junior assistant mistress is at the rate of £6 a quarter.
  MR. MOORE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland do the Commissioners of National Education pay a junior assistant mistress full salary when, by reason of an epidemic in the district, the attendance falls below thirty-five.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) In cases in which the appointment of a junior assistant mistress has been sanctioned by the Commissioners in a school with an average attendance of thirty-five or upwards the grant is not withdrawn until the end of two consecutive quarters of insufficient average, and, if an epidemic should have been the cause of the insufficiency, the grant may be continued exceptionally for a further period not exceeding two quarters. Junior assistant mistresses are also recognised and paid full salary even if the average is under thirty - five, provided that the school is a mixed one under a master, and that there are at least twenty girls in average attendance. If, however, the average attendance of girls is less than twenty, the junior assistant mistress is paid a capitation rate on the number of girls in actual average attendance in each quarter.

  Evicted Tenants Return.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will obviate the necessity for individual inquiries by having incorporated in the promised Report on Evicted Tenants a list, by counties, of these whose claims have been found to be good and to whom the forthcoming Evicted Tenants Bill will apply.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Report of the Estates Commissioners will contain a statement showing, by counties, the number of the evicted tenants who, in the Commissioners' opinion, are suitable to receive holdings. It is not intended to publish the names of these persons.

  Poor Law Reform in Ireland.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his

  11
  attention has been drawn to the Report of the Viceregal Commission on Poor Law Reform in Ireland; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of legislating, as early as possible, on the basis of this Report.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer to my Answer to the hon. Member for South Sligo on 6th May. †

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
MR. HARMOOD-BANNER:said he desired to move that this Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in order that he might move the following new clause: "The powers and provisions of this Act shall be deemed to be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other powers or provisions contained in any local Act of Parliament, and the powers and provisions of any such local Act may be exercised and enforced in the same manner as if this Act had not been passed." It was with no hostility to the Bill that he made this Motion, but because he was not present at the time it came up on Report, although the clause was then on the Paper, and he was in consequence unable to move it. The reason he asked that the Bill should be recommitted was that as it at present stood, it would invalidate the regulations which the larger municipalities had already in force. They had made a good many regulations which they thought were complete and ample to deal with the question, and they preferred to continue with those regulations rather than be brought under the regulations of the Bill. He begged to move.
SIR F. BANBURYseconded the Amendment. Though he personally was not in favour of the Bill he believed it would be passed, and he thought if they were going to pass such a Bill it should be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House, in order that it might be made as perfect as possible.
† See (4) Debates, clxxiii., 1314.
12
His hon. friend had stated that the reason the Amendment was not accepted on the Report Stage was that he was not in his place to move it. That was not a very good reason, because if hon. Members wished to amend a Bill they should be in their place when that Bill came before the House, and if they were not they should take the consequences. But under the special circumstances he would assist his hon. friend as far as he could, and he hoped the House would give his hon. friend an opportunity to move the Amendment.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid before Mr. Deputy-Speaker put the Question he would like to know whether he would be entitled to protest against the Third Reading of the Bill if the Amendment were agreed to, and whether he would be entitled to move certain Amendments which he had moved in the Committee, or whether the Bill would be recommitted simply to deal with the Motion of the hon. Member.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member must raise in the Committee the question of what was in order in Committee. He (Mr. Deputy-Speaker) could not rule upon it now, and the recommittal stage of the Bill might not be taken before him.
Amendment proposed—
" To leave out from the word 'be' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words ' recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of a new clause (Powers of Act accumulative).''—(Mr. Harmood-Banner.)
Question proposed, ''That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. HART-DAVIESsaid he had no objection to the recommittal of the Bill for this particular clause. He thought it was superfluous, but it might be a useful clause, and therefore he did not object.
MR. W. MOOREsaid he should vote for the Bill as it stood, but there were certain matters he would like to see put into it. He wished the whole question of the powers of the local authorities to deal with advertisements to be considered, and to that end he would very much welcome the re-committal

13
of the Bill, in order to enable urban councils in Ireland to have the powers given to urban councils in England to advertise the particular merits of their own localities, and thus offer inducements to tourists and visitors. At Blackpool, for instance, could be seen what it was possible for a local authority to do by advertising the attractions of the place and neighbourhood; but there was no corresponding power given under the Irish Local Government Act. He thought that a County Council was much too large an authority to deal with this question.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order. This question does not arise on the Motion before the House.
MR. W. MOOREI understood that the Motion was to recommit the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House.
*Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKERThe Motion is to recommit the Bill for a certain definite purpose, and what the hon. Member desires does not come within the scope of that purpose as I understand it.
Mr. MOOREI assume then that when this Motion is disposed of it would be open to me to move to recommit the Bill in respect of another purpose.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 33. (Division List No. 232).

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Higham, John Sharp

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Balcarres, Lord

Holt, Richard Dinning

Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Br'dfo'd

Barlow, Perey (Bedford)

Jowett, F. W.

Robertson, J.M. (Tyneside)

Beale, W. P.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Black, Arthur W.

Laidlaw, Robert

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Brigg, John

Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Channing, Sir.Francis Allston

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Cleland, J. W.

M'Micking, Major G.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Clough, William

Maddison, Frederick

Spicer, Sir Albert

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Summerbell, T.

Corbett,C H(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Marnham, F. J.

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Mond, A.

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Montagu, E. S.

Toulmin, George

Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N

Murnaghan, George

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Murphy, John

Waring, Walter

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Myer, Horatio

Warner, Thomas Courtenay, T.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Nicholls, George

Watt, Henry A. V

Everett, R. Lacey

Nicholson, Charles N.(D'ncast'r

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Findlay, Alexander

Nolan, Joseph

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

Fletcher, J. S.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Dowd, John

Yoxall, James Henry

Gulland, John W.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Pirie, Duncan V.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Godfrey Baring and Major Seely.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire, N.E.

Priestley, W.E.B. (Bradford, E.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Hazleton, Richard

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

NOES.

Ashley, W. W.

Hill, Sir Clement(Shrewsbury)

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Kelley, George D.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Boland, John

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.

Whitehead, Rowland

Bowerman, C. W.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Bowles, G. Stewart.

Moore, William

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Carlile, E. Hildred

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Younger, George

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Harmood-Banner and Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.

Renton, Major Leslie

Doughty, Sir George

Ridsdale, E. A.

Gill, A. H.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Main Question again proposed
LORD E. CECILsaid he was in considerable difficulty in discussing this Bill, because he really did not know what the Bill was. [Laughter] Hon. Members laughed, but if they would follow him for a moment he thought they would see that they did not know what they were discussing any more than he did. The Bill was originally introduced in one form. It was amended in Standing Committee, and he held in his hand a copy of the Bill as amended in Committee. It was then amended on Report, and he did not know whether the Bill as presented represented what had come down from the Committee, or that which came down from Report. He wished to know what Bill they were really discussing.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid that if the noble Lord wished to know what Bill was under discussion he should come to the Table and look at the corrected copy. The usual course adopted in these cases had been adopted here. The copy had been corrected. It was not usual where the Amendments on Report were not numerous to reprint a Bill of this character.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid that, as a Member of the Standing Committee which dealt with this Bill, he had taken great interest in it, and yesterday when he obtained a copy of the Bill he was surprised to find that the Amendments inserted in Committee were not in it. He wished to raise this question on a point of order a short time ago, and then an hon. Member handed him another copy which contained the Amendments. He protested against the clerks in the Vote Office handing out Bills in such a way, and he opposed the Third Reading of the Bill because an Amendment he moved in the Committee was rejected.
MR. MOOREasked if he would be in order in moving that the Bill be recommitted in respect to Clause 6.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No, the question I put was that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question. That was carried, and those words stand part.
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL, Yorkshire, Cleveland)said the only Amendment made on the Report stage was one which extended the powers under the Bill to the City of London.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he had an Amendment to move—"that this Bill be read a third time this day three months."
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet must be sufficiently familiar with the forms of the House to know that such a proposal is not in order now.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid that the Bill had now got into an exceedingly complicated condition. He had always been a strong supporter of the measure, and he thought hon. Members opposite would admit that he had done something to facilitate its passage through the earlier stages. The position now was that a number of Members came in upon the last division without knowing what the question was, and had voted against a recommittal of the Bill. He wished to explain the position. The Bill conferred upon local authorities certain powers for the regulation of advertisements; but there were certain local authorities who already possessed similar powers, and the City of Edinburgh had enjoyed those powers ever since the year 1899. In fact the powers which they enjoyed were fuller than those conferred by the Bill. The Amendment suggested by his hon. friend was to insert a clause to secure that the powers and provisions of the Bill should be deemed to be in addition to and not in derogation of any of the powers contained in other local Acts of Parliament When that Amendment was proposed the hon. Member in charge of the Bill rose in his place and stated that the promoters were prepared to accept it. Upon that understanding the Motion for recommitting the Bill was put to the House, and hon. Members below the gangway challenged the division. From their action he took it that they desired that the local authority should not exercise those powers which they already possessed. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no."] He considered there had been a deliberate breach of a Parliamentary pledge. The

17
matter had been practically agreed to, and the action which had been taken put him and these who agreed with him and were in favour of the Bill in an impossible situation. If the House of Commons were to pass the Bill upon the distinct understanding that the powers of local authorities were not to be safeguarded, he should certainly oppose the Third Reading. If on the other hand the promoters were prepared to say that in another place they would have an Amendment inserted which would incorporate the proposed clause in substance the matter could be put right.
MR. BEALEsaid he was little surprised at the attitude which had been, taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite who he knew were heartily in sympathy with the real objects of the Bill. He agreed that what was being done by these municipalities which had been referred to should not be in any way imperilled; on the contrary, he was anxious that their powers should be preserved. He did not, however, think that the proposed clause was at all necessary, and the case would remain exactly the same if it were not inserted. He did not apprehend that the last division was intended to negative the desire of hon. Members to preserve the existing powers of municipalities. He should certainly welcome such a clause if it would tend to put the minds of hon. Members opposite quite easy.
Sir F. BANBURY and Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY:rose to address the House.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER:The hon. Baronet seconded the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool, and therefore he has exhausted his right to speak; and the hon. Member for West Limerick has already spoken against the Third Reading.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid he had not spoken on the question before the House because he only rose on a point of order. He wished to know if he was entitled to speak on the Third Reading.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER:When the Amendment had been defeated the hon. Member got up and spoke upon the Third Reading, whether he intended to do so or not.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that he did not speak after the Amendment had been defeated; he spoke upon the recommittal of the Bill. When the Amendment was defeated he rose to move another Amendment which was ruled out of order, and therefore he submitted that he had not spoken on the question before the House.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet seconded the Amendment to leave out certain words; that being so he has spoken on the main question and has exhausted his right.
COLONEL LOCK WOODsaid he was opposed to the Bill, and the fact that it was brought in with good intentions was not sufficient to induce him to withdraw his opposition. Hon. Members having no idea of an evil they wished to remedy never had any hesitation in introducing a Bill to remedy it, forgetful of the fact that in drawing up their measure they might get into difficulties out of which they would very likely be unable to extricate themselves. One of his objections was to the words "disfiguring the natural beauty of the landscape." The ideas of some county councils upon such a question might be totally different from the views of the House, and therefore it was a very dangerous power to place in their hands. This measure was founded upon a Bill which was brought forward in June, 1905, and the reason he found fault with it was that certain clauses had been dropped which were inserted as a compromise arrived at between these who were mostly interested in the subject. Compromise was the essence of legislation, and the compromise he had referred to had been arrived at after full consideration, and yet the Committee had gone out of its way to alter the Bill in most serious particulars. The original Bill contained a provision that it should not apply to advertisements unless they were over 12 ft. in height. That was a compromise arrived at with the trade, and it had been left out of the present Bill. Another point was that the Bill should not come into operation until five years had elapsed; for some unexplained reason that period had been altered to two years. That change was very unfair, and would press very hardly upon the

19
trade interested in advertisements. The question had been discussed in another place, and he hoped the Under-Secretary for the Home Office would be able to tell them what the law was as regarded Scotland, and why these various changes had been made in the Bill. He particularly desired to know why two years had been substituted for five years, and why the 12 feet limit had been omitted. The general provisions of the Bill were quite fair and its objects were laudable, but when they discovered that the compromise upon which the Bill was founded had been deliberately broken he thought they would agree that it ought not to pass in its present form.
MR. HART-DAVIESsaid he hoped the House would not be very long before it decided to pass the Third Reading of this Bill as there were many other measures waiting to be dealt with. The subject dealt with in this Bill had been before the public for many years, and a similar measure had passed through the House of Lords. Consequently it was a question upon which they were all agreed [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] He did not think anybody had a right, from purely selfish motives, to interfere with the beauty of any landscape or any public park, and that, after all, was what the Bill proposed to secure. He hoped the measure would not be discussed at any further length. With regard to the objections which had been taken by hon. Members opposite, he was himself sorry that the changes were made in Committee, but the Committee would have its own way. He appealed to the House to pass the Third Reading so as to enable them to get on with the other business.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid that they appeared to be getting more confused than ever. The hon. Member in charge of the Bill promised that in another place certain alterations which had been suggested would be made. He was afraid that under the Bill as drafted there might be a great misuse of the powers conferred, and he hoped some steps would be taken to insert a clause which would clearly define what was meant by a pleasure promenade. Did that phrase simply mean to apply to those objectionable advertisements which they saw displayed in the fields in the country? He would like to know
20
whether the term "pleasure promenade" would refer to a street in a town which was recognised by the people as a promenade. Was a street from which could be viewed a sign advertising somebody's very necessary article to be construed as a pleasure promenade, and would the advertising boards in such a street have to be taken down? The Bill might be twisted into an onslaught upon certain businesses, and some large firms would be very hardly hit unless it was a recognised thing that a pleasure promenade did not cover these parts of the city used for promenading purposes. There was no reason why a local authority which desired to do an injury to some particular firm should not take advantage of the Bill. Some particular county council might entertain objections to a certain class of advertisement, and take a view which would come very hard upon that particular firm. He would also like to know if the term "pleasure promenade" covered public parks. If so, what might be objectionable in the case of a small promenade might not be so objectionable in a large park. He instanced a park of about twenty or thirty acres used by children. Many such parks obtained a considerable revenue from letting hoardings for advertisements, and that source of revenue might be interfered with. He regretted that these matters had not been more fully explained to the House. It should be remembered that was the first opportunity that they had had of criticising the Bill in the House. Another point was the very severe blow which the Bill would strike at the printing and publishing business throughout the country. At the will of some county council great damage might be done to a printing firm. The Bill applied to Ireland, and he had in his mind's eye a great number of advertisements which might be objected to from the sentimental point of view, but it should be remembered that they were displayed for the purpose of promoting business. He would not like the business of the firms who advertised to be interfered with simply on the sentimental ground that their announcements were exhibited in a manner which interfered with the beauty of the landscape. Were the sentimentalists in a county council to have it in their power on the whim of the moment

21
to ruin a whole industry? He also objected to the Bill on the ground that while powers were conferred on the county council no powers were given to the district councils;. There were salt springs at Ballynahinch, and it would be very hard if the county council could interpose and prevent the attractions of the place from being advertised, while the district council had no power to protect its interests in the matter. He maintained that the subject of the Bill was one with which the district councils should have power to deal, and he hoped that the promoters would give an undertaking that when the Bill went to another place it would be amended in such a manner as to enable the local councils to determine what advertisements should or should not be permitted. Blackpool had obtained statutory powers to advertise its attractions, and he hoped that nothing would be done by this Bill to place private enterprise, whether on the part of one man or of syndicates, at a disadvantage as compared with large corporations which already had Parliamentary powers. There were beautiful parts in Ireland to which it was desirable to attract tourists in order that the localities might be benefited, and the rules made by county councils should not be such as to prevent these places from competing for visitors on terms as favourable as these enjoyed by the wealthy corporations of England and Scotland. He wished to know what bearing the provisions of the Bill would have in relation to clause 5 of the Advertising Stations Rating Act of 1889. When reading the terms of that clause—
MR. DEPUTY - SPEAKERThe hon. Member appears to be asking a number of questions on the clause, whereas he ought to be stating his own objections to it. What he is now doing is not a usual method of argument on a motion to omit the clause.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he would not pursue that subject. The points to which he had called attention should have been explained on the Third Reading by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He had raised them in order that the measure might be improved and not destroyed.
MR. MOOREsaid he intended to support the Bill. On the general
22
principle he thought that the local bodies should have complete control of all advertisements. He admitted that they were still some way from the realisation of that system, but he thought a beginning was foreshadowed in the section of the Act of 1889 to which his hon. and gallant friend had referred. There might be some difficulty in carrying out Subsection (2) of Clause 2. It was entirely a matter of taste whether certain advertisements did "disfigure the natural beauty of a landscape," and if that was to be left to the discretion of the county council conflict of opinion would in some cases arise. A county council that might perform its ordinary work in a satisfactory manner might not feel very much at home in matters of art when deciding whether advertisements were or were not objectionable within the meaning of the sub-section. There was a general principle in the Bill which he hoped would not be extended, and he wished to make an appeal to the promoters on the subject before the measure took its final form. He thought every Member of the House objected to the multiplication of rule-making authorities. The regulation of advertisements was a matter for each locality, because different localities had different needs, and the subject would not always be viewed from the same standpoint. He could not see why a large and cumbrous county council should be the supreme power. They might override the opinion of the district council. The local body should have the power of making the by-laws in this as in other matters in conformity with local requirements. He was not suggesting that the county councils were not absolutely representative, but there were many county councils in Ireland which met only four times a year, and sometimes the places of meeting were 100 miles from the areas of certain rural or urban local authorities. The people on the spot were the best judges to decide what the by-laws should be. A Bill of this kind was worth nothing unless its provisions could be enforced. Was the county council to decide whether a prosecution was to be instituted against a person who had exhibited in a remote part a bill announcing, it might be, an auction sale in a form which in their opinion infringed the by-laws? If the by-laws were to be sanctioned

23
by an authority hundreds of miles away, it might lead to a great deal of expense. Prosecutions under the by-laws would be few, and in course of time little attention would be paid to the by-laws. He took the view of his hon. and gallant friend, and he appealed to the promoters of the Bill to allow local bodies to advertise the particular claims of their own neighbourhood out of the rates for the attraction of tourists. That was not in the Bill as it now stood. The Bill was also faulty in some other respects, and he should vote against the Third Reading.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND:said that this was a Bill with the principle of which he was very much in favour; but at the same time there were certain provisions in it, as it now read, which made him reluctant to vote for the Third Reading. It was, he thought, a matter for regret that some Amendments proposed in Committee were not accepted by the promoters. One of the difficulties that had to be encountered was the fact, overlooked by the Committee, that affairs in Ireland were not on all-fours with affairs in this country. As the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Armagh had said, the Bill as it stood at present must work very unsatisfactorily and cause great injustice. Clause 6 defined a local authority as any urban district containing a population of 5,000. He thought that in such matters it was entirely wrong to fix a limit of that kind. The county councils in Ireland presided over very wide areas. It was intended originally by the Bill that specific areas should be dealt with, but a county council might be called upon to decide on matters affecting some far distant district of which they had little or no knowledge. He regretted more than he could say that the promoters of the Bill did not in Committee accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Limerick, who was the only Irish Member on the Committee, which would have reduced the limit of 5,000, because it would have withdrawn from the county council a great deal of work which they were not in a position to carry out. Why should not the district councils have the power of making by-laws in reference to objectionable advertisements in their own district? The Bill, as it stood, said that
24
unless there was an urban population of 5,000 the people of that district should have no control over the advertisements published in the district unless with the consent of the county council which knew nothing of the district. He thought that was unreasonable and would make the Bill difficult to work. He was very reluctant to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill, for any one who had travelled much objected to the glaring and flaring advertisements of quack medicines, etc., which frequently disfigured the most beautiful scenery. He had seen that himself in the Canyons of America and the mountain regions of Australia. He did not object to advertisements, but they were out of place in such situations. There were, however, other advertisements which did not refer to quack medicines, but which were objectionable from other points of view; and everybody agreed that power should be given to prohibit the putting up of such advertisements throughout the country. He objected that in a measure of general utility anything should have been inserted which would make its working in Ireland impossible. That was very unwise and had led him and other Irish Members to enter their protest against it. There was another objection he had to the Bill which he could not get over at all; and that was that the county councils in making by-laws would not be in touch with the rural population. There was nothing more futile than to give half-powers to local authorities. If they were going to trust local authorities full powers ought to be given to them. By the Bill no by-laws passed by a local authority could come into operation unless they received the sanction of the Secretary of State. Surely the Secretary of State had sufficient work in hand without there being imposed upon him the duty of revising the advertisements that were placarded in every remote district of the country. If it was thought in England that they could not trust the local authorities to make by-laws in regard to advertisements without being supervised by the Home Secretary, good and well. But in Ireland the application of the Act was to be made by the Lord-Lieutenant acting with the advice of the Privy Council. Was there anything more preposterous? He had nothing whatever to say against

25
the present Lord-Lieutenant, who, he believed, was a most estimable nobleman, but he thought the noble Lord had plenty to do without interfering with the by-laws made by the urban councils or the county councils. Nevertheless, the Privy Council of Ireland was to be called in to deal with by-laws relating to objectionable advertisements. One would almost imagine, from the wording of it, that the Bill was to secure the integrity and the security of the British Empire. If it were for Clause 7 alone he would enter his strongest and most emphatic protest against the Bill. It would lead to endless trouble. It might be said that the Lord-Lieutenant and the Privy Council of Ireland would not interfere, but leave the framing of the by-laws to the local authorities. That might be the natural course of things in this country, but he was not sure that it would be the case in Ireland, because they found the Dublin Castle officials interfering with the local authorities in the smallest possible affairs. Whatever might be said about the Lord-Lieutenant he did not like the Privy Council in Ireland. He knew a few of the members and he had no doubt they were all intensely respectable men, but the Privy Council was a body which in Ireland did not command the respect of public opinion and was very often in conflict with it. He thought, therefore, as far as Ireland was concerned, the representative of His Majesty and the Privy Council might be left out altogether. It might be said that after all it was a small point, but that was not the case, because the people of Ireland were intensely jealous of interference by the Lord-Lieutenant and the Privy Council with their affairs. He might instance the case of the Irish Council Bill; whether it was dead or not he did not know, but at all events it was in a bad way. It was, in his judgment, killed almost entirely because in it it was proposed to give to the Lord-Lieutenant exactly the same power to over-ride the Irish Council as was given in this Bill in regard to the decisions of the local authorities. Under the Council Bill the Lord-Lieutenant might withhold his sanction, or, if he did not like what the Council had done, do something himself. He objected to this Bill on two grounds. First, that it left the power to the wrong
26
authority. Why did not the Government leave to the district councils that which they would not get done by the county councils? His second objection was that the Lord-Lieutenant and the Privy Council were given any powers in the matter. He could assure the promoters of the Bill, however, that in the main it was a measure which he heartily welcomed, because many times during his travels he had felt the necessity of protection being given to prevent beautiful country sides from being destroyed. It was to be regretted that the representations of the Irish Members on the Committee were entirely ignored, and he did hoped in the future, even if they did not get Home Rule, that Irishmen who were put to represent Ireland upon Committees would have their voice listened to with respect and not be voted down as they were on this occasion. He had only one further remark to make. He did not know who was responsible for the occurrence, but it was unfortunate that the Bill should have been circulated without the Amendments having been inserted. He had had in his possession for some time past a copy of the Bill which was handed him by a friend who was most anxious he should know all about it. But when he commenced to read the Bill before the House he found that the copy supplied to him was not the Bill as amended. The Bill which he had now obtained was inscribed "Advertisements Regulation Bill as amended by Standing Committee A." That was the only copy which should have been circulated. He did not know whether the other copy was circulated by the Vote Office, but it ought not to have been issued, and he thought it was a matter of some regret that it should have been.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he rose, not for the purpose of prolonging the debate, but in the hope that he might, by a somewhat brief answer to some of the points raised, shorten the discussion, as other important measures were to follow. The Amendment to which allusion had been made was defeated by a majority of twenty-one to three, and by that majority it was determined that the smaller authorities should not make by-laws. The Trish Members were not out-voted, as there were two on one side and two

27
on the other, and the point was carried by seven to one. In regard to the other point that it was absurd to insert provisions as to the sanction of the Secretary of State in England and the Lord-Lieutenant in Ireland, he might point out that that was common form. It was exceedingly useful, as it prevented local authorities passing by-laws which the courts of law might hold to be ultra vires. The central authorities were able to prevent this by framing model by-laws which greatly facilitated matters. He had voted for the recommittal of the Bill in order to provide that statutes should not be overridden by local by-laws simply because the Motion had been accepted by the promoters, but the matter was not one of substance, as the Acts of Parliament would stand in any case. A provision as to that could, however, be inserted in the other House, to prevent any possible doubt. As to the twelve foot limit and the five years contracts, the Government supported the promoters on those points because they had made a bargain with the bill-posting trade who withdrew their opposition to the Bill on these conditions. The Government would not oppose any Amendments in another place if the promoters decided to accept them in order to restore the Bill to its original shape in these particulars. He thought the Bill was of a significant character, because this was the first time that Parliament had passed a Bill for the purpose of protecting cities and towns from disfigurement and the beauties of scenery from injury. The Bill would not add sixpence to anyone's wealth but was simply one for suppressing ugliness, and they trusted that it would be the precursor of more legislation which would help to improve the surroundings of people in the towns and the aspect of the country.
MR. BOWERMANsaid that in view of the satisfactory assurances of the hon. Gentleman as to the twelve foot limit and the five years contracts he would not move the Amendments he had on the Paper. If his Amendments were not inserted in another place the injury to the trade would be very grave indeed.
MR. EVELYN CECILcongratulated the hon. Gentleman on the existence of the House of Lords, because
28
otherwise he did not see how these Amendments could be made. With reference to the Amendments as to the twelve foot limit and the five years contracts he thought that in view of the agreement between the promoters and the bill-posting and printing trades upon which the Second Reading was passed, there would be something very like a breach of a Parliamentary understanding if the House passed the Bill in its present form. Therefore it was essential to make these alterations in another place. He thought he was right in saying that the question of the length and height of advertisements had been time after time before the Police and Sanitary Committee, which was a very strong Committee, and on every occasion it was suggested that the words limiting the advertisements to twelve feet in height should be inserted. That was decided on the ground that Sub-section (1) was really only justified in respect to hoardings which endangered public safety. It was quite clear that if the hoardings exceeded twelve feet in height they might very easily endanger public safety, and it was desirable to limit their size on that ground. He did not see why any lesser advertisement should be interfered with because of its size. If they allowed local authorities to interfere with smaller advertisements, they would in his opinion be putting into their hands a rather dangerous power, because it was claimed that if they were allowed to make regulations for advertisements of quite a small size they might be competing with other bodies or institutions who were putting up small advertisements. It was very easy for local authorities to make regulations which would suit their own advertisements of less than twelve feet in height, but seriously prejudice their competitors and rivals. On these grounds he thought the words ought to be retained. There was another point to which he desired to call attention. The words of Clause 2, sub-section (2) so far as he could see, did not cover the small indecent advertisements which no doubt all Members of the House at some time or another had seen on such places as the posts of gates in country lanes and roads.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that power was given under another statute. In the Local Government Act there was a general power to make by-laws

29
in regard to that, and many such by laws were in force at the present time.
MR. EVELYN CECILsaid he was very doubtful whether that Act could deal with such advertisements as those to which he alluded, but if it was admitted that it did deal with them to some extent it was nevertheless desirable to put in words here to make it quite clear that the local authorities could make by-laws to deal with these advertisements, because the words of the clause obviously could not apply to a country gate. The Bill was wanted, and wanted quickly, and that was why he urged that it should be passed through its Third Reading and these details dealt with in another place. The longer they waited the more likely were vested interests to be created. People would say that these advertisements had been allowed in the past and ought to be allowed in the future, and that the more beautiful the place might be the more desirable it was that advertisements should be put there. If the beauty of the country was to be retained the sooner they dealt with the matter the better. He shuddered to think what would happen in the Lake district, for instance, if the example of what was done at the Niagara Falls was followed. He trusted, therefore, that the Advertisements Regulation Bill would be passed quickly in order that the beauty of our health resorts and the beautiful scenery of our country places might be safeguarded.
LORD BALCARRESsaid that the Bill did not claim in any way to deal with the Advertisements Act of 1889, nor did he think it was necessary to extend the Bill in that direction, but he desired to point out that this was a very serious question, and that the Act of 1889 which the hon. Member had said was incorporated in this Bill was an absolute dead letter. Although he supported the Bill as it stood he was most anxious that the promoters should see if it was not possible to extend to the local authorities powers which they either did not or could not exercise at the present moment with regard to indecent advertisements. Everybody must be aware of the particular kind of advertisement to which he referred; it was infinitely worse than any sky sign. He differed from the Under-Secretary for the Home Office
30
in his view that the Bill was of no utilitarian value. Was the saving of art of no utilitarian value? Art was just as utilitarian as science or law. In passing a Bill of this character and preserving art they were conferring a great utilitarian boon on the country. He altogether dissented from the view that in removing from the beautiful country side these hideous advertisements, they were doing a purely sentimental thing. The beauty of the land was a great asset to that country. Having regard to the time he would not go into that, but would content himself by saying that the law with regard to indecent advertisements was in a most unsatisfactory condition, and that the law passed ten or twelve years ago was a dead letter. He therefore hoped the promoters would extend the Bill in that direction.
Sir PHILIP MAGNUScalled attention to the fact that forty Members were not present.
House counted, and forty Members being found present,
Mr. ASHLEYsaid the Under-Secretary for the Home Department had said that if in another place the promoters of the Bill wished to reinsert the 12ft. limit and that five years should be substituted for two years the Government would give these proposals their support. He strongly protested against the decision of the Committee being overridden in that way. The Bill was discussed at length in the Committee and these provisions were inserted by a large majority, and that the Government should desire the Upper House, which they abused so much to insert provisions which the Standing Committee had struck out was a thing he strongly protested against. If these matters had been brought up on Report the House of Commons would have had an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to whether the Standing Committee was right or wrong. The Government were not treating the Standing Committee with the consideration to which they were entitled. He asked whether there were any other Amendments which the Under-Secretary proposed to have inserted in another place, because he himself had proposed and

31
carried an Amendment in Standing Committee that councils of urban districts of 10,000 inhabitants should be authorities under the Act, and he went away happy in the belief that that would be embodied in the Bill. Unless he had some explanation he would not know which way to vote.
Mr. CARLILEsaid that this was a Bill which everyone agreed should be passed, but at the same time many of them thought the authorities who were to carry it out should be the district councils. They felt that the county council had so large an area under its care that it would be impossible for it to realise what the local sentiment was with regard to these matters, whereas the local district council would be familiar with local antiquities and curiosities which to them would be of the greatest importance, but of the existence of which the county council might be unaware. Travellers by railway, or motorists, and others were very much harassed by the number of advertisements along the lines of route. They did not wish to be reminded at every two hundred yards that they had a liver.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. CALDWELL)said that these matters had already been referred to by previous speakers.
MR. CARLILEsaid that he had endeavoured not to repeat the speeches of hon. Members. He had not repeated his own speech.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (MR. CALDWELL)said that by the Standing Order a Member might repeat neither his own speech nor the speeches of other people.
MR. CARLILEsaid he had endeavoured to deal with matters quite out side these which other speakers had dealt with. The object of the Bill was for the suppression of ugliness, and it was realised that the beautiful scenery —
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (MR. CALDWELL)said the beauty of the scenery had been referred to by almost every previous speaker in the debate.
MR. CARLILEasked with respect whether there was any subject within the four corners of the Bill to which he might refer.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (MR. CALDWELL): It is not for me to advise the hon. Member.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 207; Noes, 12. (Division List No. 233.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cameron, Robert

Ferens, T. R.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Carlile, E. Hildred

Fiennes. Hon. Eustace

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Fletcher. J. S.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Flynn. James Christopher

Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Foster. Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Ashley, W. W.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Fuller, John Michael F.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cheetham, John Frederick

Gardner. Ernest (Berks. East)

Astbury, John Meir

Cleland, J. W.

Gill, A. H.

Balcarres, Lord

Clough, William

Ginnell. L.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Gordon. J.

Barker, John

Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)

Gulland. John W.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Gurdon. Sir W. Brampton

Barnes, G. N.

Cox, Harold

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Harvey.W.E.(Derbyshire, N.E.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Haworth. Arthur A.

Benn.W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo.

Craik, Sir Henry

Hazel. Dr. A. E.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Crooks, William

Hazleton. Richard

Billson, Alfred

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

Heaton, John Henniker

Black, Arthur W.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hedges, A. Paget

Bowerman, C. W.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Henderson,J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

Brigg, John

Dickinson. W. H. (St.Pancras,N

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Brodie, H. C.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Higham. John Sharp

Brunner, J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Brunner,Rt.HnSirJ.T(Cheshire

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Hills. J. W.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Esslemont, George Birnie

Hobart, Sir Robert

Byles, William Pollard

Everett, R. Lacey

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Hodge, John

Mooney, J. J.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Hogan, Michael

Moore, William

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Holland, Sir William Henry

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Holt, Richard Durning

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Horniman, Emslie John

Murnaghan, George

Stanger, H. Y.

Howard Hon. Geoffrey

Murphy, John

Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

Hudson, Walter

Murray, James

Steadman, W. C.

Hyde, Clarendon

Myer, Horatio

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Idris, T. H. W.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Napier, T. B.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Jenkins, J.

Nicholls,George

Summerbell, T.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Nicholson,Charles N.(Donc'st'r

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Jowett, F. W.

Nussey Thomas Willans

Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr

Joyce, Michael

O'Connor,James (Wicklow,W.)

Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

Kelley, George D.

O'Grady, J.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Kennedy. Vincent Paul

Parker, James (Halifax)

Toulmin, George

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Laidlaw, Robert

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Verney, F. W.

Lamont, Norman

Pirie, Duncan V.

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Powell, Fir Francis Sharp

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Levy, Maurice

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Lewis, John Herbert

Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.

Wardle, George J.

Liddell, Henry

Randles. Sir John Scurrah

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Raphael, Herbert H.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Rea. Russell (Gloucester)

Wason,John Cathcart( Orkney)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Waterlow, D. S.

Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Watt, Henry A.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S

Rees, J. D.

Whitehead, Rowland

M'Callum, John M.

Renton, Major Leslie

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

M'Crae, George

Rickett, J. Compton

Williams, Llewelyn (C'rmarth'n

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Ridsdale, E. A.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

M'Laren. H. D). (Stafford, W.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wilson, Hn. C.H.W.(Hull, W.)

Maddison Frederick

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

Magnus, Sir Philip

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Marnham, F. J.

Rose, Charles Day

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Massie, J.

Rowlands, J.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Meagher, Michael

Runciman, Walter

Younger, George

Menzies, Walter

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Yoxall, James Henry

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Schwann.Sir C.E.(Manchester)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.Hart-Davies and Mr. Beale.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Scott, A.H.(Aston-under-Lyne)

Mond, A.

Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)

Montagu, E. S.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

NOES.

Acland-Hood. Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F

Lockwood, Rt Hn. Lt. -Col. A.R.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim,,S.)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Lundon, W.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

MacVeagh,Charles (Donegal,E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Lord Robert Cecil.

Donelan, Captain A.

O'Dowd, John

Ffrench, Peter

Hornby, Sir William Henry

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Question, "That the word 'education' be there inserted in the Bill," —put, and agreed to.

EDUCATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
Sir F. BANBURY:moved the omission of Clause 1 (provision as to vacation schools and health of school children). He said he had every desire that precautions should be taken to ensure that children should not attend elementary schools in such a condition that they would spread infection among other
34
children. But this clause went far beyond that. Like many other clauses which were incorporated for sentimental reasons, it did a great deal more than was intended. The hearts of the hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill had, in fact, rather run away with their heads, and if the clause were passed in its present form great inconvenience would result not only to the ratepayers but the children of the country. If the powers of the clause were confined to subsection (b), he would not have so much to say to it, except on the grounds of expediency, because he thought in a, matter of

35
this kind it should be obligatory on the parents to bear the expense, and not the Board of Education, on whom he presumed it would fall, if not upon the rates. The first section apparently gave power to the local education authority to invest the doctor with powers to examine in any place where he thought that certain children required medical attendance and examination. Could hon. Gentlemen give any definition of the words "playing centres during the holidays?" In many towns the playing centre was the middle of the road, and if this clause was carried in its present form it would be open to the local education authority to direct the doctor to wander about the centre of the road and medically examine the children he found there, because it was a "playing centre." If it could be shown that he was wrong he would withdraw his Amendment. Would the hon. Gentleman kindly inform him what "means of recreation" meant? It might as far as he knew mean football or something of that sort. He took it that means of recreation referred to a place, because the clause gave power to provide children attending elementary schools with the means of recreation, but if they left out certain parenthetical and descriptive words, the clause read that the child should attend the "means of recreation." He was not at all sure that the clause was in order, because during the time he had been in the House, now some fifteen years, he had always understood that if a proposal did not make sense it was out of order; and he thought he had proved that this clause was not sense. The Board of Education had authority in all these matters, and he would like to know how the department was to direct a local authority to provide for "children attending a public elementary school…. or means of recreation?" He passed from that to the next lines in the section. The State not only took care of the children, it not only educated them and clothed them, but it was now to provide something in the nature of a public sanatorium. Was that the intention of the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill? If that was his intention then the opposition to the Bill would be much greater than he supposed. If that was not his intention, the clause ought not to have been introduced in this particular form. The Bill was not discussed on the
36
Second Reading at all. His recollection was that it came on at the end of business, and hon. Members opposite appealed to him to let it pass and he did so; he was wrong; he ought to have taken the trouble to read and study it before acquiescing in the Second Reading. The fact was that when these Bills went upstairs, and the House knew nothing whatever about them, they were liable to misconstruction. He had endeavoured very shortly to put before the House the reasons which actuated him in moving the omission of the clause.
*Mr. BYLES:said he wished to ask Mr. Deputy-Speaker whether he had not powers under the Standing Orders to arrest a frivolous speech which was obviously intended, probably for an ulterior motive he was sure that the hon. baronet would not disagree with that to waste the time of the House.
Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask whether it is right to impute motives of that kind to any hon. Member?
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid that in regard to the question which the hon. Member asked him he had to say that he had rights under the Standing Orders the exercise of which was in his discretion. In regard to the other matter, he did not think that the imputation of motive in any way reflected on the hon. Baronet.
Sir F. BANBURYsaid if the hon. Member had waited he would have found that he had nearly finished his remarks, and he begged to conclude by moving the omission of the clause.
Captain CRAIG: in seconding the Amendment, said he would like to consider sub-section (b) of the clause, which provided that it was the duty of the local education authority to provide for the medical inspection of children before their admission to a public elementary school. It appeared to him that those words covered far more than really appeared from the clause. Was it intended to provide medical attendance for children from their birth? As the clause stood it would appear that children were to have medical attendance from the day they

37
were born, because there was no saving clause providing that the inspection should be to ensure the fitness of the children to attend the school in order to receive the benefit of the education there given. He did not so much object to inspection of the children to see that they were fit to attend school, but it would involve an enormous expense if children were to be medically attended from the day they were born. In the clause were the words "such other occasions as the Board of Education direct," which would appear to afford a very elastic loophole to the education authority. Where was the expenditure of the local rates to stop? Those who had charge of the duty of striking the rate might have definitely made up their minds not to add another penny to the rates for the coming year; but after the rate had been made, the Board of Education might direct the local authority to execute some work under this Bill, and those who had determined not to add to the rates would find themselves compelled to put them up after all. That might occur in a place already so heavily rated that the ratepayers could not bear any further burden. What would happen would be that some parents would benefit by having their children medically attended from their birth and would also, at the cost of the rates, have recreation provided for them. Some parents provided for the education of their children at their own cost, and also furnished them with amusements in their own homes; yet those parents would have also to contribute to the cost of providing medical attendance and means of recreation for the children of others. Was the parent of a child captured at the age of between three and five, possibly subject to a disease of a lingering character, to be relieved of all the expense which in ordinary circumstances was borne by parents, and was that expense to be paid by the local education authority; if not, who was to pay it?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER:said the hon. Member was simply asking a series of conundrums as to what the meaning of the clause was. He thought that the hon. Member ought to explain to the House why he objected to the clause; that was not the proper occasion to ask a number of questions as to what the meaning of the clause was.
Captain CRAIG:said by sub-section (a) they were going to empower the local education authority to tax the parents of children who would be unable to avail themselves of the privileges provided in order that the children of another section of parents might during their vacations enjoy the advantages of playing in the grounds provided for them. The words of the section were very wide indeed, and gave the local authority very large scope in interpreting the meaning of the words "means of recreation." He objected to the ratepayers being mulcted in this way, for they did not know what the clause meant, or how a local authority would construe the words "means of recreation." He objected to the ratepayers being mulcted in this way, for they did not know what the clause meant, or how a local authority would construe the words "means of recreation." They were not only asking the people to bear an unfair burden, but they were interfering with parental authority. They were empowering the local authority to provide playgrounds and amusements which would attract the children away from their homes, possibly against the wishes of the parents. Unless the hon. Member gave some indication to the House as to the real purport and scope of the clause he should vote with the hon. Baronet, and he should do so with more decision if he was assured that these means were to be left to the discretion of the local authority, which perhaps would be dominated more by sentiment than by business capacity and business considerations. The fact of its being left to the county councils might lead to the powers used at elections for currying favour, by suggesting the provision of some elaborate playground or place of amusement and recreation.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 5, to leave out Clause 1."ߞ (Sir F. Banbury.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word provide, in page 1, line 7, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. W. E. REAsaid he had not much to say in reply to the two speeches which had been made by the mover and seconder of the Amendment. He, of course, deferred entirely to the hon. Baronet as an older Member of the House, but what had happened had unfortunately slipped the memory of the Member for the City of London. The hon. Baronet had forgotten that

39
during the discussion of the Education Bill last year there was absolute peace and concord over these two identical clauses, which were taken from that Bill. He claimed the support of not only hon. Members on that side of the House, but of the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University, and, he thought, of the Leader of the Opposition himself, who both associated themselves with the present Chief Secretary for Ireland in regard to these two clauses. He thought he was right in saying that the Leader of the Opposition said that these two clauses were worth the whole of the rest of the Bill together.
CAPTAIN CRAIG: That is not saying much.
MR. W. R. REA:said that, at any rate, whatever its worth, the clause they were now discussing had the unanimous support of the whole of the House. When it went to another place a slight modification was made in it, but without affecting its principle. It was a modification which he had accepted, so that the Bill now stood in precisely the form in which those two clauses passed in another place, and they were among the clauses which were agreed upon when the Bill came back to the House of Commons. The hon. Baronet charged him with having brought in an ill-drafted Bill, but he thought that he was not called upon to defend himself against such a charge; he would merely shelter himself behind not only the two Houses of Parliament, but also the official draftsmen. One question had been raised by the hon. Member who had seconded the Amendment, which perhaps might be more appropriately considered on a later Amendment, in regard to medical inspection before or at the time of admission into public elementary schools. There, again, he would point out that the word "before" obviously meant that it was impossible for the inspector to inspect a number of children at the moment of their admission into the school. It was necessary to provide that some of the inspection should be carried out before the admission of the children. There was no intention, of course, of inspecting them from the time of birth, nor of providing medical attendance for children of all ages. The clause must be read as a whole, and it imposed
40
the duty of providing inspection before admission, a course which seemed right, in connection with admission into public elementary schools. He thought the House might take it that the official drafting was correct on that particular point; therefore, there was no need for the Amendments which followed later on the Paper, or for the objection of the hon. Baronet who moved this Amendment. He did not think it necessary to say anything more, except in regard to the definitions. There, again, he sheltered himself behind the phrasing of the clause, and he would point out that it was very much easier to live under a certain provision than to define it. He remembered the observation of the present Secretary for India, who, asked to define an elephant, said he could not define it, but he knew an elephant when he saw it. Similarly he could not define a playground or place of recreation, but if the hon. Baronet would go with him he would be very glad to take him to see one, and show him what a play-centre was.
Lord R. CECILsaid he had no intention of opposing the Bill, which he thought excellent and one that ought to be adopted. The House would recognise that the question was of some importance, and they really had not had any opportunity of discussing the principle of the Bill. Generally speaking he agreed as to the desirability of the measure, but he had some doubt as to subsection (a). He felt that there should be some place of recreation for these children during holiday times, when they might otherwise have no resource except to play in the streets. But he was not quite sure that it was a matter which it was desirable for the State to undertake. He thought it was an exceedingly difficult thing, one of the great difficulties of modern legislation, to define exactly what the State should or should not undertake. He had some little doubt as to the effect of sub-section (a), but he gave way on that point to greater authorities who knew more about the subject than he did. The attitude taken by the Leader of the Opposition had been referred to, and in view of that declaration and other circumstances he would not be able to vote for the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. As for

41
subsection (b) it was clear that provision ought to be made for the medical inspection of children, although he was inclined to think that in some cases the parents ought to pay for it. There were strong reasons for providing for the medical inspection of children quite apart from their health. It was important that Parliament should know what was happening to the population. They ought to know whether it was a fact that town-bred children were very much weaker than country-bred children. He was in favour of the medical inspection of children, and he could not agree that it would east any hardship upon the ratepayers who had no children of their own. The only caveat he desired to enter was that he thought the promoters might consider whether some provision should not be made with reference to recovering the expense of medical attention from those parents who could afford to pay. They ought to have some regard to the parents' duties as well as their rights. In such a matter as this it should not be overlooked that anything which weakened the responsibility of the parents to provide for the health and education of their own children would be a retrograde step.
*Mr. REESsaid it had been assumed by some hon. Members that the children bred in the towns were weaker than those bred in the country, but that was by no means proved yet. The noble Lord opposite had also stated that he thought the expense of medical inspection should be recoverable from the parents who could afford to pay. He entirely agreed in that view. Parents should pay for their children, whenever they could.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order. There is an Amendment down upon that point later on.
COLONEL LOCK WOODappealed, to the House, in the interest of the amusement, recreation, and health of the children of England, to pass the Bill. The objection of the hon. Baronet was based upon the score of expense, and although he recognised him as an economical man, he was afraid that his
42
desire for economy sometimes led him a little too far. His noble friend had said that it was difficult to draw the line as to how far the State should pay instead of the parent. Not long ago he had the honour of introducing to the President of the Board of Education an influential deputation on this very subject, and they were told that the Department had prepared a Bill under which the question of hygiene and temperance would be laid before the House. The Government had not yet given any notice of their intention to bring forward that Bill.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Lough, Islington, W.): Yes, it has been introduced.
COLONEL LOCKWOOD:thought the subject was one which ought to have been dealt with in a Government measure, and not in a Bill brought forward by a private Member. The Bill was almost unanimously agreed to when it was brought forward in March last, when a discussion took place in which the Leader of the Opposition, in expressing his approval of the proposal, said he hoped the Government Bill would provide that the enormous burden thrown by primary education upon the ratepayers would not be augmented by a measure the general provisions of which they all desired to see carried out. He had not seen the Government Bill, but he presumed that the Member for Scarborough would hardly claim that this Bill would not increase the rates. As a large ratepayer he would object to a substantial increase of the rates; but the small increase of the rates which the Bill might cause would be as nothing compared with the advantages to the nation in the improvement of the health and physical condition of the children attending the elementary schools. He would like to see the establishment of a medical bureau in connection with the Board of Education. He would also like to see a course of instruction in hygiene forming part of the training of the teachers, so that they might be able to teach the children how to attend to their physical condition. The Bill was a step in that direction, and as such it had his support. The deputation to which he had alluded emphasised strongly the necessity of having a

43
thorough supervision of the health of the children of the country, and that all the information it was possible to get on the question should be carefully collected, and kept by the Education Department. Through the kindness of a gentleman in the medical profession he had had the advantage of having the children attending the village school of which he was the chairman of the managers thoroughly examined, and he had been able to make a most interesting and instructive comparison with a school near London. He hoped that such a medical inspection would be carried out in every school in the country. The provision for the training of the teachers in the matter of hygiene and temperance opened up a very large question which he was afraid would entail a considerable amount of expense. He would not begrudge the expense if he could be assured that the scheme provided would produce a body of teachers capable of thoroughly instructing the children in all the subjects connected with hygiene and temperance. It was because he foresaw in this Bill considerable possibilities in that direction that he was induced to recommend its adoption so strongly to the House.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I wish to remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are not now discussing the whole Bill. It is true that Clause 1 is practically the whole Bill, but it was discussed at length on the Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to Clause 1 and not discuss the Bill as a whole.
COLONEL LOCK WOODsaid that if the hon. Baronet's Motion were adopted the whole Bill would be defeated and he was anxious to prevent such a catastrophe.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSON:said he deeply regretted that he was unable to support the Amendment of his hon. friend. In supporting the clause he did not feel that he was departing from the principles which were accepted on that side of the House when the matter was discussed last year. He was fortified in taking that course by the opinion which was then expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. They were
44
all agreed that vacation schools were very desirable things for the reason that in the large towns in holiday time the children lost the comfort and society of the school and its playground and were driven to play on the streets. Vacation schools in which organised play could be provided, and in which lighter educational work could be done, mainly of a manual character, would be of very great value to the children attending the elementary schools. In the country districts he thought the children were very well able to look after themselves. But he would like to be sure that proper use had been made, and would be made, of the voluntary agencies which had hitherto worked the vacation schools. It was eminently a question in which voluntary effort should be associated with that of the local authority, because there was work in the vacation schools which could be better and more usefully done by voluntary agencies than by the local authority. On the other hand, the direction of the local authority was of very great importance to give permanence and stability to, and to ensure the proper conducting of, the work.
Mr. W. R. REAsaid the promoters of the Bill accepted in Committee a proviso in the following terms—
"Provided that in any exercise of powers under this section the local education authority may encourage and assist the establishment or continuance of voluntary agencies, and associate with itself representatives of voluntary associations for the purpose."
*Sir WILLIAM ANSONsaid he would have liked the proviso to say that the local education authority "wherever possible shall encourage and assist" the voluntary agencies.
Mr. W. R. REAsaid the words suggested by the hon. Baronet would more properly form the subject of another Amendment.
*Sir WILLIAM ANSONsaid he was entitled to discuss the general principle of the clause. As to medical inspection, the clause dealing with it was worth all the rest of last year's Education Bill; and he was convinced that such inspection would be of infinite value to the health of the country. He wished to know from

45
the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, whether he was right in supposing that the fear expressed by his hon. friend behind him was somewhat groundless with respect to the words in the clause. "before or at the time of their admission." He did not think the words would give the right to inspect children from the time they were born, because, after all, the powers were given not to the local authority, but to the local education authority, and they could only concern themselves with children who had entered, or were about to enter, public elementary schools. There was some ground he thought for the question which had been raised as to what was meant by the words "the power to make such arrangements as may be sanctioned by the Board of Education for attending to the health and physical condition of the children educated in public elementary schools." A committee had made careful inquiry into the subject of medical inspection of school children, and, so far as he could follow their report, the inspection would not be a very expensive matter. The charge upon the rates for this purpose need not in urban places come to more than one-tenth of a penny. If they were to add medical attendance for children, then the matter became more serious, and the question arose whether the parents might not be called upon to contribute towards the cost incurred. The question of additional medical staff for the Board of Education and the question of an anthropometrical survey, which were referred to by his hon. friend, were not raised by this measure. He hoped the Bill would be allowed to pass through the House that afternoon.
*Sir FRANCIS POWELL:said that in the course of the week he had on the Paper a Question to the Prime Minister in regard to this subject, and he had on two occasions been requested to postpone it. He wished to direct the attention of the House to the fact that there was on the Table of the House a Bill dealing with the very matter which they were now discussing. The subject of vacation schools, therefore, came before them practically as a ministerial proposition. He thought that those who like himself were friends of education had every reason to complain of the course taken by the Government. He also
46
complained that the Prime Minister had not answered his question. Last year this clause passed both Houses of Parliament. In this matter their only desire was to promote the health and well-being of the children. It was a case in which the argument of economy was,wholly misplaced, for he did not believe it was economy to allow the physical condition of the children to deteriorate. As to the opposition to sub-section (a) he cared little for the opinion of those who desired to see the children driven into the streets during the holidays. As to sub-section (b), he was glad that an advance had been made in recent years in regard to medical inspection. Those who visited the schools could not help seeing what need there was for such inspection. Some children were suffering from diseases which might have been stopped if timely inspection had taken place. He was most anxious that the Bill should pass.
Sir F. BANBURYasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
* Sir FRANCIS POWELL:moved an Amendment to give the local education authority power to "take such steps as they may think fit in order to" provide vacation schools, classes, and play centres. He said the Amendment was proposed in the most friendly spirit. It should be borne in mind that in this matter they were not dealing with the local education authority alone; the co-operation of voluntary agencies was expected. He thought, therefore, if the words of the Amendment were inserted, the intention of the clause would be made clearer. A condition similar to what he proposed was contained in the Provision of Meals Act of last year.
Amendment proposed to the Bill.—
"In page 1, line 7, after the word 'to,' to insert the words 'take such steps as they think tit in order to.' "—( Sir Francis Powell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
Mr. W. R. REAsaid he was sure the hon. Baronet's desire was to strengthen the Bill, but it appeared to him that the

47
Amendment would not tend in that direction. The clause was drafted by the official draftsman of last year's Bill. The proviso at the end of the clause was arrived at as the result of a large amount of discussion between the contending parties.
Sir HENRY CRAIKsaid the Amendment was not necessary. The Provision of Meals Act was not a parallel case. They were not all agreed last year as to the steps they should take. Some thought that the local education authority should provide the machinery and equipment, and that voluntary agencies should supply the food.
Sir FRANCIS POWELLasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed to the Bill —
"In page 1, line 9, after the word 'or' to insert the word 'other.' "—(Mr. Bridgeman.)
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 10, after the word 'local' to insert the word 'education."— (Mr. Bridgeman.)
*SIR PHILIP MAGNUSmoved to leave out the words requiring medical inspection to take place "before or at the time of" admission to the school, in order to insert words permitting the inspection to take place "at any time within twelve months after" the child's admission to school. He saw that there would be very great difficulty in the inspection of the children at the time of their admission into the elementary schools. Children were drafted into the public elementary schools from the infant schools in September. It was quite true that the medical inspection might be made before, but that raised a very great difficulty
48
which had been suggested by an hon. Member that the medical inspection might go on over the entire infancy of the child. It would be seen at once from the clause as it stood that a very large number of inspectors would be required if the inspection of all the children were made at the commencement of the session. He did not wish to suggest anything which would interfere with the excellent intention of the clause. He was sorry that he did not get an opportunity in Committee of expressing his entire approval of the general scope of the Bill, which, he hoped, would be carried this session; but he thought the Amendment would considerably facilitate the inspection of the children, and prevent the employment of a large number of inspectors. He beg to move.
CAPTAIN CRAIG:seconded the Amendment. He could not impress too strongly on the House the absolute necessity of limiting in some way the time at which the children were to be medically inspected. The case for the Amendment amounted to this, that where children were compelled to attend a school, and where it was necessary to have medical inspection to see that they were not carrying with them any infectious disease, the inspection should not take place all on the same day. He hoped the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would accept the limitation proposed in the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 17, to leave out the words ' before, or at the time of' and insert the words 'at any time within twelve months after.' "— (Sir Philip Magnus.)
Question proposed, "That the words to be left out stand part of the Bill."
Mr. W. R. REA:said that he was willing to accept the Amendment if it was so altered that the inspection might take place within twelve months before or after admission to the public elementary schools. He thought that would put an end to the whole difficulty.
*Sir FRANCIS POWELL:thought that there should be inspection continuing during the. whole time the child was at school.
Mr. W. R. REAsaid that the hon. Baronet had lost sight of the second portion of sub-section (b) which covered the object which he had in view.
*Sir WILLIAM ANSONsaid that he hoped the words in the Bill would be retained. What was really very important was that the children should be inspected as near as possible to the time they entered the public elementary schools. If the inspection were made, as the hon. Member in charge of the Bill now proposed, at any time within twelve months before or after the child was admitted to the public elementary school the inspection would not do the work expected of it. The child's eyesight or its hearing might be defective, and if this were not ascertained he might get into scrapes for not seeing what was written on a blackboard, or not noticing the orders of his teacher, or the child's physical condition might make it undesirable for it to play certain games or to take part in the physical exercises required of it. All those things should be known when the child went to school, and to postpone the inspection until twelve months after its arrival in school would be to lose a great deal of the value of inspection. On the other hand, to make the inspection twelve months before admission was unwise, because all manner of things might have happened in the meantime. He wished that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education would turn their attention to the necessity of the child being inspected at the time or as near as possible before it entered a public elementary school.
*MR. ALDENsaid he trusted that the hon. Member for London University would withdraw his Amendment. As showing the necessity of examining the child immediately after admission to the school, he pointed to the fact that in some German schools as many as 34 per cent. were sent back as not physically fit to receive education. If they were unfit and they continued in school the public money would be wasted.
Sir HENRY CRAIKhoped that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill
50
would adhere to the words of the clause as it stood. The words "before or at the time of" were perfectly well understood. Sometimes, for convenience sake, it might be necessary to submit the child to examination a few hours or it might be a few weeks before entering the school; but the local education authority had nothing whatever to do with the child twelve months before it entered the school. Anyone acquainted with educational matters knew that the words "before, or at the time of" were words of technical usage, which were perfectly understood.
*MR. TALBOT:appealed to the Parliamentary Secretary to help the House to find the words which would carry out the object they all had in view, viz.: to ensure that there should be a medical inspection of all children admitted to Elementary Schools. Before they came to School, the Board of Education had nothing to do with them.
MR. LOUGHsaid he was not responsible for the wording of the Bill, which had been considered by the draftsman. He admitted that there would be a practical difficulty if all the children were inspected at the time of admission to school. He thought it might be easy to adopt words which would cover that difficulty. He suggested that the most convenient form of words would be "immediately before, at the time of, or as soon as possible after" the child entered the school.
*SIR PHILIP MAGNUSsaid he would be quite willing if the House desired it to accept the words suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, but he could not help thinking that the words of his original Amendment "that it is the duty of the local education authority to provide for medical inspection of children before, or as soon as possible after, their admission to public elementary schools" were better. He would further like to say that there was some medical and educational advantage in the proposal, as the teacher would have an opportunity of ascertaining for himself or herself what was the health of the children. The medical inspection would be more useful if it took place some time after the children attended the school.

51
He therefore placed before the House his original Amendment, and that was after the word "or" to insert "as soon as possible after."
Sir F. BANBURYsaid he did not know where they were. He understood that the Amendment of his hon. friend was going to be accepted except in regard to the words "before or." It would probably be convenient, therefore, if he gave his objection to the words "before or."
Mr. H. J. TENNANT:on a point of order, asked whether, as they were discussing the words "before or at the time of," it was in order to go back and discuss the words "before or."
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid the words could be discussed, because the words "before or" were part of the words "before or at the time of."
Sir F. BANBURY":said he objected to the words "before or" because they would give a roving commission to the medical inspector to inspect a child at any time before it entered the school. His object was to limit the inspection of the children to the time when they went into the school. They all recognised that the children should be medically inspected as soon as possible afterwards, because medical officers could not always examine children at the time when they went into the school. He had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words "before or," but if his hon. friend moved the new Amendment which he had suggested his Amendment fell to the ground. An hon. friend behind him suggested that his objection would be met by the insertion of the word "immediately" before the word "before." He saw no objection to that, and if the hon. Gentleman whose Amendment they were discussing would accept that he would say no more.
*SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid he understood that the proposal was that the medical inspection of the children, if it was to be useful, should be carried out before their admission or at the time or shortly afterwards. He thought administrative difficulties would probably occur in large urban populations if they were to insist on the inspection being made available at or about the time of the children's admission to school. It was not the business of the local authority to inspect prior to admission. The best time was shortly afterwards, because teachers, when they had become familiar with the children, were able to indicate to the medical officer certain diseases or defects which they thought the children were suffering from. Therefore he thought the co-operation of the teacher with the medical officer would be secured if the words "as soon as possible after "could be incorporated in the clause.
MR. F. E. SMITHsuggested that the clause should be made to run: "The duty to provide for the medical inspection of children at the time of, or as soon as possible after, the admission of a child to a public elementary school." That would carry out the idea of the hon. Member with which he agreed.
Mr. CARLILEasked what was the position of the children in the infant schools. He understood the hon. Member in charge of the Bill to say that it only applied to elementary schools, and did not apply to infant schools. He wanted an assurance that the children in the infant schools would be included and would be subject to the same inspection as the children in the elementary schools.
Mr. LOUGHsuggested that the most convenient form of words would be "immediately before, or at the time of, or as soon as possible after" the admission of the child. He thought the House might accept that.
Amendments—
"In page 1, line 17, at beginning to insert the word ' immediately;' "
"In page 1, line 17, after the word 'of' to insert the words ' or as soon as possible after,' "—
Agreed to.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he wished to move the omission of the words which provided that medical inspection of children should take place "on such other occasions" as the Board of Education directed. He thought that after the compromise which had just been arrived at with the assent of both sides of the House, under which the inspection was to take place "immediately before, or at the time of, or as soon as possible after," the question was left in such a precise manner that if the words to which he objected were permitted to stand in sub-section (b) it would simply mean that the Board of Education might by a stroke of the pen go back to the objectionable position which they were in under the Bill as it came before the House. The clause as it stood would protect the children as a whole, and why afterwards the Board of Education should have this power, he could not see. He could conceive cases in which the local education authority made complete arrangements for inspection, and after a thorough inspection had been carried out the Board of Education might insist upon another.
Sir F. BANBURYseconded the Amendment, because the Bill as it at present stood would give the Board of Education power to override and upset the decisions of the local education authority. It seemed to him that if the words were retained, they would give the Board of Education a great deal more power than was necessary.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, lines 18 and 19, to leave out the words ' and on such other occasions as the Board of Education direct.' "—(Captain Craig,)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
Mr. W. R. REAwas sorry he could not accept the Amendment. They had made a compromise on the earlier portion of the clause, and that rendered it all the more necessary that they should stand firm in regard to the latter portion.
Sir WILLIAM ANSONsaid he could not help thinking that his hon. friend did not quite realise the effect of this clause, and how much his proposal, if carried, would undo the whole value of the scheme. The Board of Education would, no doubt, lay down regulations which would prevent the local education authority from running into extreme action in regard to inspection. It was important that the local inspector should be able to say that such and such a child in one of his schools wanted attention, and ask that that child should be brought to him again so that he might examine it. It was necessary, therefore, that there should be periodical inspection, and they ought to leave to the local authority the power of making suggestions to the Board of Education and to leave to that Board the power of guiding the local authority in regard to that inspection.
COLONEL LOCK WOODsaid he knew there would be many cases in which the local education authority would come into conflict with the Board of Education, but he thought the latter were by far the best judges of what was necessary in the way of inspection. There were many sources of information which were possessed by the Board of Education alone and were not available to the local education authority. The information was of a most valuable character, and, therefore, he trusted that the words in question would not be omitted.
CAPTAIN CRAIG:said that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman

55
on the front bench he felt reassured, and, therefore, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. ASHLEYmoved to insert a proviso to the effect that any expenses incurred under the Act for attending to the health and physical condition of children should be recoverable from the parents of the children in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. He said he had not the slightest objection to the community paying the cost of the schools of education, or of medical inspection. Those were matters which ought to be attended to by the nation, but he thought that where arrangements had been made for attending to the health and physical condition of a child attending a public elementary school, in cases where the parent was in a position to pay, if possible, he should be made to pay. He thought the local authority should be given this power, because medical inspection might disclose the fact that the children wanted clothes in order to attend to their health and physical condition. They might want spectacles, and so on. Moreover, they might want merely to be properly washed and cleaned, and if the local education authority took steps to have them washed and cleaned they might go back to their parents' home and become dirty again. They would go to the root of the evil if they made a parent, when he was able to, pay the cost of keeping his children healthy, and he would send his children to school in a clean condition and also see that in other respects they were properly clothed and attended to if it were so enacted.
Sir F. BANBURYseconded the Amendment, which he said was practically a proposal for making the parent pay the cost of keeping his children. It was a little difficult to follow because it was not on the Paper, but in certain eases it provided that the local authority
56
should recover from the parent the expense which they had been put to. He did not think that hon. Members below the gangway could contend that where medical attendance had been given in consequence of the neglect of a parent, that parent, if he was well off enough to pay, should not be made to pay. It seemed to him impossible for anyone to object to the Amendment, because if the Bill were carried without it the ratepayers would be called upon to pay for medical attendance for the children of people who were perfectly well able to pay for it themselves.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 23, at the end to insert the word 'provided that any expense incurred under this Act for attending to the health and physical condition of the children shall be recoverable from the parents of the children in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.' "—(Mr. Ashley.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
Mr. W. R. REA:said he could not possibly accept such an Amendment as this. He had not seen the actual wording of the Amendment, and therefore it was difficult to deal with, but it seemed quite impossible to say for whose benefit a great part of the medical attention, if there was medical attention, was given, and in most cases it was so minute that it was impossible to charge for it. The Amendment raised a much larger point than anything they had been discussing, namely, the question of how much parents were to be called upon to contribute. He really thought, if his hon. friend wished to do anything with that question, he ought to bring in a separate Bill and not try to graft totally extraneous matter on the measure before the House.
Mr. EVELYN CECILsaid that if the parent could pay for medical inspection or attendance which was for the improvement of the physical condition of his children, there was no

57
question but that he should do so. This was a very important Amendment. He thought that now-a-days the tendency was to go too much in the direction of State socialism. He felt very strongly that parents ought to be made to feel the responsibility of their position, and everything that tended in the other direction was deleterious to the welfare of the nation. In view of the very positive attitude taken up by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill he thought it was their duty to divide the House.
*Sir WILLIAM ANSONsaid he was anxious not to delay the House, but he thought hon. Members were entitled to some explanation of what was meant by the words of the clause under consideration. He felt very strongly that the cost of medical inspection such as the local education authority was to provide, would be so small that it would not be worth while to charge the parents, but on the other hand arrangements for the health and physical condition of the children might mean a great deal, and he thought they were entitled to know from the Secretary to the Board of Education what was meant by those words.
Mr. A. WILLIAMSONsaid the Amendment would have a much more far-reaching effect than the hon. Member contemplated. A scheme for attending to the health of the children was at work in a school with which he was connected at Liverpool, a large number of the children of which were nursed by trained nurses who attended to those infantile diseases and complaints which good mothers attended to themselves. The Board of Education had been for years willing to assist in that work, but owing to red tape they had been unable to give any grant. One of the great objects of the Bill was that they should be able to give grants to such charitable institutions to assist them in carrying on their good work. It was now suggested that if a grant of
58
£100 was given to a charitable institution that that 100 was to be recovered from the parents. That was what would happen if the Amendment were carried. As to the meaning of "a scheme," what he thought the Government had in their mind was to assist those voluntary institutions. He hoped the hon. Member would not insist on his Amendment, having regard to how very seriously it would affect that object if it were carried.
Mr. LOUGHsaid the Bill simply gave power to the local authorities to make such arrangements as the Board of Education might approve. The effect of that was that, first of all, a scheme must be approved by the local authority, and after that by the Board of Education. He thought the House might be perfectly satisfied that there would not be undue extravagance. He had been to the school alluded to by his hon. friend and he saw there no less than forty children on one particular morning being attended by one of these nurses. The ailments were very slight, but it was of the utmost importance in the interests of the health of all the children in the schools that they should be attended to. The Amendment provided that that work should not be done unless the parents paid for it, or at all events it gave the local authority power to follow the parents for the trifling cost entailed. He reminded the House the clause in this Bill was carried unanimously by the House last year, and under those circumstances he asked the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD R. CECILbelieved the Amendment would make entirely for the larger working of the measure. It merely provided that in particular cases the local authority should be empowered to recover certain expenses. If the Amendment were rejected, only the smallest and most insignificant services would be rendered to the children, because the local authority would be reluctant to incur expense.
Mr. ASHLEYsaid that if the Amendment were not accepted he would be compelled to go to a division.
Captain CRAIGsaid in order that the House might clearly understand what they were voting for he would point out that Sir Charles Bine Renshaw computed that the cost of the Bill so far as Scotland was concerned would be between £300,000 and £400,000. Hon. Members would be able to calculate for themselves what the cost for England and Wales would be unless some

The House divided:—Ayes, 39; Noes, 229; (Division List, No. 234.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn Sir Alex. F.

Fletcher, J. S.

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Helmsley, Viscount

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S.Edm'd

Thomson, V..Mitchell-( Lanark)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Valentia, Viscount

Bignold. Sir Arthur

Law. Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Verney, F. W.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Liddell, Henry

Wolff Gustav Wilhelm

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lockwood Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col A.R.

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—.

Clark,George Smith(Belfast,N.)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Mr. Ashley and Lord Robert Cecil

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Moore, William

Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Faber, George Denison (York)

Roes, J. D.

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Byles, William Pollard

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cameron, Robert

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Alden, Percy

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Erskine. David C.

Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Esslemont. George Birnie

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cheetham, John Frederick

Evans, Samuel T.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R, R.

Everett, R. Lacey

Astbury, John Meir

Cleland, J. W.

Ferens, T. R.

Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Ffrench, Peter

Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Corbett, A.Cameron (Glasgow)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Barker, John

Corbett,C H(Sussex,E.Grmst'd

Findlay, Alexander

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Barnes, G. N.

Cory, Clifford John

Flynn, James Christopher

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Beale, W. P.

Craik, Sir Henry

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Beauchamp, E.

Crean, Eugene

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Benn.W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo.

Crosfield, A. H.

Gill, A. H.

Bethell, Sir J.H.(Essex, R'mf'rd

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Ginnell, L.

Billson, Alfred

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Bowerman, C. W.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Gooch, George Peabody

Branch, James

Delany, William

Grant, Corrie

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Gulland, John W.

Bright, J. A.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

(Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Brunner,J. F. L.(Lancs., Leigh)

Donelan, Captain A.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Brunner,Rt HnSirJT(Cheshire)

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Bryce, J. Annan

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Harrington. Timothy

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Duncan,Robert (Lanark,G'van

Harvey,W.E. (Derbyshire.N.E.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

such Amendment as that now proposed were agreed to.
COLONEL LOCKWOODpointed out that no answer had been given to the question of his hon. friend as to the meaning of the words "arrangements for the health and physical condition of the children." Did they mean hygiene and sanitation as well as these other things, because if they did that opened up a very large question.
Question put.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Massie, J.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Hazel,.Dr. A. E.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Sheffield,Sir BerkeleyGeorge D.

Heaton, John Henniker

Meagher, Michael

Sherwell, Arthur James

Hedges, A. Paget

Menzies, Walter

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Mond, A.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Henry, Charles S.

Montagu, E. S.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Higham, John Sharp

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Smith,F.E. (Liverpool,Walton)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Morgan,J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Hogan, Michael

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Morpeth, Viscount

Soares, Ernest J.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Morrell, Philip

Spicer, Sir Albert

Holt, Richard Durning

Murray, James

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Steadman, W. C.

Horniman, Emslie John

Nicholls, George

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Nolan, Joseph

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Hudson, Walter

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Hyde, Clarendon

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Idris, T. H. W.

Nuttall, Harry

Sutherland, J. E.

Jackson, R. S.

O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxfd Univ.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Jenkins, J.

O'Dowd, John

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

O'Grady, J.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Malley, William

Thomas, Aberl(Camarthen,E.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Thomas,David Alfred (.Merthyr

Jowett, F. W.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Thornton, Percy M.

Joyce,.Michael

Philipps,J. Wynford (Pembroke

Tomkinson, James

Kearley, Hudson E.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Kekewich, Sir George

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Toulmin, George

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Power, Patrick Joseph

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Kilbride, Denis

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

Priestley,W. E. B. ((Bradford, E)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Laidlaw, Robert

Radford, G. H.

Wason,John Catheart( Orkney)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Waterlow, D. S.

Lamont, Norman

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Watt, Henry A.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Renton, Major Leslie

Weir, James Galloway

Levy, Maurice

Rickett, J. Compton

Whitehead, Rowland

Lewis, John Herbert

Ridsdale, E. A.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Lough, Thomas

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Lundon, W.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wiles, Thomas

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Robertson,Sir G.Scott( Bradf'rd

Williamson, A.

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)

Robson, Sir William Snowden

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)

Rowlands, J.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

M'Callum, John M.

Runciman, Walter

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

M'Crae, George

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) '

Yoxall, James Henry

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Walter Rea and Mr. Trevelyan.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Maddison, Frederick

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Marks,G. Croydon(Launceston)

Schwann,SirC.E. (Manchester)

Marnham, F. J.

Scott,A.H.(Ashton-under Lyne

SIR F. BANBURY:moved to omit the word "may" and insert "shall," the object being to compel the local education authority to assist the establishment of voluntary agencies. The Amendment was moved in Committee, but rejected. Nevertheless, he thought it was a very good Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 25, to leave out the word ' may ' and insert the word ' shall.' "—( Sir F. Banbury.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Bill."
*Mr. REESsaid he was the author of this proviso, and he submitted it upstairs to the Committee with the word "shall,' and still thought it should run in those words. However, the proviso as now found in the Bill was the result of a compromise in the House of Lords, and as the Committee had inserted that proviso, he though the must keep faith

63
by supporting the Bill as it stood. He thought in the interests of economy, and for the due protection of the ratepayers the word should have been "shall," but as he wished the Bill to pass he would not detain the House further in arguing that question. In his opinion ratepayers were sufficiently mulcted in all directions already, and he thought that the local authority should be bound to avail itself of all the voluntary aid it could get. If the hon. Baronet proceeded to a division, he should, of course, support him, but he presumed the Amendment would be withdrawn.
Mr. W. R REAsaid he could not accept the Amendment. The matter was discussed at length in Grand Committee and another place, and the clause was the result of the compromise arrived at.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS [EXPENSES].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of money provided by Parliament of salaries and expenses incurred in pursuance of any Act of the present session to amend the Law with respect to Small Holdings and Allotments (King's Recommendation signified), Monday next.—(Mr. Harcourt.)

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Com-
64
mittee A (added in respect of the Injured Animals Act (1894) Amendment Bill): Sir Philip Muntz; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Injured Animals Act (189 4) Amendment Bill): Colonel M'Calmont.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Criminal Appeal Bill): Mr. Lloyd Morgan; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Criminal Appeal Bill): Mr. Abel Thomas.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (in respect of the Vaccination Bill): Mr. Ainsworth; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Vaccination Bill): Mr. Watt.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee that they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (added in respect of the Small Land-holders (Scotland) Bill): Mr. Hugh Law; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill): Mr. Flynn.
Reports to lie upon the Table.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.
Adjourned at five minutes after Five o'clock till Monday next.