Sitting of 1 April 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Dartford Gas Bill,—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Dublin and Central Ireland Electric Power Bill.—Reported [Preamble not proved].
Report to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP D).
MR. LUKE WHITE reported from the Committee on Group D of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to alter the constitution of the Ashton-under-Lyne, Stalybridge, and Dukinfield (District) Waterworks Joint Committee, and to make the Audenshaw Urban District Council a combining authority; and to make further and better provision with regard to the improvement, health, local government, and finance of the urban district of Audenshaw; and for other purposes." [Audenshaw Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Corporation of Merthyr Tydfil to construct street works and to provide recreation grounds; and to make further and better provision with regard to the health, improvement, and

473
good government of the borough; and for other purposes." [Merthyr Tydfil Corporation Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to authorise the Llanelly Gaslight Company to raise additional capital; and for other purposes."[Llanelly Gas Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Taff Vale Railway Company with respect to their Penarth Harbour and Dock undertaking; and for other purposes."[Taff Vale Railway Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company to construct harbour works at Fishguard in substitution for certain authorised harbour works and railways in connection therewith; and for other purposes."[Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Urban District Council of Skegness to purchase the undertaking of the Skegness Water Company; and to make further and better provisions in regard to the health, local government, and improvement of the district; and for other purposes."[Skegness Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the transfer of the undertaking of the Ocean Marine Insurance Company Limited, to the North British and Mercantile insurance Company; to increase the capital of, and to amend the Acts relating to the latter Company; and for other purposes."[North British and Mercantile Insurance Company Bill [Lords].
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Pontypridd Waterworks Company; and for other purposes."[Pontypridd Water Bill [Lords].
Audenshaw Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Merthyr Tydfil Corporation Bill [Lords]; Llanelly Gas Bill [Lords]; Taff Vale Railway Bill [Lords]; Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill [Lords]; Skegness Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; North British and Mercantile Insurance Company Bill [Lords]; Pontypridd Water Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; and
474
referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Glamorgan; and Wednesbury; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN).
  Petitions for legislation: From London; and Staincliffe; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: From Bath; Bradford (three); Chard, Yeovil and other places; Coate; Devizes; Elsecar; Essex; Hoyland (two); Newhill; Tilshead; Tonbridge; Wath-on-Dearne (four); West Lavington; West Melton (nine); Wickwar; and Winchester; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Aberdare; Aberdeen; Ashton under Lyne; Aspatria; Bodmin; Bolton; Brighouse; Carlisle; Dudley; Dundee; Eccles (two); Elstree; Glamorgan; Gosforth on Tyne; Great Yarmouth; Halifax (four); Hampstead; Ilford; Kidderminster; Lachford; Lewannick; Merthyr Tydfil (four); Middleton; Mountcorrel; Nottingham; Oakenshaw (two); Padiham; Paisley (two);Palmer's Ville; Patricroft (four); Pendleton; Pontypool; Radcliffe; Royton; Scotswood; Seaton Burn; Sheffield; Shrewsbury; Southport; South Wigston; Sowerby; Truro; Wallsend; Wednesbury; Willom; Willington Quay; and Winton; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Eaglesfield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MORAY FIRTH (ILLEGAL TRAWLING).
  Petition from Cromarty, for prevention; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC TRUSTEE.
  Petition from London and other places, for inquiry; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Daventry; and Worksop; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3965 and 3966 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLICE (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Fiftieth Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland for the year ended 31st December, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS
  Copy presented, of 'Report of the Crofters' Commission for the year 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Post Office Telephones.
  MR. HUDSON: To ask the Postmaster-General, whether he is prepared to make any statement as to the future policy of the Post Office on the subject of telephone rates, and especially in regard to the financial basis on which he proposes that the Post Office telephone system should be conducted.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton). I am glad to have an opportunity of stating my views on the question of the future policy of the Post Office in regard to telephone rates. I consider that the Post Office telephone system should be conducted on a sound business basis, that is to say, that the revenue should be sufficient to provide for current expenditure of all kinds, for the maintenance and adequate renewal of plant, and for interest at 3 per cent. on capital ex-
  476
  penditure, together with a moderate but not excessive margin of profit. In order to ascertain whether the rates are fixed at a level sufficient to satisfy these conditions, and to put the telephone service on a business footing, it is necessary that there should be a clear separation between the revenue and expenditure of the telephone service and the revenue and expenditure of other branches of the Post Office, especially the telegraphs. It is in this way alone that the telephone system can be made to stand on its own basis, unaffected by the profit and loss made on other Post Office services. The various branches of Post Office work are, in practice, frequently conducted in the same building, sometimes by means of the same plant and under the supervision of the same persons. The separation of the cost is consequently a matter of some difficulty. Last autumn, therefore, I appointed an expert committee, including the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, to investigate this question and to advise me as to the best method to be adopted for separating the accounts. The committee has not yet finished its work; but, as a first result of their investigation, the Estimates for 1908–9 have been presented to the House in such a manner as to separate the expenditure on telegraphs and telephones, and the telephone revenue will be shown separately. The new telephone rates must to some extent be regarded as experimental. Longer experience is required before it is possible to say what may be the permanent cost of operating a fully developed system, or to ascertain with any accuracy the life of the varying descriptions of telephone plant, having regard especially to probabilities of obsolescence, and the consequent necessity of replacing plant before it is worn out. Moreover, the conditions under which the Post Office service is conducted will be considerably modified when the system of the National Telephone Company is taken over by the Post Office at the beginning of 1912. Although it is not possible for me to pledge my successors, I should anticipate that the principles winch I have stated above as those which should determine the rates will be accepted by them, and the rates will doubtless be from time to

  477
  time modified in accordance with those principles.

  Pay of Portsmouth Postmen.
  MR. BRAMSDON: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state on what grounds he has based the wages of the postmen at Portsmouth at a maximum of 27S Per week as against 26s. paid hitherto; whether similar local conditions exist at Portsmouth as at Pymouth and Devonport, where the maximum is to be 30s. per week against 26s. paid hitherto; whether he took into consideration the fact that Portsmouth has a much larger population and deals with a greater amount of local correspondence, and that, by the latest Board of Trade Returns, Portsmouth shows a higher cost of living than such towns as Cardiff, Nottingham, Sheffield, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Hull, Birmingham, or Bristol, all of which are on the 30s. scale; and whether, under the Circumstances mentioned, he can see his Way clear to reconsider his decision in regard to Portsmouth.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton—

  Population, 1901.

  Portsmouth

  189,122

  Plymouth

  105,404

  Devonport

  78,059

  183,463

  The classification of Portsmouth was based on the volume of work plus the cost of living, as recommended by the Select Committee (paragraph 258). The units of work at Portsmouth number about 1,250 and place it, on work alone, in Class II., the range of which is from 800 to 1,700 units. The index number of the cost of living, as ascertained by the Board of Trade, is 105, which indicates that the cost of living at Portsmouth is not much above the normal, and the excess is not sufficient to justify the town being placed in Class I. on this account. The units of work at Plymouth and Devonport amount to 1,540, and the cost of living is exceptionally high, index number 112.

  Employment of a Girl on Postal Duties at Seaton Delaval.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that at Seaton Delaval, Northumberland, a girl named Annie James, under sixteen years of age, is performing postmen's duties; that the wages she is receiving are 5s. a week, for which in addition she has to perform household duties for the sub-postmistress; whether he is aware that another woman in the same office signs for the money allowed by the Post Office, which is much in excess of this sum; and whether he will inquire into the matter with a view to getting the work performed by a regularly appointed servant of the Post Office.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I find, on inquiry, that the girl named Annie James is performing a short afternoon delivery at the Seaton Delaval Sub-Post Office. She will be sixteen years of age next month. There is great difficulty in obtaining the services of men or of boys over sixteen at Seaton Delaval. Annie James is paid 4s. a week for the delivery duty. She is also a domestic servant of the sub-postmistress, who pays her 5s. a week as wages for her domestic services.

  Pay of Telegraphists at Lurgan.
  MR. MOORE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether it has been decided that the Lurgan Post Office is to be placed in Class 5, according to the Hobhouse classification; whether he is aware that as a consequence Lurgan telegraphists will receive as a maximum 40s. per week, whilst the Belfast will receive 56s. per week; whether he has any figures in his possession warranting a difference of 16s. per week in the pay of men of the same grade, owing to the cost of living; and whether he will reconsider his decision.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Lurgan was in Class 7 of the old classification for sorting clerks and telegraphists and, in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee in Paragraph 259, it has been placed in the new Class 5, thus raising the maximum for the male telegraphists by 2s. and of the female telegraphists 1s.

  Suggested Revenue Stamp on Railway Free Passes.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, with a view to measuring the extent to which the free-pass system prevails on railways and steamers in the three Kingdoms, and the comparative extent of the custom, as well as to provide revenue, he would consider the expediency of requiring a penny embossed stamp to be used on all such permits with a right to refund when the pass was granted solely on company's business.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I have no reason to suppose that the adoption of the suggestion would be productive as a source of revenue, and, as at present advised, I do not think that the statistical object which the hon. Member has in view, even if it could be obtained by that means, would justify the imposition of a stamp duty.

  Management of Farms of J. Farrell and J. Heslen on the King-Harman Estate.
  MR. J. PHILLIPS: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say in what manner the farms of J. Farrell and J. Heslan, evicted tenants on the King-Harman estate, which is in Chancery, in the townland of Lisnagh, in the County of Longford, were managed during the past year, and what profit was made on them; and when the evicted tenants are likely to be restored.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The estate in question is under the control of the Chancery Division of the High Court. I am informed that during the past year the farms of the two evicted tenants named were let by the receiver for grazing at £10 per annum. It is understood that these two evicted tenants are to be restored to their holdings upon the sale of the estate generally. It is not intended to deal with the property piecemeal.

  Sale of Farms on the Carmichael O'Ferrall and Belton Estates.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any proposal has yet been made to the Estates Commissioners for the sale to the tenants
  480
  of Corclara their farms on the Carmichael O'Ferrall or Belton estate there.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are unable to trace any proceedings as having been instituted before them in respect of the sale of the estate mentioned in the Question.

  Post Office Accommodation at Nenagh.
  MR. HOGAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that several petitions have been forwarded from the inhabitants of Nenagh complaining of the inadequate accommodation in the Post Office of that town; whether the replies to these complaints have invariably admitted the justice of the complaints without proposing to take any steps to remedy the evil; and whether he will now take action to provide a Post Office suitable for the business of the town and district and safe for the health of the Post Office employees.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am aware that several petitions have been received from Nenagh, and I have given them full consideration. I have now again considered the matter, and I am answering the latest memorial through the hon. Member.

  Tuberculosis amongst Irish Elementary School Children.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the prevalence of tuberculosis amongst children attending the elementary schools in Ireland; whether he has any figures or reports bearing upon the subject; and whether he would consider the advisability of ordering an inquiry into this matter, with a view to taking some effective means of mitigating the consequences of the disease amongst these children.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) My attention has not been specially called to the prevalence of tuberculosis amongs school children in Ireland, but I am, of course, aware of the regrettable prevalence of the disease in the country generally, and am fully alive to the importance of dealing

  481
  with the subject. The Commissioners of National Education have no statistics as to the number of children affected with tuberculosis. They inform me that they have taken what steps they may to prevent the spread of tuberculosis by the exhibition of notices in the schoolrooms calling attention to the danger of the disease. The Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Bill, which is in course of preparation, will provide for the compulsory notification of the disease and will contain other provisions for dealing with the evil. In view of the proposed legislation a special inquiry into the case of the school children does not seem to be necessary.

  Application for Grant to Mary Anne M'Carron.
  MR. LARDNER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if an application for a free grant has been received by the Estates Commissioners from Mary Anne M'Carron, an evicted tenant on the Montray estate, County Monaghan; and, if so, has an inspector been sent to inquire into the circumstances of her case.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received the application referred to and will consider it in due course.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants, County Monaghan.
  MR. LARDNER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of evicted holdings in County Monaghan to which the compulsory powers contained in the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, apply; and in how many cases do the Estates Commissioners expect to effect reinstatement of the former tenants by the exercise of these powers, and when do they propose to put them in force.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I refer the hon. Member to my Answer to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for North-East Cork on 23rd March.

  Reinstatement of Mrs. Margaret Clarke, Possextown.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-
  482
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether the application of Miss Margaret Clarke, Possextown, Nobber, County Meath, to be reinstated in her former holding has been dealt with by the Estates Commissioners, and with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received the application referred to, but the holding to which it refers is in the occupation of a tenant. The Commissioners are unable to say when they may be able to deal with the application, as the case does not come within the Evicted Tenants Act, and no proceedings for the sale of the estate on which the holding is situate have been instituted before them.

  Fishguard Route for American Mails.
  MR. OWEN PHILIPPS: To ask the Postmaster-General what would be the estimated saving in time in the transit of the mails between London and New York if the new Fishguard Harbour were used for the despatch and receipt of the American mails in lieu of Holyhead.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I assume that the hon. Member refers to the possibility of forwarding American mails landed at Queenstown via Rosslare and Fishguard instead of via Holyhead. If the route suggested were adopted there might be some acceleration of the inward mails for London and the South although, owing to the varying conditions, the extent of the acceleration cannot be stated; but mails for Scotland and the Northern and Midland counties of England would be delayed. There would at present be no advantage in forwarding the outward mails via Fishguard.

  Post Office Learners—Qualifications.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the learners in the Post Office who competed at the examination held in July last will be regarded as primarily qualified when they attain the acquirements then in force for primary qualification and in force at the time the successful candidates were taken into the public service as learners, or will they not be registered as primarily qualified until they reach

  483
  the more extended qualifications laid down in the circular issued in February last.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The hon. Member must have been misinformed. There has been no change in the prescribed qualifications for learners since the early part of 1906.

  Licensing Compensation—Local Borrowings.
  MR. TREVELYAN): To ask the President of the Local Government Board in how many districts the licensing authorities have resorted to borrowing in order to accelerate the reduction of licences under the Act of 1904; and what amounts have been borrowed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I beg leave to answer this Question. If the Question relates to the borrowing by compensation authorities on the security of the compensation funds under the Licensing Act, 1904, with the consent of the Secretary of State, I would refer my hon. friend to the printed answer in which I gave on 26th February to the hon. Member for Kidderminster full details of the loans which had then been sanctioned under the Act of 1904. I have only to add that since that date one other loan has been sanctioned, viz., to the compensation authority for the county of Hertford, to the amount of £2,000, which is to be repaid out of the compensation levy imposed in the present year.

  Protection of Irish Industries.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a London magistrate imposed a heavy fine on a French firm convicted of selling a foreign article for Irish lace; if it was the Irish Industrial Development Association that instituted proceedings; and will he say if the Board of Trade can do anything in matters of this kind for the protection of Irish industries. (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The reply to the first two Questions asked by my hon. friend is in the affirmative. Under the Merchandise Marks Acts the
  484
  Board of Trade have power to undertake the prosecution of offences against those Acts in cases appearing to them to affect the general interests of the country or of a section of the community or of a trade, and they are always prepared to consider with a view to prosecution, if the circumstances should warrant it, any cases submitted to them in accordance with the prescribed regulations.

  Commercial Travellers and The Bankruptcy Acts.
  MR. REES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the disability under the present Bankruptcy Acts of commercial travellers who are paid by commission and who, in the event of the bankruptcy of the firm employing them, are entitled to rank as ordinary creditors only and to receive for any moneys which may be due to them such dividend as the estate may realise, as against the commercial traveller who is paid a salary and ranks as a preferential creditor in the event of the bankruptcy of his firm; and whether he will, in any future alteration of the Bankruptcy Law, provide that all commercial travellers, whether paid by commission or by salary, shall rank as preferential creditors.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) As I informed my hon. friend the Member for Christchurch, in answer to a similar Question addressed to me on 24th of last month, I am advised that it is doubtful whether the suggessed disability exists under the present law as judicially interpreted. I will, however, carefully consider whether any amendment of the law in this matter is necessary in the event of the introduction of a Bill to amend the Bankruptcy Acts.

  Foul Brood amongst Bees.
  MR. LARDNER: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) when he proposes to introduce his Bill to enable local authorities in Ireland to deal compulsorily with cases of foul brood among bees.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) The Bill in in course of preparation.

  Suggested Reconsideration of Sentence on Stoker Moody.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the time has arrived when the sentence passed on Stoker Moody might be again reconsidered, and a further remission of sentence granted.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Amiralty have decided that the Case shall be brought up for review before Moody has completed two years of his sentence.

  Flogging in Prisons.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, when a convict is sentenced to be flogged, more than one warder has ever been employed to administer the flogging.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) As a rule only one warder is employed, but in a recent case, where four convicts had to be punished, two warders were employed.

  Board of Agriculture Offices.
  MR. LANE-FOX: To ask the First Commissioner of Works what premises are at present occupied by the Board of Agriculture, and what are the rents which are being paid for them.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) I beg leave to refer the hon. Member to the full Answer which I gave to a similar Question (non-oral) by the hon. Member for the Rye Division on the 24th ultimo.

  Imperial Contribution to Upkeep of Highways.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increase of steam and motor traffic on the roads, and the difficulty of district councils to bear the increasing burden, he will consider the question of making some contribution towards the upkeep of the roads.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I do not think that this question can properly be dealt with except in connection with
  486
  the relations between the Exchequer and local taxation generally, which, as the lion. Member is probably aware, are receiving the careful consideration of the Government.

  Protecting Certificate for Private Collumb, late of Royal Fusiliers.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether in view of the fact that Private Collumb, late No. 7275, of the Royal Fusiliers, is now in hospital in New York, United States of America, suffering from a dangerous illness, and now desires to return to Ireland, the War Office will grant him a protecting certificate to cover a charge of desertion which still is against him, and thus enable him to return immediately before his state of health will prevent him from travelling.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) On 20th January a letter was received from this man's father stating that his son was in hospital in New York permanently disabled with spinal curvature and asking for a protecting certificate, the man being a deserter from the Royal Fusiliers since July, 1902. He was informed on 28th January that on receipt of a duly certified statement from the hospital authorities the issue of a protective certificate would be considered. No further communication from the father has reached the War Office.

  Yeomen re-enlisting in the Territorial Army.
  COLONEL IVOR PHILIPPS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether Yeomen whose present engagements expire after 31st March, 1908, and before the completion of this year's camp-training of their unit, may enlist in the new force for one year; if not, what is the shortest period for which such men may re-engage or enlist; if such men re-enlist in the new force will they be allowed to draw the old Yeomanry rate of pay for the 1908 training; and may the attestation of Yeomen serving in the old force and desirous of enlisting in the new force be postponed until the commencement of the annual training of their unit in order to give commanding officers an

  487
  opportunity of explaining the new conditions of service to their men.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Yeomen whose engagements were due to expire on a date subsequent to 31st March may enlist in the Territorial Force to complete such period, but if they wish to continue service on its completion they must re-engage for the period prescribed by their County Association, which will not be less than one year or more than four years, and must come under the new conditions as regards pay, etc. Any man whose term of service was due to expire after 31st March, and before the 1908 training, who, at the end of the 1907 training or subsequently before 31st March, 1908, re-engaged for a further year in accordance with Paragraph 66, Yeomanry Regulations, will be permitted to enlist in the Territorial Force to complete the term of his engagement still to run, including that further year, and will retain the old rates of pay during such period. Yeomen enrolled before 18th August, 1901, who have not since come under The Militia and Yeomanry Act, 1901, may be attested for one year as from 31st March, 1908, and retain their existing rate of pay, etc., for that period. Attestation may be postponed until 30th June, but no man will be trained until he has been attested. Men who have signified their intention of attesting, and who cannot conveniently be attested before training, may be brought to training and at once attested. They will draw no pay until they have been attested, and if they do not attest immediately on joining training they will be discharged. Men whose attestations have been deferred until after the date of expiration of their Imperial Yeomanry engagement will, if they wish to join the Territorial Force, be obliged to re-enlist for the full period of four years.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Volunteer Drill Halls.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, in taking over the drill halls from the Volunteers, the Public Loan Works Board will advance the money, not only to redeem the shares, but to pay
  488
  the interest which may be, or is due upon them.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): No drill halls will be taken over by the Public Works Loan Commissioners. Property on which there is a mortgage held by the Commissioners will be transferred to the County Association with the mortgage. If any property on which there is a mortgage held by persons other than the Commissioners is transferred to the Association the question of transferring the mortgage to the Commissioners will be considered in the autumn. In the case of any property transferred to a County Association subject to mortgage, the interest will be paid, as it becomes due, by the County Association out of funds provided by the War Office.
  EARL WINTERTONwas understood to ask if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the possibility of paying off all the mortgages.
  MR. HALDANEsaid they had just paid off an enormous number of mortgages.
  MR. FELLasked whether the interest due would be paid as well as the mortgages?
  MR. HALDANEsaid that if there had been interest in arrear they had paid it off.

  Military Manædoeuvres in the New Forest.
  SIR ROBERT HOBART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he has received a communication from the Court of Verderers of the New Forest in which they state that, inasmuch as the New Forest cannot lawfully be used for military camps and manæuvres except under the provisions of the Military Manæuvres Act, 1897, they cannot take any steps for facilitating military manæuvres except under that Act; and what course he proposes to take under the circumstances.
  MR. HALDANE: The War Office received a communication from the Verderers which was duly forwarded to the Office of Woods and Forests.

  489
  It is understood that my hon. friend has already received a reply from that office on the subject pointing out that the Verderers are entirely mistaken in their contention.
  MR. ASHLEYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Act of 1897 expressly stated that no manæuvres could take place in the New Forest without the Verderers being consulted?
  MR. HALDANE: As I have already explained, we are not conducting the manæuvres under the Manæuvres Act, but by arrangement with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests.
  MR. ASHLEYasked whether, if the manæuvres were not conducted under this Act, the only remedy for any poor commoner whose property was damaged would be long and expensive litigation against the right hon. Gentleman, whereas under the Act, compensation could be received easil;
  MR. HALDANE: The hon. Member is quite wrong. We conducted extensive manæuvres last summer in Scotland quite apart from the Manæuvres Act, and most friendly relations obtained between the War Office and everybody else. We paid everybody their claims, and, in addition, we took the stores we wanted from the local people, so that it was far more popular than any arbitrary manæuvres.
  MR. ASHLEYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that clauses were expressly put in the Act of 1897 in order that any manæuvres in the New

  Militia.

  Special Reserve.

  Drill on Enlistment.

  Preliminary Drill.

  Drill on Enlistment.

  Total numbers

  5,599

  2,418

  5,354

  Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers

  25

  41

  27

  Royal Irish Rifles

  117

  182

  107

  Royal Irish Fusiliers

  32

  11

  28

  Forest might be carried out in accordance therewith.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that if they were putting compulsory powers in operation, no doubt that was so; but if they were acting on a friendly agreement with the people concerned they did not need to take that course.
  MR. ASHLEYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had come to a friendly agreement with the hon. Member for the New Forest.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he had the greatest regard for his hon. friend the Member for the New Forest, but he was not the whole of the public.
  EARL WINTERTON: No, but he is the official Verderer of the New Forest.

  Irish Militia Battalions.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of recruits who have joined the Special Reserves or extra Special Reserves regiments between 16th January, 1908, and 31st March, 1908, with the corresponding Return for the same period of Militia recruits for the year 1907; and would he further give a detailed statement in regard to the above for the Militia battalions of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, the Royal Irish Rifles, and the Royal Irish Fusiliers.
  *MR. HALDANE: The figures available are for the period 16th January, 1908, to 28th March, 1908, for the Special Reserve, and 14th January, 1907, to 30th March, 1907, for the Militia. The figures are as follows—
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to take away recruits of the 3rd Battalion Royal Irish Rifles from Newtownards, County Down, and of the 5th Battalion of the same regiment from Downpatrick, for six months annual drill at the depot in Belfast; whether he is aware of the great difficulties which will be added to obtaining suitable country recruits if these two important centres are done away with; whether he has received any memorial from the local inhabitants of Downpatrick and Newtownards bearing on the loss which would consequently fall on the trades-people in the two towns; whether he can say if the advice of the commanding officers of these two regiments was asked for by the War Office authorities as to the proposed change; and what was the nature of the advice they gave.
  MR. HALDANE: It is intended that the recruits of these two battalions shall drill on enlistment at the depot in Belfast, so far as accommodation permits. This change has been made in consequence of the general scheme of re-organisation and experience alone can shew what effect such change can have on recruiting. The general scheme was not referred to these commanding officers for their advice. No memorials on this subject from the towns mentioned appear to have reached the War Office.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that particularly suitable accommodation for camping grounds and rifle ranges exists round Newtownards and Downpatrick, and that it will be very difficult to obtain land near Belfast for the purpose?
  MR. HALDANE: What the hon. Member says will be quite true of the annual training of the Reserve forces, but what I am speaking of is the preliminary recruit training of six months which will take place in winter, when the men do not camp out.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: May I ask whether those two ancient regiments, the 3rd Royal Irish Rifles and the 5th Royal Irish Rifles ave been taken away
  492
  from their home depots without the commanding officers being in any way consulted in so important a matter?
  MR. HALDANE: they have been taken away in pursuance of a general scheme which was bound to involve a good many changes in accordance with the changed nature of the training
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Then these regiments are to be severed from all county association with Down?
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman before he comes to a final decision consult the commanding officers?
  MR. HALDANE: It is decided.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: This is a very important point for the whole County of Down, and it is only just known to a number of officers. May I ask whether it is too late to reconsider this matter? If the local inhabitants in Newtownards and Downpatrick present a memorial to the War Office will it be considered?
  MR. HALDANE: We have gone very carefully into the matter, but there will be ample time to consider all these things as experience goes on. General Sir Neville Lyttelton, who, as Chief of the General Staff, advised us on these matters, succeeds to the chief command in Ireland to-morrow, and will take up his duties in a few days, and no one is more capable of forming an opinion on the practical necessities of the matter.

  Militia Battalion Colours.
  LORD J. JOICEY-CECIL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can see his way to authorising the payment of the same allowances for railway travelling, etc., to the officers of a disbanded battalion of Militia, who attended the parade for handing over the colours to the Lord-Lieutenant, as they would have received on joining their battalion for annual training and dismissal from training.
  MR. HALDANE: The same regulated expenses within the county as are granted

  493
  to the escort for the colours of a Regular unit under Paragraph 1769 of the King's Regulations will be allowed for a similar escort for handing over the colours of a disbanded Militia unit.

  Port-of-Spain Public Auctions.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is yet in a position to give the Report of the Governor of Trinidad in regard to the selling by public auction of properties, land, etc., by the town board of Port-of-Spain for repairs to pipes, etc., of the town properties.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): No, Sir; there has not yet been time for such a Report to have been received in response to the Secretary of State's request.

  Trinidad Immigration Ordinance.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the terms of the amended Immigration Ordinance recently passed in Trinidad and Tobago; whether any change will ensue as to the wage paid to the free labourer; if so, what is the amount; whether any change is made as to the wage paid to the indentured immigrant; if so, what is the amount; and further, as to whether the Select Committee that went into the matter of the Immigration Ordinance found that the indentured man had not been getting the minimum wage agreed upon as a general rule.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Ordinance in question provides that, in the computation of the average rate of wages payable for task work performed by indentured labourers, there shall be taken into account the value of free quarters for and medical attendance on such labourers, upon such scale as may be fixed by the Governor in Council. The object of this Ordinance is to admit of the payment of increased wages to the unindentured labourers. It is impossible to state at present what the increase will amount to, but it is estimated that the value of the medical attendance and
  494
  free quarters varies from 11 to 18 cents a day. No change has been made in the minimum money wage payable to the indentured labourer. The Answer to the last part of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative.

  Persian Customs Service.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the important posts in the Persian customs service are held at present by Belgian subjects, and in particular are the chief Customs officers at Bandar Abbas and at other Gulf ports Belgians; and if so, will His Majesty's Government use their influence with the Persian Government to induce them to give Englishmen the preference in any such appointments or reappointments within the British sphere of influence in Persia.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,for Sir EDWARD GREY): The employees of the Persian Customs Service are Belgian subjects. His Majesty's Government do not propose to make any suggestion to the Persian Government calculated to disturb existing arrangements unnecessarily.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information showing that the Persian Government contemplate replacing the Belgians now in the Persian Customs Service by Germans; and whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to sanction the institution of officials of German nationality in the ports or cities within the British sphere of influence in Persia.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: No such information has been received. My right hon. friend is informed that the German Government do not desire any change in the nationality of the employees.

  Castle Morton School-house.
  MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the occasional licence granted at the Upton-on-Severn Petty Sessions on 6th February was merely an extension of time upon the

  495
  premises of the Feathers Inn, Castle Morton, or was granted to the licensee of the Feathers Inn for the sale of intoxicants in the Church of England schoolhouse at Castle Morton, Worcestershire, during a Primrose League and smoking concert on 24th February; what is the population of this village, and how many licences for the sale of intoxicants exist there; and do the facts of the case call for action by the Home Office, and, if so, what.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I have made inquiries into this case and am informed that the licence in question authorised in accordance with the Acts in that behalf the licensee of the "Plume of Feathers" Inn to sell intoxicating liquor at the Castle Morton Schoolroom between 7 and 10 p.m. on 24th February. The population of the parish, which, I understand, can hardly be called a village is 795, scattered over 3,701 acres. There are five licensed premises in the parish, viz., the "Plume of Feathers" Inn and four beer-houses small and set wide apart; not one of these premises has accommodation for smoking concerts on similar gatherings. I find nothing to call for any action on my part.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEY: In view of the fact that the facts stated in a Question on this subject last Monday were incorrectly stated, i.e., it being said the vicar was in the chair, whereas he was not, will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the insinuation which was then made by a member of the Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am prepared to answer my own Questions, but I cannot undertake to answer for colleagues.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it in order in one Question to make reference to a Question previously asked in the House? I always understood it was out of order.
  *MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member says it is out of order I have no doubt it is.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I accept the compliment, Sir.

  Hillsborough Mill Fatality.
  MR. H. J. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the death of Charles Ernest Gash, aged fifteen, at Hillsborough, through being crushed in the rolling mills of Messrs. Manoah King and Company; whether the firm had been warned to fence the machinery and couplings of rolls more than once, and had omitted to carry out the instructions of the inspector; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have made inquiry and find that the firm had been warned by the inspector to fence the couplings in their factory. It would seem that they had provided guards in accordance with the inspector's instructions but had failed, in the case of the couplings which caused the accident, to keep the guards in position. The inspector has been directed to take proceedings against the firm for the breach of the Act involved.

  Convictions for Drunkenness on Licensed Premises.
  MR. MYER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer how many convictions were obtained in England and Wales for allowing drunkenness on licensed premises during the three years 1905, 1906, and 1907; and how many licences have changed hands where such convictions have been obtained.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The figures asked for in the first part of the Question are given on page 7 of the Introduction to the Licensing Statistics for 1907, under the heading "Prosecutions of Licensed Persons." The number of convictions in 1905 was 935; in 1906, 756; and in 1907, 744. As regards the second part of the Question, I regret to say that I have no information.

  Pewsey Level Crossing Fatality.
  MR. ROGERS: I beg to ask the President of the Board

  497
  of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that on 23rd March a child returning from school was knocked down and killed by a Great Western Railway express on a level crossing at Knowle, Pewsey; whether he is aware that the continuance of this level crossing was strongly condemned at the coroners' inquest by the coroner and the jury, that it has been the subject of repeated complaints by the parish council of Pewsey to the railway company for the last fourteen years, that other fatal accidents have occurred at the same spot, that the crossing is in daily use by the public, more especially by school children, and that this section of the company's line is now used increasingly by fast trains to and from the West; and whether, in view of these facts and the feeling engendered locally by the recurrence of these fatal accidents, he will make such representation to the company as will cause a footbridge to be substituted for this dangerous level crossing.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I am in communication with the railway company with regard to the recommendation of the coroner's jury, and will inform my hon. friend of the result.

  Irish Lace Frauds.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that La Samaritaine, a French firm trading at 99, Regent Street, London, was prosecuted on 27th March and fined £20, at the Marlborough Street Police Court, for exposing and selling as Irish lace a French-made crochet blouse; can he state through what English ports and under what designation French-made crochet is imported; what is the estimated annual value of such importation according to the latest information available; and can he state what steps he proposes to take in order to safeguard the interests of the Irish lace industry from dishonest competition in London and other cities of Great Britain.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: My attention has been called to the prosecution
  498
  referred to. I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend the information he asks for as to the importation of French-made crochet, as the goods are not separately classified in the Customs Returns. With reference to the last paragraph of the Question the Board of Trade are always prepared to consider with a view to prosecution, if the circumstances should warrant it, any cases of infringement of the Merchandise Marks Act that may be put before them which affect the general interests of a trade.
  MR. BOLAND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman in connection with this gross case of fraud why the Board of Trade has not done as it did in another case, where it prosecuted to conviction and imprisonment a seller of fraudulent Scottish tweed?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That prosecution was undertaken on information supplied to us, and if similar information is brought to our attention in regard to Irish lace we shall be pleased to act on it.

  Losses through Licensing Trade Failures.
  MR. MYER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the aggregate amount of loss incurred in the licensing trade in England and Wales in the years 1905, 1906 and 1907, respectively, by reason of failures of retail traders to meet their liabilities.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. The estimated loss to creditors under bankruptcies and deeds of arrangement by reason of failures of publicans and hotel-keepers in England and Wales in the years 1905, 1906, and 1907 is as follows, viz.:—

  £

  In the year 1905

  382,124

  In the year 1906

  276,145

  In the year 1907

  287,233

  City Milk Supply.
  SIR F. BANBURY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the medical officer of the City of London recently reported in some detail upon the unsatisfactory condition

  499
  of the milk supplied within the City, with suggestions for preventing the contamination of such milk; whether he has received a copy of that Report with certain representations from the Corporation based thereon; and whether he intends dealing with the subject in his Bill.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I have received a copy of the Report referred to. As I stated in reply to a previous Question on this subject, I trust that the effects of the Bill which I hope to introduce will be to secure more satisfactory control over the milk supply of the country.

  Anthrax in the City.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the report of the inquest held in the City Coroner's Court, on 11th March, on the death of Mary Ellen Pooley from anthrax; and whether, having regard to the fact that a death from anthrax was investigated in the same Court on 8th February, and to the recommendation of the jury, in which the City Coroner concurred, that cases of anthrax ought to be included in the list of diseases compulsorily notifiable to medical officers of health, he will take steps to give effect to that recommendation.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My attention has been called to the report of this inquest. As I stated on Monday last, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for the Ashford Division, it is competent for a sanitary authority, with the consent of the Local Government Board, to make cases of anthrax in human beings compulsorily notifiable in their district.
  MR. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a circular urging authorities to make it compulsory in all cases?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I will consider that.

  Women Clerks in the Savings Bank.
  MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the Hobhouse Committee
  500
  appointed last year to inquire into the wages of Post Office servants, have made several recommendations in the different departments of the Post Office which he promised to carry out, and that in the case of women clerks employed in the savings banks, whose old scale of salary was an initial one of £55, with annual increments of £2 10s., the Committee recommended an initial salary of £65, with annual increments of £5; and whether, seeing that according to present arrangements the initial salary is £65 without any increment for five years, he will take steps to give such increments as were recommended by the Committee with a view to encouraging efficiency in the different departments.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The recommendations of the Select Committee in regard to women clerks in the Savings Bank Department have been carried out in full already.

  Civil Service Socialists.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONasked the Postmaster-General whether he was aware that a public demonstration was held by the Civil Servants' Socialist Society at Lambeth Baths on 27th March, and whether this demonstration was held with his approval and consent.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: My attention has not been called to the matter.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman like a copy of the bill advertising the meeting?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Anything the hon. Member sends me I shall receive with great pleasure.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Put it in the tea-room.

  Excess of School-Places.
  MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will grant a Return showing the excess of school-places over average attendance in the elementary schools in the area

  501
  of each local authority in England during the past year.
  THE PRESIDENT of THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): Table 19 in the Statistical Volume issued by the Board gives the number of school-places, and the average attendance in the area of each local education authority for the statistical year ending 31st July, 1906. The figures for 1906–7 will be published in the next volume.

  Licences on the Duchy of Cornwall Estates.
  SIR RANDAL CREMER: I desire to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Cornwall, whether the Duchy, when refusing to renew leases of their property, are under any statutory obligation to compensate publicans, shopkeepers, manufacturers, or any other persons, who may be doing a profitable business, at the expiration of their leases; and, if they are under no statutory obligation to do so, whether it is customary for the Duchy voluntarily to compensate those whose business may suffer or be ruined by the non-renewal of their leases.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: As regards the first part of the Question the reply is in the negative. With regard to the second part, the question of voluntary compensation for refusing to renew leases has not arisen, as it has been the practice of the Duchy of Cornwall to give occupying tenants the option of renewing their tenancies.
  SIR RANDAL CREMER: I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whether the Duchy, when refusing to renew leases of their property, are under any statutory obligation to compensate publicans, shopkeepers, manufacturers, or any other persons who may be doing a profitable business at the expiration of their leases; and, if they are under no statutory obligation to do so, whether it is customary for the Duchy to voluntarily compensate those whose business may suffer or be ruined by the non-renewal of their leases.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Sir HENRY FOWLER,): The Duchy of Lancaster is under no special statutory obligation as to compensation. When, after full consideration of all the interests involved, a renewal of a lease is refused, the outgoing lessee would only receive such compensation as he may be entitled to by Statute or custom.

  Commissioners of Woods and Forests and Licensed Property.
  SIR RANDAL CREMER: I desire to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, whether the Commissioners, when refusing to renew leases of their property, are under any statutory obligation to compensate publicans, shopkeepers, manufacturers, or any other persons who may be doing a profitable business, at the expiration of their leases; and if they are under no statutory obligation to do so, whether it is customary for the Commissioners to voluntarily compensate those whose business may suffer or be ruined by the non-renewal of their leases.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Except in cases to which the Agricultural Holdings Acts may apply, the Commissioners of Woods are not under statutory obligation to compensate persons to whom they may be unable to grant renewed leases, nor is it customary for them to make such persons compensation.

  Shetland Herring Fishery.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the herring fishing at Shetland, their only industry, is threatened with extinction by whaling; and whether he will, in accordance with the recommendation of the Departmental Committee of 1904, restrict the licences granted to not more than one steamer for each station.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The information before me does not bear out the anticipation of my hon. friend. The Fishery Board is the licensing authority and they cannot impose other restrictions on the issues of licences than those

  503
  authorised by the Act of last year. That Act, while restricting all new licence holders to one steamer, instructs the Fishery Board to allow additional steamers, but in no case more than four in all, to licence holders, whose factories at 1st January, 1907, were large enough to require such additional steamers for their proper working.
  MR. HUGH LAWasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had not received a petition extensively signed by Irish fishermen in support of the point put by the hon. Gentleman, urging that whaling in either British or Irish waters would be destructive to the herring fisheries; and, if so, whether he would not take it into consideration.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid he was aware that a petition was signed by Irish fishermen in regard to whaling on the coast of Ireland, but he had no knowledge of any further action on their part.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked whether, in the event of its being proved that the herring fishery was harmed by the numerous whalers, the right hon. Gentleman would limit the number of these ships.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid that no limit could be placed except by further legislation. When the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman alluded occurred, the Government would take them into consideration.

  Women Voters in Scotland.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Scottish Education Bill, introduced last week, in assimilating the School Board franchise to the Parliamentary franchise will deprive women of the votes they now have in the election of School Boards.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The Bill makes provision for assimilating the School Board franchise not to the Parliamentary franchise, but to the Parish Council franchise under which women are admitted as electors. I regret that in introducing the Bill I inadvertently spoke of the Parliamentary instead of the Parish Council franchise.
  MR. WATT: When will the print of the Bill be in the hands of Members?
  MR. SINCLAIR: On Friday, I hope.

  United Irish League—Ballintubber Branch.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the Ballintubber branch of the United Irish League, passed 23rd March last, protesting against the importation by the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners of migrant tenants from adjoining districts into their parish, and pledging themselves to rout these migrants from their midst; and if it is intended to give land in this parish to tenants from outside and to afford them adequate protection when brought in.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners both inform me that they have no knowledge of the resolution referred to in the Question, and neither of these bodies have yet acquired land in the parish of Ballintubber. It would be premature to say what the intentions of the Board and the Commissioners may be as to the distribution of the lands, if any, which they may hereafter acquire in that parish.

  Ennis Shooting Outrage.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a farmer called Burke was shot at on Saturday, 21st March near Ennis, County Clare, and that Burke has lately taken a farm; will he say if any one has been arrested in connection with this offence; if it is intended to afford adequate protection to Burke; and, seeing that this man has become a centre of disturbance, whether it is the intention of the Estates Commissioners to acquire compulsorily Burke's farm.
  MR. BIRRELL: It is reported to the police that Michael Burke was fired at on 21st March. A man has been arrested for the offence and the case

  505
  is pending. The police will afford all necessary protection to Burke. He has not lately taken any farm, but last year he purchased a farm under the Land Act. I do not quite know what implication is intended to be made in the last part of the Question, but in any event, the Estates Commissioners do not compulsorily acquire farms which are subject to a land purchase annuity.

  Irish Milk Supplies.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if any, and how many, of the Irish urban authorities have availed themselves of the right to take special precautions with regard to the regulation of the milk supply; and whether any reports on the subject are forthcoming.
  MR. BIRRELL: Forty-five out of the ninety-five urban authorities in Ireland have adopted local regulations for the control of the milk supply under the existing Orders. These Orders will be superseded from 1st May next by the recent Dairies and Milkshops (Ireland) Order, 1908, which embodies the previous model regulations on the subject and will apply uniformly to all districts in Ireland. The milk supply, together with the other matters affecting the public health, is dealt with in the periodical reports of the Local Government Board's medical inspectors. The substance of these reports is communicated to the sanitary authorities concerned, and such reports as possess more than local interest are published with the Annual Report of the Local Government Board.
  MR. MOORE: As this question of milk supply is intimately bound up with the question of the condemnation of tuberculous cattle, will the right hon. Gentleman remove the difficulty with regard to the working of that branch of inquiry by providing that half the compensation for slaughtered animals shall be provided from Government sources?
  MR. BIRRELL: I am prepared to consider that proposal.

  Grenville Grazing Lands.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the Estates Commissioners have concluded the negotiations for purchase of the grazing lands on the estate of Sir Edward Kinihan, Glenville, County Cork; and, if so, when do the Commissioners anticipate being able to divide the lands into allotments and proceed to allocate the same.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have not yet concluded their negotiations for the purchase of the lands in question, and therefore cannot say when they will be in a position to distribute the lands.

  Dartrey Estate Evicted Tenant.
  MR. LARDNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any steps to effect the reinstatement of John McKenna, who was evicted from his farm on the Dartrey estate, in the townland of Cloghnart, County Monaghan, or what steps they propose to adopt with a view to providing a suitable farm for him.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have referred this case to one of their inspectors with a view to providing the applicant with a suitable farm, if possible.

  Sternes Charities, Monaghan.
  MR. LARDNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state when the Estates Commissioners were offered the estate of the Trustees of Sternes Charities, situate in the Counties of Monaghan and Armagh, for sale by them to the tenants; when it will be inspected by the Commissioners; and if there is any likelihood of the sale being completed at an early date.
  MR. BIRRELL: Formal proceedings for the sale of this estate to the Estates Commissioners were instituted on 19th December, 1906. The Commissioners have referred the case to their inspector,

  507
  but have not yet received his Report on the estate. It is not at present possible to say when the sale will be completed.
  MR. LARDNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the effect of this delay has been an addition of two years to the purchase money?
  MR. BIRRELL: I regret the delay which very often occurs, but we are doing our best to accelerate matters.

  Sir John Keane's Cappoquin Estate.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an inspector of the Estates Commissioners has inspected the holdings proposed to be sold on the estate of Sir John Keane, near Cappoquin, County Waterford, and when; whether he at the same time inspected the larger number of holdings on the estate in respect of which the offer of the landlord was refused by the tenants as unreasonable and exorbitant; and, if not, how soon he or some other inspector will be sent to do so.
  MR. BIRRELL: The holdings for which purchase agreements have been lodged have not yet been inspected, but when the inspection takes place, the inspector will also visit and report upon the holdings in respect of which purchase agreements have not been lodged. The case will be dealt with in order of priority, but the Estates Commissioners cannot at present name a date for the inspection.

  The Aghatubrid Estate.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is now in a position to say if the Estates Commissioners have received an answer from the solicitor of the Aghatubrid estate of the late Mr. J. W. Leahy to the letter written by the Commissioners last week; and whether the present owner of this estate are now willing to carry out the agreement for purchase made in January, 1907; and can he state what justification is alleged on the part of the owners for issuing processes for arrears of rent
  508
  which were agreed to be wiped out by the late owner.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have not yet received a reply. I informed the hon. Member on 27th March that the Commissioners had then written to the solicitor giving him fourteen days in which to reply. The fourteen days have not yet expired.
  MR. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that next Saturday—4th April—these tenants have to travel forty-five miles to answer summonses?
  MR. BIRRELL; I will inquire into that.

  Garryfine Evicted Tenants.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what steps the Estates Commissioners are taking to reinstate Robert and Jeremiah Dunworth in the farm from which they were evicted at Garryfine, in the County of Limerick, on the Harkness estate.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are unable to reinstate the applicants in their former holding which is in the occupation of a tenant, but their case has been referred to an inspector with the object of providing them with another holding if possible.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Why do not the Estates Commissioners put the Evicted Tenants Act in force in this case?
  MR. BIRRELL: It is land in the occupation of a tenant.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Have the Estates Commissioner inquired if the tenancy in this case is bogus or not?
  MR. BIRRELL: They have made inquiries.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: What has been the result?
  MR. BIRRELL: They do not agree with the hon. Member.

  The Theft of the Dublin Crown Jewels.
  MAJOR COATES: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the dates between which the Crown Jewels must have been stolen from Dublin Castle.
  MR. BIRRELL: The proceedings before the Commission of Inquiry showed incontestably that whoever stole the Jewels did so between 11th June and 6th July of last year. As I am on this subject, I may refer to a most cowardly falsehood connecting the name of Lord Haddo with the theft of the Jewels, which has obtained wide circulation both in Dublin and in London, and has found its way into certain newspapers. Ridiculous as such a statement may appear, it is not always easy to maintain total indifference to such charges. I am able to say of my own knowledge, that Lord Haddo left Dublin on 7th March. 1907, and lived in Scotland and London from that time without intermission until 7th December. I hope this statement may put an end to the business of the scandalmongers—in this particular at all events. If I may be permitted to mention the name of the Lord-Lieutenant in the matter, I may add that Lord Aberdeen was, from the first, most anxious that there should be the fullest possible inquiry into all the circumstances attending the loss of the Crown Jewels, and would have been glad if it had been possible to call into existence a Statutory Commission for that purpose.
  MR. MOORE: Arising out of that, and fully accepting the disclaimer on the part of Lord Haddo, will the right hon. Gentleman take equal steps for the prevention of scandal-mongering and insinuations against Lord Ashtown, who has been equally unfairly abused?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. That does not arise out of this question.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask whether it is a fact that Dublin Herald and Athlone Herald were asked to resign their offices by the Government, and, it so, why was that done?
  MR. BIRRELL: I must ask for notice of that Question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Inasmuch as the libels to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred have been published in England, may I ask him why have no proceedings been taken for criminal libel in the criminal Courts?
  MR. BIRRELL: That is a very proper question. I can only say that legal advice has been taken on the matter, and action, or rather inaction, has been adopted in accordance with that advice.

  The Glenahiery Outrage.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Kelly, hardware merchant, of Waterford, stated, upon the recent hearing of the appeal in Lord Ashtown's case, that immediately after the outrage at Glenahiery he informed the police in Waterford that upon 23rd July, 1907, a stranger had purchased in his shop 60 pounds of blasting powder and 16 feet of fuse; and that County-Inspector Jennings, upon the same occasion, stated upon oath that upon 16th August he was made aware of this purchase; will he state the reason why this fact was not communicated to District-Inspector Preston, the officer in charge of the case, until 16th September or to the Inspector-General until 3rd October; and can he explain why no reference of any kind to this vital and material fact is to be found in any of the reports of County Inspector Jennings.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): The facts are as stated in the first two parts of the Question, save that County-Inspector Jennings became aware of the purchase on 17th not 16th of August. The Inspector-General informs me that upon the receipt of the information from Mr. Kelly every effort was made by the Waterford and other police to clear up the matter. While this inquiry was proceeding in certain directions, and particularly until some connection could be shown between the purchase of the powder from Mr. Kelly and the explosion at Glenahiery, the Waterford police did not consider it

  511
  necessary to inform District-Inspector Preston or the Inspector-General of the facts. As the result of the police enquiries it was not found possible to establish any connection between the purchase of the powder at Waterford and the explosion at Glenahiery, and for this reason no reference was made to the matter in the reports.
  MR. MOOREasked why the information was communicated to District- Inspector Preston on 16th September if there was no connection between the two.
  MR. CHERRY: I cannot inform the hon. Member. If he will put down a Question, I will make inquiries.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the fact that upon 23rd July, 1907, a stranger had purchased in the shop of Mr. Kelly, of Waterford, 60 pounds of blasting powder and 16 feet of fuse was a vital and material matter for any narrative of facts to be supplied to Lord Ashtown prior to the investigation of his claim on 21st September, 1907, before the County Court Judge of Waterford; whether the fact of this purchase was known to County-Inspector Jennings on 16th August and to District-Inspector Preston on 16th September; and, if so, can he explain why no information of the fact was at any time supplied to Lord Ashtown; will he explain why District-Inspector Preston, with this knowledge in his possession on 16th September, not only made no mention of it before the County Court Judge on 21st September, but upon the contrary swore that all efforts on the part of the police had failed to trace or place the purchase of the powder or fuse.
  MR. CHERRY: The police at Waterford were informed that on 23rd July an unknown man purchased in Mr. Kelly's shop 65 pounds of blasting powder and three coils of fuse. The fact of this purchase became known to County-Inspector Jennings on 17th August, and to District-Inspector Preston about 16th September. This answers the supplementary Question put just now, I
  512
  think. Upon hearing of the matter County-Inspector Jennings at once instituted most exhaustive inquiries. The police have been unable to trace the person who purchased the powder or to ascertain what became of it, and, as I have already stated, no connection whatever has been established between it and the explosion at Glenahiery. It was considered unnecessary therefore to give information of the fact to Lord Ashtown, as the police officers referred to did not think that the fact of the purchase could form an element in the case in the total absence of evidence connecting it with the explosion.
  MR. MOORE: May I draw attention to the fact—[Cries of "No"]—that the right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the Question.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is the Question which the right hon. Gentleman has asked shall be put down.
  MR. MOORE: The right hon. Gentleman has just said he has answered it, and I wish to call attention to the fact he has not.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member had better put it down.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question—why the inspector, with this knowledge in his possession, not only made no mention of it before the County Court Judge on 21st September, but swore that all efforts on the part of the police had failed to trace the purchase of the fuse?
  MR. CHERRY: That is quite true. They tried to trace it, and they had a suspicion on the subject, but it was only a suspicion.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that County-Inspector Jennings at the Waterford Assizes in March last, stated upon oath that, from the date of the explosion at Glenahiery on 14th August, 1907, up to the moment he was giving evidence, he had never entertained

  513
  even the slightest suspicion of Lord Ashtown in connection with the outrage, and that District-Inspector Preston stated upon oath in Dungarvan on 21st September last, and again at Waterford Assizes on 4th March last, that he never intended to make any suggestion or charge against Lord Ashtown in connection with the outrage, and that never at any time was he in possession of any evidence that would justify any such suggestion or charge, and that the county council and the ratepayers at Waterford Assizes in March last expressly disclaimed and repudiated through their counsel any such suggestion or charge, and did the County Court Judge in September last, and the Judge of Assize in March last, declare that there was not the slightest foundation for any such suggestion or charge; and whether, in view of these facts, His Majesty's Government propose to make any charge against Lord Ashtown.
  MR. CHERRY: The proceedings in this case both before the County Court Judge and the Assize Court were fully reported in the newspapers to which the hon. Member can refer. I cannot say whether the evidence or the statements of the Judges and others are correctly summarised in the Question or not. The Government have not at present in their possession information which would justify them in making a charge against any person in connection with the occurrence.

  Galway Assault Trial.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the trial at Galway of John Joyce, Peter Joyce, and John Walsh, for an assault on Police Constable Joseph Hazlett; whether he is aware that juries at Galway and also in Limerick had already twice previously disagreed in the case of these men; that Mr. Justice Dodd at the third trial said that the case was quite plain for the jury to deal with, and that the only evidence was against the traversers, but the jury insisted on acquitting them; and if he intends to call for a Report from the learned Judge, or what further step does he intend to take to vindicate the law in this case.
  MR. CHERRY: My attention has been called to the trial of the persons referred to in the Question, inasmuch as they were prosecuted by me as Attorney-General. At the third trial, as stated in the Question, the jury acquitted the prisoners, and no further steps can be taken against them. The learned Judge in his charge said that the case was quite plain for the jury to deal with, and that he felt that they would do their duty, as jurors, according to the evidence.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it not the case that a person tried for a criminal offence and acquitted cannot be retried, as the acquittal is an absolute bar to further proceedings?
  MR. CHERRY: That is as I have said.

  Irish Lace Frauds.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the successful prosecution on 27th March, by the Irish Industrial Development Association, of the French firm La Samaritaine, trading at 99, Regent Street, London, for exposing and selling as Irish lace a crochet blouse made in France; whether he is aware that a fine of £20 was imposed on the defendants; and whether, in view of the importance of the case to the lace classes carried on under the Congested Districts Board, he will state what steps he proposes to take in order to acquaint those classes with the unfair competition by which they are being menaced, and in order to safeguard the interests of the Irish lace industry.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. The Department are aware of these frauds, and sent two witnesses to give evidence in the cases in question. One of these witnesses, namely, Miss Anderson, the Home Industries Inspectress, gives information concerning such matters to the classes which work in connection with the Department, but the remedy does not lie with the classes as a rule. The Board

  515
  of Trade are empowered by the Merchandise Marks Act, 1891, to undertake the prosecution of offences under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, in cases which appear to the Board to affect the general interests of the country, or of a section of the community or of a trade, and in which they are furnished with evidence sufficient to justify them in undertaking the prosecution. In answer to a recent Question put by the hon. Member for North Cork County, I stated that the Department would be prepared to bring under the notice of the Board of Trade, for such action as they may think desirable, any cases of fraud affecting Irish industries that might come under their notice. I also stated that the Department were aware of the action of the Irish Industrial Development Association in this respect, and that I consider that much of this work can be most effectively done by such an agency representative of the traders themselves.
  MR. BOLAND: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The Department are considering the desirability of strengthening the staff working in Great Britain.

  Inferior Calf-Meals sold in Ireland.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what action his Department have taken with regard to the analysis of calf meals since his reply to a Question on this subject in August last; will he state whether, in the opinion of the Department, calf meals are extensively sold in Ireland which are inferior in quality and extravagant in price; whether the calf meal "Linko" is still being sold; whether his Department consider this a suitable calf meal; and, if not, what steps it is proposed to take to warn farmers against the use of this and other unsuitable materials during the coming season.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The Department have continued to examine samples of calf meals submitted to them for analysis by the County Agricultural Instructors; the analyses of these samples
  516
  show that calf meals are still extensively sold in Ireland which are inferior in quality and extravagant in price. The calf meal, "Linko," is still being imported into Ireland; the Department do not consider this meal to be at all suitable for use with separated milk for calf rearing purposes. Agricultural instructors are now attached to every county, and farmers can obtain advice from them as to the character of the meals which they should use. The Department will continue to examine any meals submitted to them for analysis by these instructors. A placard is again being exhibited at every police barracks in Ireland warning farmers to be careful in their purchase of materials for calf feeding purposes.

  Carlisle Pier, Kingstown.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will cause to be laid upon the Table of the House forthwith all correspondence that has passed on the subject of the use of the Carlisle Pier, Kingstown, by vessels other than the mail steamers, between the Treasury and the Commissioners of Public Works, the Commissioners of Kingstown Harbour, the London and North Western Railway Company, the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, and any other steamboat company, or any individual or individuals, or Government Department, between 1st January, 1907, and the present date; and whether he will now publish all the correspondence and papers dealing with the agreement come to in 1898 when it was agreed by the Treasury to pay £6,500 per annum for the acceleration of the day mail service, and the correspondence relating to the altered arrangements now——
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I will consider what Papers can be laid.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the Secretary to the Treasury give his immediate attention to this matter, as it is one of the greatest possible urgency? As a matter of fact, I understand proceedings are taking place to-day which bear upon the dispute regarding the harbour of Kingstown. Cannot the hon. Member give me an Answer at once?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I hope to be able to do so within a day or two. I will lose no time.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is it not a fact that the Dublin Steam Packet Company have taken proceedings in the Court of Chancery here to restrain the steamers of the London and North-Western Railway Company from going to Carlisle Wharf, and will the Government not see their way, pending the decision in those proceedings which I understand are to be expedited in every way, to suspend their permission for the steamers to go to that wharf, by which permission the issue in the Chancery proceedings is really prejudged?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I shall have to consult my advisers.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is there not another wharf at Kingstown to which the London and North-Western Railway can go for the next week or ten days before the decision of the Court of Chancery is come to? Do the Government think it fair for the decision of the Court to be prejudged by allowing the steamers to go to this wharf now?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I am sure the hon. Member knows quite well that we do not desire to prejudge the decision of the Court in this matter. I cannot answer on this very complicated question without notice.

  Clubs and the Licensing Bill.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: On behalf of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that Clauses 36 to 42 of the Licensing Bill are solely designed for the registration of clubs which, under the definition contained in Clause 28 of the Licensing Act of 1902, are not conducted in good faith, but are clubs only in name, he will withdraw the clauses referred to from the Bill, or will insert an excepting clause or proviso confining the proposed legislation to clubs not conducted in good faith, and exempting from the operation of the Act the thousands of well-conducted clubs which
  518
  are frequented by men and women of all classes of society in every part of England.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): The clauses referred to, so far from being "solely designed for the registration of clubs, which are not conducted in good faith," have for their principal object the exclusion of such clubs from registration. There is no intention to hamper the liberties of bona fide clubs, and the Government are giving, and will continue to give, very careful consideration to all proposals which may be made for the improvement of these clauses.

  Temperance Clubs and the Licensing Bill.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would consider the advisability of inserting in the Licensing Bill a clause to show conclusively that temperance clubs in which no alcoholic liquor is sold will be excluded from the purview of the Bill.
  MR. ASQUITH: Part IV. of the Bill deals only with clubs which are registered under the Licensing Act, 1902. Such registration is only required when it is desired that alcoholic drinks should be supplied upon the club premises, and, thus, clubs which do not seek the privilege of supplying liquor are in no way affected by the Bill.

  Private Members' Privileges.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, when there are no Notices of Motions to be discussed at 8.15 on Wednesdays, it is the intention of the Government to move the adjournment of the House, thereby preventing the consideration of private Members' Bills on that night.
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir; the occurrence happens so infrequently that the Government have formed no fixed intention on the subject. They would always be guided in such a case by regard to the general convenience of the House.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGShoped the right hon. Gentleman would give a

  519
  sympathetic reply to the following Question, whether, seeing that for two years he had been trying to get a place for a measure deeply affecting a class of people in whose welfare he was much concerned, and seeing that that opportunity occurred on Wednesday last when the Bill had the first place, and seeing——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The right hon. Gentleman's observations are rather in the nature of a speech.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would, in fairness, give an opportunity for the consideration of that Bill, seeing that the opportunity was snatched away.
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir; the opportunity was not snatched away at all. My right hon. friend acted in conjunction with those who represent the opinion of Gentlemen on the other side of the House, and what was clone was done for the general convenience of the House. I am afraid I cannot offer any special facilities.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would give special facilities to every Motion dealing with three acres and a cow?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Irish Land Purchase.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the losses incurred in the flotation of Land Stock and in the payment of a bonus of 12 per cent. to Irish landlords who agree to sell, he will consider the advisability of meeting a portion of the same by imposing a tax of 12 per cent. on incomes derived from the tenanted and untenanted lands of landlords who decline to sell.
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not think the suggestion is a practicable one.

  Licensing Reduction Schemes.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is contemplated that the reduction
  520
  schemes to be prepared by the licensing justices under Clause 6 of the Licensing Bill shall specify the particular licenses to be discontinued; and whether in that case steps will be taken to ensure that no Government Department owning licensed houses shall have information earlier than the general public of the houses with which it is proposed to deal.
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir. Under Clause 7, the particular licences to be extinguished are to be selected by the licensing justices, after the scheme has been submitted to and approved by the Licensing Commission; and it is explicitly provided that the selection of licences for extinction shall be in the free and unqualified discretion of the licensing justices.

  Imports of Tobacco Samples.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether samples of American tobacco are admitted into this country upon the deposit of the duty payable; whether, and under what circumstances, such deposit is refunded; whether similar concessions have been made in the case of Colonial tobacco from Rhodesia; and, if not, on what grounds this preferential treatment is given to the United States of America.
  MR. ASQUITH: Samples of tobacco imported from the United States of America are admitted upon deposit of the duty payable (or on bond being entered into for the amount thereof) if brought by commercial travellers of that country. The deposit is refunded (or the bond cancelled) when the samples are re-exported or placed in a bonded warehouse. The concession has been granted in consequence of the Agreement between this country and the United States, signed at London on 19th November last. The Board of Customs have intimated to the Board of Trade that they see no objection to the extension to the British Colonies of the special facilities for clearance of samples brought by commercial travellers, if this should be considered desirable, provided that like facilities are granted there to commercial travellers from this country.

  The Housing Bill.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the Housing Bill, whether, as this is a very long and intricate measure which proceeds to enact very largely by reference to other Acts, he will ask the President of the Local Government Board to circulate an explanatory Memorandum with the Bill?
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes, Sir, I will certainly ask him.

PORT OF LONDON BILL.
Copy ordered, "of Memorandum in reference to the Port of London Bill."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 109.]

INCEST BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 110.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 110.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 185.]

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS)BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 111.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 111.]
Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday, 26th June, and to be printed. [Bill 186.]

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
Mr. STUART-WORTLEY reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Laurence Hardy to be Chairman of Standing Committee B, and Mr. John William Wilson to be Chairman of Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Leave given to the Chairmen's Panel to make a Special Report.
Special Report brought up, and read.
Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 112.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 112.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Carlile and Sir Francis Lowe; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Agricultural Education in Elementary Schools Bill): Viscount Morpeth and Sir Philip Magnus.
Report to lie upon the Table.

TRUSTS BILL.
The Select Committee on the Trusts Bill was nominated of:—Mr. Beale, Mr. Clancy, Mr. Cave, Dr. Hazel, Mr. Hills, Mr. Micklem, Mr. John O'Connor, Mr. Radford, Mr. Rendall, Mr. Stewart-Smith, and Mr. Salter.
Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."
Ordered, "That Three be the quorum."—(Mr. Whiteley.)

PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) [EXPENSES].
Resolution reported,—"That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the salaries and remuneration of the Director

523
of Public Prosecutions and assistant directors appointed under any Act of the present session to amend the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879 and 1884, and of the Expenses incurred in pursuance of such Act."
Resolution read a second time.
SIR F. BANBURYmoved an Amendment to limit such salaries to £3,000. He said he regretted the President of the Board of Trade had not remained in his seat, because the right hon. Gentleman himself moved a similar Amendment to a similar Resolution four years ago, and he would like to know how it was the right hon. Gentleman was not supporting him in the example he himself had given. He was prepared to admit that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, although based on the same premisses, was not so reasonable as his own, but he wished it not to be forgotten that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who now led the House, voted for that Amendment and was present through the whole debate, so that he had no excuse for suggesting that he went into the lobby without knowing what exactly was before the House and what had transpired in the course of the discussion. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion actually went so far as to arraign the action of the then Government. He noticed that the President of the Board of Education, although in the House, was looking the other way; perhaps he was regretting he had not followed the example of his colleagues and left the House, for he also made an extremely eloquent speech in support of that Amendment, and if he had forgotten it he would be only too pleased to refresh his memory by reading the report from Hansard, with a copy of which he had fortified himself. But that was not all. Some ten days ago in Committee on the Resolution he called the attention of the Attorney-General—who, although he took no part in the debate, certainly voted for the Amendment to which he had referred—to the fact that the Resolution did not appear on the Order Paper—an omission which gave rise to the debate of 8th June, 1904. It was true that the Resolu-
524
tion appeared in the Votes, but then hon. Members had not time to read through all those Papers in order to see if any of the Notices had reference to the business for the day, and it certainly would very much simplify matters for every Member of Parliament if there appeared on the Order Paper for the day all Resolutions and Notices which referred to the particular business to be dealt with. The hon. and learned Gentleman who pleaded the other day that he was not very proficient in Parliamentary procedure gave a distinct pledge—[the ATTORNEY-GENERAL dissented]—gave a distinct pledge, as he would see on reference to Hansard when printed—that if he had been guilty of any error he would remedy it. Yet in spite of that the very same cause of complaint existed that day and the Resolution he had to move did not appear on the Paper; indeed, he doubted if, with the exception of himself and possibly the hon. and learned Gentleman, there was a Member of the House who had seen the Resolution. He would ask the Attorney-General how it was that, having given a distinct pledge in this matter, he had not carried it out. He had also a question to put to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who also made a speech on the occasion he had referred to and complained that the Home Office had made no estimate whatever of the expenses likely to be incurred. Incidentally, he might say that none had been made in this instance. But the Financial Secretary on the occasion in question was extremely eloquent and talked in a most determined manner about the bad practices of the late Government. A week ago only lie asked the hon. Gentleman if he would kindly communicate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the feeling which existed on that side of the House and request the right hon. Gentleman to take steps to avoid a recurrence of what they considered to be an unnecessary concealment of business to be taken by the House. The Financial Secretary in reply to that appeal nodded and smiled, but so far as he could see there had been no other result. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were right in their assertion four years ago that the Government were acting wrongly, what was their position to-day? Were they going to

525
stand up in a white sheet and express penitence for their own shortcomings, or were they going to carry out their own promises? He thought the Attorney-General might have made a better defence than he did a week ago. He wished to be perfectly fair to him in the matter; he might have retorted that he (Sir F. Banbury) was in the same boat because he voted in a contrary way four years ago. He was prepared to admit having done that, but he desired at the same time to give the reason for his action. The Amendment on that occasion was moved by the right hon. Gentleman who now held office as President of the Board of Trade. It was not such a good Amendment as the one he was now submitting, for the reason that it curtailed and limited the expenditure over the whole Department, whereas his own Amendment only limited it in so far as the Director and Assistant Director were concerned, and it was a very important distinction. Then again, four years ago, the right hon. Gentleman mixed up two questions—not only that of expenditure, but also whether Resolutions such as these ought to appear on the Order Paper, and whether or not it was the duty of the Treasury to have made an estimate. That was one of the points on which the division took place, and it so happened that on that occasion it would have been impossible for the Treasury to have made an estimate—an accurate estimate—of the possible expenditure. Now he had avoided those difficulties on this occasion by making his Amendment applicable only to the salaries of the well-known and recognised officials, as to whom there could be no doubt what the cost would be. That consequently justified his change of front. The only point that remained was whether or not these Resolutions should have appeared on the Order Paper, and on that he would point out that that was a matter over which he, as a private Member, had no control, and seeing that he could not distinguish as between different parts of the Amendment four years ago, he submitted that he was justified in not voting against his own Party when the result might have been to turn his own friends out of office.
526
What would have been the outcome of such a proceeding?
*MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member should confine his remarks to his Amendment.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he would do so. That Amendment limited the expenditure to £4,000 when proposed a week ago, and the hon. and learned Gentleman in opposing it then said the reduction was too large. He had endeavoured to meet him in that matter. He did not wish to place him either in the disadvantageous position of having too much money voted, for he quite sympathised with, and was always ready to help him in any effort to economise, especially as at theme economy was very necessary. He had, therefore, altered his Amendment and reduced the figure to £3,000, for it was evident that if £4,000 was too much, £3,000 was more or less the exact figure that might be saved. Was there any reason why those figures should not be inserted in the Resolution? He quite admitted that when a new Department was set up it was impossible to say exactly what the expense of the Department as a whole would be. He understood that there were no precedents to guide the Treasury in this case, and in that view he was confirmed by a little remark made by the President of the Board of Trade in the year 1904—

"That the moment they employed lawyers—and he knew something of lawyers, being one himself—their bills did not come to a trifle."
That was one of the reasons why he had not by his former Amendment limited the expenditure over the new Department as a whole, but confined it merely to the Director and Assistant Directors. He trusted that on this occasion the hon. and learned Gentleman would accept his Amendment, and that if a similar Resolution were moved in the future he would carry out the pledge given him a few days ago, that such Resolution should be placed on the Order Paper. As he could not speak again, if the hon. and learned Gentleman wished any explanation from him he could put to him interrogatories, and he would be glad to reply. This was an extremely important matter and was not confined to

527
the present Resolution, but applied to all Resolutions for the spending of money. An hon. Member had said something about giving the hon. and learned Gentleman a blank cheque. He had no wish to give a blank cheque to the Government, in which he had not much confidence, or to anyone. Blank cheques were a great mistake. Now that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was present he hoped that his remarks would bear fruit, and that some distinct understanding would be come to as to the exact course to be pursued in the future. He begged to move.
COLONEL LOCKWOODseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"At the end of the Resolution to add the words 'such salaries not to exceed £3,000 in all.'"—(Sir F. Banbury).
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)said that the hon. Baronet had been kind enough to invite him to address interrogatories to him in order to elucidate his meaning. He could assure the hon. Baronet that his meaning was perfectly obvious and that no interrogatories were necessary. The hon. Baronet had drawn attention to some previous occasion when he alleged that a like Amendment had been proposed to a like Motion. He was not quite sure that they were like. It was somewhat difficult to imagine a Resolution of an exactly similar character to the present one, which dealt with a new Department founded on the necessities of a new Act, which introduced quite an unknown quantity of labour in the administration of the law. They might have a great many new Bills, some of which necessitated a good deal of labour, while others necessitated little. It was, therefore, impossible to argue from the case of one Bill to the case of another. Consequently the previous instances mentioned by the hon. Baronet gave the House very little assistance. The hon. Baronet seemed to think that there was some small defect on the part of
528
the Government in regard to the notice that had been given of this Motion. He had a little difficulty in understanding the hon. Baronet's point in regard to procedure; but he could assure him that there had been nothing whatever unusual in the procedure on the present occasion.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not allege that it was unusual, but that it was a procedure which, in his opinion, was bad, and which had been condemned by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
SIR W. ROBSONthought that the hon. Baronet had clarified his meaning. He understood the hon. Baronet to suggest that it had been an unusual procedure. He had never objected to a Resolution like the present, but to a Resolution relating to another Bill altogether, which was a very different matter. If the hon. Baronet would show him a similar Bill to the present he would be glad to consider the procedure then adopted; but in the present case the Government had followed precisely the procedure invariably adopted. It was quite true that the hon. Baronet had fallen upon some observations of his on another Bill, but they did not apply to the present measure. If there had been unusual procedure, taken inadvertently on his part, he would have endeavoured to have it corrected, but that was not the case. He now came to the hon. Baronet's Amendment. The hon. Baronet's memory was treacherous in his recollection of what took place on the last occasion on which this Resolution was discussed. What he then said was that £4,000, the figure they were then dealing with, might be and probably would be excessive in regard to the initial expenses of the new Department, but that it might or might not, and probably would not be adequate having regard to the ultimate expenditure which might be required for the new Department. They proposed to add simply to the staff of the Department a new Director and a few additional professional clerks. The number of the existing staff, he thought, was eleven, who would be transferred, and

529
there would be some addition of shorthand clerks and professional clerks. Then there was a new Director. At present they had not resolved on the appointment of any Assistant Directors. They would wait to see how the work developed; and he hoped that for some time they might go on with the additional assistance he had just indicated. In that case he anticipated that the expenditure of £3,000 or £4,000 would be sufficient. The hon. Baronet said that there had been some misconception as to the meaning of his Amendment on the last occasion. Certainly he took it to cover the salaries and expenses of the new Department, and it might have been open to that ambiguity of interpretation. However, he hoped that the £3,000 for salaries mentioned by the hon. Baronet would be adequate under the arrangements at present proposed, though £3,000 would not be adequate if it was found necessary to appoint an Assistant Director. The Treasury themselves were sanguine on the point. The new Director had great powers of work, and by concentrating his great abilities on his work he might be able to do with less assistance than was contemplated at the moment. It was impossible to say how many appeals might come up from the country under the new Criminal Appeal Act. When he was a Recorder in the North he represented a population of more than a quarter of a million and during ten years there had been no appeal. He remembered on one occasion inviting that an appeal should be taken on a point of law which had been raised and which he had overruled, but no appeal was actually taken. But under the facilities now given for appeals it was a mere speculation what the number might be. They must, therefore, have something of a free hand in dealing with what might be a great accession of new work to the Department and for that reason he was unable to ac-accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet.
LORD BALCARRESsaid that surely some estimate of the proposed expenditure should have been provided by the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues at the Treasury.
SIR W. ROBSON: That has been given to the House.
LORD BALCARRESsaid that the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that £4,000 was asked for, but that he did not mean to spend £4,000. Beyond that the hon. and learned Gentleman had given no information to the House. All he said was that he could give no precise indication of what the number of appeals might be, but if the House was to vote the money they should have more information.
SIR W. ROBSON: All the information was given that we had to give.
LORD BALCARRESsaid that it was an extraordinary haphazard way in which the present Treasury conducted its business. He thought that before the financial purists spoke they ought to note that they had not received a more exact estimate than that which was announced by the Attorney-General. A rather surprising and curious incident had happened that morning, viz., that on the first day of the financial year Supplementary Estimates had been presented for the year 1908–1909. Although perhaps they could not expect any more precise figures from the Attorney-General he was surprised at the action of the Treasury in this matter.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid it seemed to some of them that the hon. and learned Gentleman was striving to hide as long as he possibly could the exact expenditure which this Bill was going to cost the country, and he thought he would be the last person to cast any blame upon them for striving to get from him something more reasonable than the explanation with which he had just favoured them. He thought it was extremely lame of the hon. and learned Gentleman to twit his hon. friend below him with not being able to produce a Bill on all fours with the present measure in which there had been a debate upon the Financial Resolution to be found in Hansard. He might have given a somewhat better explanation if he disagreed with the Amendment which the hon.

531
Baronet had moved, because, after all, although the Bill to which his hon. friend referred was not a Bill of exactly the same nature, still it was one which necessitated a Money Resolution practically word for word the same as that under discussion. The Amendment was also to all intents and purposes the same, and surely the legal mind of the hon. and learned Gentlemen would recognise that there was a very close likeness between the two cases. He wished to know what had occurred to change the mind of front bench occupants, since upon the Aliens Bill they voted in one direction, and now came down to the House without one single word of explanation to eat their own words by voting in another. He did not accuse the hon. and learned Gentleman of breaking the ordinary rules and regulations of the House in the ordinary sense of the word in not putting his Resolution on the Paper, but what he did say was that as the present members of the Government felt so strongly on the subject in the year 1904, it would not have been outside their capabilities to put on the Notice Paper some approximate statement of the cost in this instance. Although in doing so they might have departed slightly from the rules of the House in such matters, they would not have found a single Member on those benches to object to such a trivial divergence. They did not ask the hon. and learned Gentleman in any way to infringe the rules in carrying through such an ordinary Resolution, but they did ask him to throw a little light on the dark secret. The hon. and learned Gentleman had admitted that neither he nor his friend representing the Treasury had the slightest idea of how much the amount wanted would be. If such a statement had been placed on the Notice Paper they would at least have the satisfaction of knowing what they had to deal with, and it would not have been necessary for his hon. friend to have moved the Amendment. There had, however, been one very good result already of the debate, because the other day, his hon. friend having moved an Amendment in regard to £4,000, the hon. and learned Gentleman, he presumed in order to disarm suspicion and criticism, said that
532
it was hoped that the gentleman who was to fill the office would take £3,000, and the debate that day had had the effect of inducing the hon. and learned Gentleman in reply to his hon. friend, although the Amendment standing on the Paper named £3,000, to say that he thought he would be able to get an eminent gentleman for a lesser sum than that. He dared say that if the Resolution had to go through another stage in the House they would get the hon. and learned Gentleman to reduce still further the salary to be paid to the Public Prosecutor. At all events he thought these financial matters should be presented to the House in a more businesslike way in future. They had, however, got valuable information from the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he supposed that every time the question arose the gentleman who aspired to the post, or the gentleman who was in the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman, would get cheaper and cheaper, because he went down from £4,000 to £3,000 on the last occasion, and that day he had gone down from £3,000 to £2,000. That at all events proved that these debates upon Financial Resolutions had the effect of impressing a little economy on this spendthrift Government. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman said in answer to the noble Lord that they were in possession of just exactly the same information as the Treasury. That was a very serious admission, because no one in the House could say that they had the slightest information whatever on the subject. Therefore the hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that the Treasury were backing him up in a matter of which they also knew absolutely nothing. The cursory statement which they had from the hon. and learned Gentleman when the matter was last before them was as unsatisfactory as his statement that day; it amounted to this, that the House of Commons and the officials of the Treasury, as far as the machinery and the backbone of the Bill, the paying out of the money, were concerned, were absolutely in the dark. Another important point was that the hon. and learned Gentleman told them that the Bill would indirectly provoke appeals.
SIR W. ROBSON: I did not use the expression "provoke." I said it would lead to appeals.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid that that admission made the matter all the more serious, because in that case the Public Prosecutor might not only have to appoint one assistant but two or three. If the Bill was going to instigate appeals throughout the country they ought certainly, on a Money Resolution, to have some figures before them. They ought to be told the number of criminal appeals during the last ten or fifteen years, and whether the hon. and learned Gentleman expected that that number would be increased by 5 or 10 per cent. or whatever the figure was. There would have been something logical and tangible then for them to deal with. The point was that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself had indicated that this measure would create a large amount of work for the officials he was appointing and paying by this Resolution, and yet he had no information to give them, nor had the Treasury. He should certainly vote with his hon. friend as a protest against the way in which business was being carired on.
MR. COCHRANEthought his hon. friend the Member for the City of London had done a great service to the interests of economy in calling attention to the haphazard way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman had produced his Financial Resolution on which this Bill was founded. They were told, as he understood, that the duties which would be imposed by the Bill would be very numerous and very onerous, and would take up so much time that it would be impossible that the work could be done in the office of the Solicitor to the Treasury. Under the Act of 1884 constituting the office of the Solicitor to the Treasury and giving him control of these prosecutions, that official had been able to appoint any number of Assistant Solicitors with the same power as himself to carry out the work. When he ventured to call attention to this point on a previous stage and pointed out that a Committee had reported in favour of combining the offices of Public Prosecutor and Solicitor to the Treasury, the answer he got was that the Report of 1884
534
was many years ago, and that the Act based upon it was also many years ago. The hon. and learned Gentleman insisted, however, as in the case of all Radical legislation, on going still further back, and instead of being satisfied with the Act of 1884 he re-enacted the Act of 1879 which was condemned by the Report of the Committee in 1884 on account of its extravagant expense. The two offices were combined in 1884 and now the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed again to separate them. He desired to call attention to the expense that would be incurred by his so doing. He gathered from the hon. and learned Gentleman that the expense would be very great because of the new labours which would be thrown on these gentlemen. But they were told there was to be only one Director of Public Prosecutions. He therefore suggested that the expense in setting up these various offices, and all the details necessary, of shorthand writers and clerks merely to assist one Director of Public Prosecutions, appeared to be very extravagant. With regard to the salary of the Director himself let them not err on the side of undue economy. If it was necessary to set up this officer they should at any rate pay him well. The Public Prosecutor would be a gentleman upon whom the greatest responsibility would rest, and it would be in the interests of neither economynor justice that a gentleman placed in that position should have an inadequate salary. He was sure his hon. friend the junior Member for the City of London would not criticise in a hostile manner an adequate salary for this gentleman. What they thought was that when a Financial Resolution of this character was brought in there ought to be some details of the expenditure it was expected would be incurred.
MR. CLAUDE HAYhaving, as he said, followed this matter from the first, expressed considerable sympathy with the Attorney-General, who by the speeches he had made upon the subject had placed himself in an impossible position. First of all, the hon. and learned Gentleman said he was unable to form any estimate. Had any communication passed since between the hon. and learned Gentleman and

535
the Treasury? Because if so, he must now have some further information beyond that which the House possessed. Having said that he was unable to form an estimate of the cost he now said he only intended to appoint one Director of Public Prosecutions. He could tell pretty well what that would cost.
CAPTAIN CRAIGcalled attention to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted; and forty Members being found present—
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid it would not be difficult for the Government to bring in a Supplementary Estimate if in the next six months it was found necessary owing to the increase of work to increase the staff. It was patent that this Government had no title to be called an economical Government, when on this, the first day of the financial year, they brought in a Resolution of such an indefinite character. What he was anxious to know, and he would ask the Solicitor-General to afford the House the information, was whether the Government had in their mind the gentleman they intended to appoint to this position. If they were only going to appoint one Director they obviously must know the amount of salary they proposed to offer, and, therefore, the ambiguity need not apply to the Resolution. When the question was before the House on a previous occasion the Attorney-General candidly confessed that he had not read the extremely powerful Report of the Committee on the question of the separation of these offices. But the time had arrived when the hon. and learned Gentleman should give serious attention to the opinions expressed in that Report, signed as it was by Sir William Harcourt
and other eminent Members of the party opposite and of other sides of the House, most of them being ex-Ministers. The matter had been regarded by the Government as a small one, yet four years had hardly elapsed since on a similar question in connection with the Aliens Bill four Members of the present Government, beginning with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, spoke very strongly upon the subject and voted against the Resolution. The present Resolution was on all fours with that brought in by the late Government in connection with the Aliens Bill. The Attorney-General now told the House that he could not fix the figure because he could not tell how the work would develope and what would be the amount of staff required. That was exactly the case in the Aliens Bill. It was impossible to state how many officers would be required or of what the equipment at the various ports would consist The Government of the day advanced practically the same argument as that put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was most emphatic on the necessity of fixing the amount of the Estimate. If the principles applied by the Government in this financial Resolution were applied to private business undertakings, in a very short time the undertakings would be bankrupt. It was regarded by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite as a small matter, but it was a matter of vital principle of the business management that should be applied to the whole of the work of the Government.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 272. (Division List No. 63.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Ashley, W. W.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Faber, George Denison (York)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Balcarres, Lord

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Fardell, Sir T. George

Baldwin, Stanley

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

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Forster, Henry William

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Courthope, G. Loyd

Gretton, John

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Guinness, Walter Edward

Bowles, G. Stewart

Craik, Sir Henry

Hamilton, Marquess of

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Helmsley, Viscount

Moore, William

Thornton, Percy M.

Hill, Sir Clement

Morpeth, Viscount

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Hunt, Rowland

Parkes, Ebenezer

Valentia, Viscount

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Winterton, Earl

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

Remnant, James Farquharson

Younger, George

Long. Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Salter, Arthur Clavell

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Frederick Banbury and

Magnus, Sir Philip

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Captain Craig.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Starkey, John R.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Crooks, William

Holland, Sir William Henry

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Crosfield, A. H.

Holt, Richard Durning

Agnew, George William

Curran, Peter Francis

Horniman, Emslie John

Alden, Percy

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Howard, Hon. Godfrey

Ambrose, Robert

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hudson, Walter

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Delany, William

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Devlin, Joseph

Idris, T. H. W.

Astbury, John Meir

Dobson, Thomas W.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Donelan, Captain A.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Duckworth, James

Jardine, Sir J.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Barker, John

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Jowett, F. W.

Barnard, E. B.

Erskine, David C.

Joyce, Michael

Barnes, G. N.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Kearley, Hudson E.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N

Essex, R. W.

Kelley, George D.

Beck, A. Cecil

Esslemont, George Birnie

Kilbride, Denis

Bellairs, Carlyon

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

Everett, R. Lacey

Laidlaw, Robert

Bennett, E. N.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lambert, George

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

Fenwick, Charles

Lamont, Norman

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Ffrench, Peter

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lehmann, R. C.

Black, Arthur W.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Levy, Sir Maurice

Boland, John

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Bowerman, C. W.

Fullerton, Hugh

Lough, Thomas

Brace, William

Furness, Sir Christopher

Lundon, W.

Branch, James

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Bright, J. A.

Gilhooly, James

Maclean, Donald

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Gill, A. H.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.

Macpherson, J. T.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Glover, Thomas

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Byles, William Pollard

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Cameron, Robert

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Callum, John M.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gulland, John W.

M'Crae, George

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Chance, Frederick William

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

M'Killop, W.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hall, Frederick

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Halpin, J.

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

Clancy, John Joseph

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk

Maddison, Frederick

Cleland, J. W.

Hart-Davies, T.

Mallet, Charles E.

Clough, William

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Clynes, J. R.

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

Marnham, F. J.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hazleton, Richard

Masterman, C. F. G.

Cooper, G. J.

Healy, Timothy Michael

Meagher, Michael

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

Hedges, A. Paget

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Cowan, W. H.

Higham, John Sharp

Montagu, E. S.

Crean, Eugene

Hobart, Sir Robert

Montgomery, H. G.

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Hodge, John

Mooney, J. J.

538

539

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Reddy, M.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Morse, L. L.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Rees, J. D.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Muldoon, John

Rendall, Athelstan

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Murnaghan, George

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Toulmin, George

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Richardson, 0A.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Napier, T. B.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Verney, F. W.

Nicholls, George

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wadsworth, J.

Nolan, Joseph

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Walsh, Stephen

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wardle, George J.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Robinson, S.

Waring, Walter

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Rowlands, J.

Waterlow, D. S.

O'Doherty, Philip

Runciman, Walter

Watt, Henry A.

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Russell, T. W.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Whitbread, Howard

O'Dowd, John

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

O'Grady, J.

Sears, J. E.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Seddon, J.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

O'Malley, William

Seely, Colonel

Whitehead, Rowland

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Shackleton, David James

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax

O'Shee, James John

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Partington, Oswald

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

Wiles, Thomas

Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Sheehy, David

Williamson, A.

Perks, Robert William

Shipman. Dr. John G.

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, 'W.)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

Power, Patrick Joseph

Stanger, H. Y.

Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Winfrey, R.

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Yoxall, James Henry

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

Strachey, Sir Edward

Pullar, Sir Robert

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Radford, G. H.

Summerbell, T.

Whiteley and Mr. Herbert

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Lewis.

Resolution agreed to.

PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence, owing to indisposition, of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Mr. CLAUDE HAYmoved the omission, after "The provisions of Section 2 of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1884," of the words "which unite the office of Director of Public Prosecutions with that of the Treasury Solicitor." He contended that the words were wholly unnecessary, and the reference given would be entirely mis-
540
leading, seeing that the Act of 1884 was repealed in toto in the schedule of the Bill. Another part of the Act of 1884 dealt with the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the reference, to a number of provisions in that Act was meaningless. It was very surprising that the, words should have been allowed to remain in the Bill, but he supposed the Attorney-General had been occupied in other work, or he would not have overlooked such a drafting matter. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would accept the Amendment. He had the whole of the references, but he did not want to occupy the time of the House. If, however, the Amendment was resisted, he would be obliged to make further remarks.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 6, to leave out from '1884' to the word 'shall,' in line 7."—Mr. Claude Hay.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
Sir W. ROBSONsaid the words were not unnecessary; they were there simply as a matter of convenient explanation in order to save any one who read the Bill from the necessity of referring to the Act of 1884. That was the whole reason. The reference was explanatory and nothing else.
Sir F. BANBURYsaid he would not put himself in antagonism on a legal point to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he thought the words instead of simplifying the matter and helping lawyers to understand it would have exactly the contrary effect. The clause of the Act of 1884 to which the reference related was as follows—
"On and after the passing of this Act, appointments made in pursuance of the principal Act are revoked, and the person for the time being holding the office of Solicitor for the affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury shall be the Director of Public Prosecutions and perform the duties and have the powers of such Director."
Then Section 3 of the Solicitors Act of 1876 authorised any Assistant Solicitor for the affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury to act on behalf of the Solicitor to the Treasury in his capacity of Director of Public Prosecutions. They knew the ingenuity of the legal mind and they knew the little points that were taken when a case was before the Law Courts so that either delay was caused or an end put altogether to the proceedings. It might be held that the second paragraph of Clause 2 of the Prosecution of Offences Act did not unite the offices of Director of Public Prosecutions and Treasury Solicitor, but only authorised the Assistant Solicitor to assist the Director of Public Prosecutions.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYcalled attention to the fact that forty Members were not present.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already ascertained that there are more than forty Members present.
MR. CLAUDE HAY: Not since the House has been in Committee.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It does not matter. Besides that there has been a recent division.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid they wanted to make the meaning of the clause as clear as possible. He was inclined to think the schedule contradicted these words; the two were not consistent. If these words were in, the schedule ought to be amended, but if they were cut out the scehdule could be left as it was. The hon. and learned Gentleman had better accept the Amendment because then they would not have to make any alteration in the schedule. It had just struck him that the reason why the hon. and learned Gentleman would not accept the Amendment was, possibly, that his interpretation was correct. The hon. and learned Gentleman told them he only intended to appoint one Director, but they might anticipate a certain number of appeals—
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with the question, which is whether these words, which are merely explanatory of the section, should be in or not. They have no enacting effect and the section is repealed by the schedule.
Sir F. BANBURYsaid it was he who had called attention to the fact that the schedule took all the words out and there was no reason in leaving them in unless there was some ulterior object. It might be that when they came to the schedule the hon. and learned Gentleman might mean to amend it.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: These words cannot be put beyond their definite meaning which is explanatory of the contents of the section. They are not enacting words.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that was quite true, but if these words were left in would the second paragraph of the repeal section have any effect or not? If it had the same effect whether the words were in or out, the Amendment should be accepted, because it had always been held that in an Act of Parliament the fewer words put in the better, and that words should not be put in unless they had an object and meaning. These words had no object and no meaning, and the effect would be exactly the same whether they were in

543
or out. He hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a division.
CAPTAIN CRAIGthought the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to accept the Amendment for a reason which had not been touched on. It certainly struck him, on looking at the wording, that it was a matter more of Memoranda that might be attached to the Bill, than of the wording of the Bill itself. He took it that the Attorney-General in drafting the section took it upon himself to lay down that Section 2 of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1884, united the offices of Director of Public Prosecutions and Treasury Solicitor. He took it that that was a matter for discussion, and not a matter to set out in a clause of that Bill. If the hon. and learned Gentleman was correct in his decision that the words were not necessary and were merely put there in order to be a convenience to people, was there not a great fear that the very effect of leaving the words in would lead to endless litigation in the future? If the words were practically an explanatory note, and if the hon. and learned. Gentleman intended to insist that the section united the two offices, it might be just as reasonable for him to go on and explain what else Section 2 did. Was the Bill to be overburdened with unofficial statements of that sort? If the Bill was drafted in that way, if there was as much surface matter running through it as in the first few lines, there must be some fault somewhere. He could not conceive the hon. and learned Gentleman whose colleague appeared to be giving way on the matter, stating that the words were unnecessary, and at the same time that he must have them in the Bill. If the words were unnecessary they should be struck out. If they were necessary the hon. and learned Gentleman should explain more fully why they were necessary. The greatest possible care should be taken in introducing extraneous matter. He should certainly vote with his hon. friend in order to elicit a more reasonable excuse for including the words.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the Attorney-General had not really given any explanation but had made his case worse.
544
He said the words were in the nature of an explanation but they only partially described the section to which they referred and did not give a true index to its purport. Whenever they proposed to put words in they were told they could not be accepted because the great thing in an Act of Parliament was to have simplicity and as few words as possible. Now they were told they were wrong, and that these words which were meaningless and misleading must be left in. It was quite clear that the Bill had been prepared in a very slipshod way, with the idea, he supposed, that it did not much matter because it would be put through the House without discussion. He was glad to think they were giving this measure and would give all similar measures close attention, so that they would not see things run hurriedly through the House with bad and slipshod wording, giving trouble thereafter and putting the country to unnecessary expense in ascertaining in Courts of Law the proper meaning of words in Acts of Parliament. It was all very well for the Attorney-General to give his own interpretation of the words and the necessity for having them in the Bill. They all had proper respect for the hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion, but the Judges in interpreting the Act would not be guided by the words that had fallen from him. He appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman to meet an absolutely reasonable and simplifying Amendment.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid the difficulty complained of could not arise because the whole of the section in question was repealed in the schedule.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid the words proposed were intended to make the matter clear and to obviate the disadvantages which always arose from legislation by reference. The inclusion of some such words as those contained in the Amendment, he thought, was desirable. He could not understand why the clause did not start by saying that the offices of Director of Public Prosecutions and Solicitor of the Treasury should no longer be united. That would have been far simpler and the clause would then have

545
commenced by saying exactly what was intended, without containing this peculiar parenthesis, the intention of which they appreciated, but which he was informed many lawyers considered would lead to ambiguity in future. Would it not be possible for the Attorney-General to meet the views of his hon. friend by undertaking at a subsequent stage to redraft the beginning of the clause so as to make it clear what its object was, and then it would not be open to the objection which had been raised.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. GEORGE WHITELEY,)made an appeal to the Opposition to let this Bill go through. As the House was aware it was originally the intention of the Government to take the Housing Bill that day, but owing to strong representations from hon. Gentlemen opposite they agreed to postpone it, and he came to an agreement with the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Somerset that instead of taking the Housing Bill he should give them the first four Orders on the paper. The fourth Order, the Children Bill, was of some importance, and a great many hon. Members wished to discuss it. It would be very much to the convenience of the House if they could get to that measure and shorten the present discussion.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was not aware that any such arrangement had been made, and he did not think it was right for the right hon. Gentleman to ask them to curtail the discussion upon an important Bill because another important measure was to come on later. He was prepared to move to report progress. [Cries of "No, no."] They had a right to discuss every Bill and now the Party of freedom of speech, the Radical Party, were laying down that Bills were not to be discussed, but passed without discussion in order to enable them to bring on a Bill to which they attached importance. The proper course to take was to report progress and resume the discussion on some other occasion. He begged to move to report progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress
546
and ask leave to sit again. "—(Sir F. Banbury).
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he must protest against what the right hon. Gentleman had just said. He had just said that before 8.15 some four or five Bills were to be rushed through the House. He hoped that afternoon would be a lesson to the Government in thinking that they were going to ride roughshod over the liberties of hon. Members in respect of important Bills affecting the rights and liberties of the subject.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he only intervened to mention the arrangement which had been come to. It would cause great inconvenience if they could not adhere to agreements arrived at between the Whips.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he was not aware that any arrangement had been come to. They were, however, in the hands of the Patronage Secretary, and he would ask him to postpone this Bill. The other Bills alluded to were not important, and they might be discussed on some other occasion. There was a desire on the part of the Opposition to discuss the Amendments to this Bill on the Paper, and a few hours some other day might suffice. They might even drop one of the Bills which had proved so unpopular.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he would only ask for an hour upon some other occasion.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid it was of the utmost importance that this Department should be authorised by 18th April, and by that time they should be able to make not anticipatory but authoritative arrangements. The Bill had been accepted by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench and both sides of the House were equally anxious that it should pass forthwith. He hoped the Committee would not accede to the Motion to report progress.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid the Bill was urgent and he agreed that it was necessary if the Criminal Appeal Act was to work at all. He hoped his hon. friends would not

547
press the Motion for the Adjournment of the debate, although he sympathised with the criticisms in regard to the financial Resolution.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHasked the Chief Opposition Whip to exercise a little supervision and control over his followers ["Oh, oh!"]
MR. RAWLINSON: That is not the way to get it. We are not sheep.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid the Bill was urgent, and although their appeals to hon. Gentlemen opposite had not succeeded he was sure the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman would not be made in vain. The debate up to the present had been of a most frivolous character.
Mr. CLAUDE HAYasked if the word "frivolous" was Parliamentary?
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not unparliamentary, but it is irrelevant.
Sir F. BANBURYsaid the hon. and learned Member for Anglesey had not poured oil on the troubled waters when he described the discussion as frivolous. With regard to the agreement which had been referred to, no man was more anxious than he was to carry out any arrangement entered into by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Somerset. The Amendments to be moved on the Opposition side of the House would; not prevent the Children Bill being taken before 8.15. All the effect of considering these Amendments would be to curtail the discussion on the Children Bill. Why should the Members of the Opposition finish their discussion on the Committee stage of this Bill, because hon. Gentlemen on the Government side wished to discuss another Bill? They should bring pressure to bear on their Government to give
them sufficient time for the discussion of the Bill in which they were interested.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that any arrangement arrived at between the right hon. Gentlemen would be loyally carried out on that side of the House, but the present situation did not arise from anything done by them. They were doing their duty in discussing the Bill now before the Committee, and if the discussion prevented the consideration of other Bills, the blame was upon the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. He thought the Government should not be so greedy; they should treat their opponents with some regard for the rights and liberties of private Members. He was greatly interested in the Children Bill, and he would like to have the opportunity of bringing forward some points in the Second Reading debate. The measure was so important that he doubted whether there would be sufficient time for its discussion that day. He resented the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. When the hon. Gentleman was in opposition in the last Parliament he never considered the convenience of their Government, but took the course which he thought proper in advancing his views. He appealed to the Patronage Secretary not to try when framing the Order Paper to rush through Bills of this character. The discussion of matters of the greatest importance was interfered with when they endeavoured to do too much in one day.
SIR F. BANBURYasked leave to withdraw his motion.
Motion by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 282: Noes, 71. (Division, List No. 64)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Ambrose, Robert

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Barker, John

Agrew, George William

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Alden, Percey

Atherley-Jones, L.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Barnes, G. N.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Flynn, James Christopher

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

Beale, W. P.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Micking, Major G.

Beauchamp, E.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Maddison, Frederick

Beck, A. Cecil

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Mallet, Charles E.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Gilhooly, James

Markham, Arthur Basil

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

Gill, A. H.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Bennett, E. N.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Masterman, C. F. G.

Bethell, Sir J.H. (Essex, Romf'rd

Glen-Coats Sir T. (Renfrew, W

Meagher, Michael

Black, Arthur W.

Glover, Thomas

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.

Boland, John

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Bowerman, C. W.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Montagu, E. S.

Brace, William

Gulland, John W.

Mooney, J. J.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Branch, James

Hall, Frederick

Morrell, Philip

Bright, J. A.

Halpin, J.

Morse, L. L.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Brodie, H. C.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Muldoon, John

Bryce, J. Annan

Hart-Davies, T.

Murnaghan, George

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Napier, T. B.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

Nicholls, George

Byles, William Pollard

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Cameron, Robert

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nolan, Joseph

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hazleton, Richard

Norman, Sir Henry

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Healy, Timothy Michael

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Chance, Frederick William

Hedges, A. Paget

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

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

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Cleland, J. W.

Henry, Charles S.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Clough, William

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

O'Doherty, Philip

Clynes, J. R.

Higham, John Sharp

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hobart, Sir Robert

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

Collins, Sir Wm.J. (S. Pancras, W

Hodge, John

O'Dowd, John

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Grady, J.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Holt, Richard Durning

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Cooper, G. J.

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

O'Shee, James John

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

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Partington, Oswald

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hudson, Walter

Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

Cowan, W. H.

Idris, T. H. W.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Crean, Eugene

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

Crooks, William

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

Crosfield, A. H.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Pullar, Sir Robert

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Radford, G. H.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jowett, F. W.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Joyce, Michael

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Delany, William

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Rees, J. D.

Devlin, Joseph

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rendall, Athelstan

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

Kelley, George D.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Dillon, John

Kilbride, Denis

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Dobson, Thomas W.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Richardson, A

Donelan, Captain A.

Laidlaw, Robert

Ridsdale, E. A.

Duckworth, James

Lambert, George

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lehmann, R. C.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Levy, Sir Maurice

Robinson, S.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Erskine, David C.

Lough, Thomas

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lundon, W.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Essex, R. W.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rowlands, J.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Maclean, Donald

Runciman, Walter

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Russell, T. W.

Everett, R. Lacey

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Macpherson, J. T.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Fenwick, Charles

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Sears, J. E.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Seaverns, J. H.

Ffrench, Peter

M'Crae, George

Seddon, J.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Seely, Colonel

Findlay, Alexander

M'Killop, W.

Shackleton, David James

550

551

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Tillett, Louis John

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

Tomkinson, James

Whitehead, Rowland

Sheehy, David

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Toulmin, George

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Verney, F. W.

Wiles, Thomas

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wadsworth, J.

Williamson, A.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Walsh, Stephen

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Stanger, H. Y.

Ward, WDudley (Southampton

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

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Wardle, George J.

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

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Waring, Walter

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Winfrey, R.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Yoxall, James Henry

Summerbell, T.

Waterlow, D. S.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Watt, Henry A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Whiteley and Mr. Herbert

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Whitbread, Howard

Lewis.

Thomasson, Franklin

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Thompson, J.W.H (Somerset, E

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F

Faber, George Denison (York)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Faber, Capt. W.V. (Hants, W.)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Ashley, W. W.

Fell, Arthur

Remnant, James Farquharson

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Forster, Henry William

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Balcarres, Lord

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Baldwin. Stanley

Guinness, Walter Edward

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hamilton, Marquess of

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Helmsley, Viscount

Smith, F.E. (Llverpool, Walton)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hill, Sir Clement

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hills, J. W.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hunt, Rowland

Thornton, Percy M.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Kimber, Sir Henry

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Walker. Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Clive, Percy Archer

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

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

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

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

Courthope, G. Loyd

Magnus, Sir Philip

Younger, George

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E)

Moore, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Craik, Sir Henry

Morpeth, Viscount

Mr. Claude Hay and Sir

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Frederick Banbury.

Douglas, Rt Hon. A. Akers-

Nield, Herbert

SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not wish to say more than a word or two in support of the next Amendment, the object of which was to restrict the number of Assistant Directors which the Treasury might appoint to one. The hon. and learned Gentleman had told the Committee that the new Department was going to have only a Director at present, and he thought that the Treasury should not have the power to appoint more than one Assistant Director without the sanction of the House of Commons. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 11, to leave out from the word 'appoint' to end of the sub-section, in order to insert the words 'with the sanction of the Treasury one Assistant Director.'"—(Sir. F. Banbury.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid he was sorry he could not accept the Amendment. They could not tell exactly the volume of business that would come to the department under the new Act. The hon. Baronet suggested that there should be not more than one Assistant Director appointed even at the initial stage. He hoped that they would be able to go on for some time with one Assistant Director, but they could not tell what the volume of business might be five or six weeks or three months hence. There might be appeals in all the cases which came before the magistrates and quarter sessions throughout the country when the

553
Criminal Appeal Act came into operation. They began on the most modest scale possible, but they might within a few weeks have a very large accession of work, and they thought it better to have this provision in the Bill.
*MR. GEORGE FABERsaid that he would like to point out to the Attorney-General that under Section 3 of the Prosecution of Offenders Act of 1879, the secretary of State might from time to time appoint such assistants as were necessary, but not exceeding six.
SIR W. ROBSON: As a fact only one assistant Public Prosecutor had been appointed.
*MR. GEORGE FABERsaid that that did not destroy his argument. In the Bill they were now discussing there was no such limit. The clause read that there should be appointed one Director and such number of Assistant Directors as the Treasury might sanction. He could not see why such an unlimited power of appointment should be granted to the Treasury. If the hon. and learned Gentleman said that only one was to be appointed let him put in one. He did not think the Treasury should have a free hand in making these appointments. He did not know whether he would be in order in moving an Amendment to the Amendment but he would suggest as an Amendment the insertion of the words "not more than six in number."
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that no valid reason had been given by the Attorney-General why he should not accept the limit proposed by the hon. Baronet. If more than one Assistant Director was subsequently required the salaries could be put on the Supplementary Estimates. By adopting the Amendment of his hon. friend they would observe sound business
principles and defer to the proper date the demand for the necessary money and so give an opportunity to the Government to show what staff was really required. He hoped the hon. Baronet would go to a division to show what the views of the Government were and what their policy was in regard to expenditure without any control by Parliament. It was evident from the statement of the Attorney-General that the Government could not indicate within £100,000 what amount of expenditure there would be under this Bill.
*MR. GEORGE FABERsaid he did not want to interfere with any arrangement that had been made for concluding the debate, and he would withdraw his suggestion as to an Amendment to the Amendment
SIR W. ROBSONsaid he could only repeat what he had already said more than once, that he hoped there would not be a large number of appeals to begin with, but there might be within a measurable distance of time an immense accession of work to the Department. He could not suggest to the Treasury that they should limit the number of Assistant Directors to anything like six. Hon. Members must know that the Treasury would not give their sanction to the appointment of additional Assistant Directors without full consideration with the Law Officers of the Crown and without being fully satisfied that they were absolutely necessary
*MR. GEORGE FABERsaid he did not suggest for a moment that six Assistant Directors should be appointed but that there should be a limit to the number.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 294; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 65.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E

Ambrose, Robert

Barker, John

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Barnes, G. N.

Agnew, George William

Atherley-Jones, L.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Alden, Percy

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Beale, W. P.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

Beauchamp, E.

Beck, A. Cecil

Findlay, Alexander

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Bellairs, Carlyon

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Killop, W.

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

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Bennett, E. N.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

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

Bertram, Julius

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Micking, Major G.

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Maddison, Frederick

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Gilhooly, James

Mallet, Charles E.

Black, Arthur W.

Gill, A. H.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Boland, John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.

Massie, J.

Bowerman, C. W.

Glover, Thomas

Meagher, Michael

Brace, William

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Grayson, Albert Victor

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

Branch, James

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Bright, J. A.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Montagu, E. S.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Gulland, John W.

Mooney, J. J.

Brodie, H. C.

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Bryce, J. Annan

Hall, Frederick

Morrell, Philip

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Halpin, J.

Morse, L. L.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Muldoon, John

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Murnaghan, George

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Hart-Davies, T.

Murphy, N.J. (Kilkenny, S.)

Byles, William Pollard

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Myer, Horatio

Cameron, Robert

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

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Napier, T. B.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nicholls, George

Chance, Frederick William

Hazleton, Richard

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Healy, Timothy Michael

Nolan, Joseph

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hedges, A. Paget

Norman, Sir Henry

Clancy, John Joseph

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cleland, J. W.

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

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Clough, William

Henry, Charles S.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Clynes, J. R.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Higham, John Sharp

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Collins, Sir Wm.J. (S. Pancras, W

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Doherty, Philip

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Hodge, John

O'Donnell, John (Mayo. S.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Holland, Sir William Henry

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

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Holt, Richard Durning

O'Dowd, John

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

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

O'Grady, J.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Cowan, W. H.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Shaughnessy. P. J.

Crean, Eugene

Hudson, Walter

O'Shee, James John

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Partington, Oswald

Crooks, William

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Crosfield, A. H.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Crossley, William J.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jowett, F. W.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Joyce, Michael

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

Delany, William

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

Devlin, Joseph

Kearley, Hudson E.

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

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

Kelley, George D.

Pullar, Sir Robert

Dillon, John

Kilbride, Denis

Radford, G. H.

Dobson, Thomas W.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Donelan, Captain A.

Laidlaw, Robert

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Duckworth, James

Lambert, George

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Dunean, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lamont, Norman

Rees, J. D.)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lehmann, R. C.

Rendall, Athelstan

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Levy, Sir Maurice

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lloyd-George. Rt. Hon. David

Richards. T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Erskine, David C.

Lough, Thomas

Richardson, A.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lyell, Charles Henry

Ridsdale, E. A.

Essex, R. W.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Roberts, Chares H. (Lincoln)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Maclean, Donald

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Everett, R. Lacey

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Robinson, S.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Macpherson, J. T.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Fenwick, Charles

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Ffrench, Peter

M'Callum, John M.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

M'Crae, George

Rowland, J.

556

557

Runciman, Walter

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Whitbread, Howard

Russell, T. W.

Summerbell, T.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Sears, J. E.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Whitehead, Rowland

Seaverns, J. H.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Seddon, J.

Thomasson, Franklin

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Seely, Colonel

Thompson, J.W.H. (Somerset, E

Wiles, Thomas

Shackleton, David James

Tillett, Louis John

Williamson, A.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Tomkinson, James

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

Torrance, Sir A. M.

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

Sheehy, David

Toulmin, George

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

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wadsworth, J.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Walsh, Stephen

Winfrey, R.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Yoxall, James Henry

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S)

Wardle, George J.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Waring, Walter

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Stanger, H. Y.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Whiteley and Mr. Herbert

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Lewis.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Watt, Henry A.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fell, Arthur

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Ashley, W. W.

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

Forster, Henry William

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Balcarres, Lord

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Baldwin, Stanley

Guinness, Walter Edward

Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N)

Hamilton, Marquess of

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hay, Hon Claude George

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Helmsley, Viscount

Thornton, Percy M.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hill, Sir Clement

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Hunt, Rowland

Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Clive, Percy Archer

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

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

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

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Winterton, Earl

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

Courthope, G. Loyd

Moore, William

Younger, George

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Morpeth, Viscount

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

TELLER'S FOR THE NOES—Sir

Craik, Sir Henry

Nield, Herbert

Frederick Banbury and Mr.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

George D. Faber.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.

COSTS IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir SAMUEL EVANS,)in moving the Second Reading said that he thought it would be convenient to hon. Members if he explained the general purport of the Bill. There was no contest about it he was glad to say, and therefore he could compress his observations within a very small compress. The object of the Bill was to consolidate the present law, which was in a very chaotic state and dealt
558
with costs in criminal cases, of trials upon indictment at Assizes, and at Quarter Sessions, and the preliminary inquiries in regard to indictable offences before justices. Of course, it did not touch costs in civil cases and matters arising before justices in a Court of summary jurisdiction where they could deal with the matter finally. The provisions with regard to the payment of these costs out of public or local funds depended entirely upon Acts of Parliament, and the Statutes were very numerous and very complicated. For a long time past it had been a puzzle to Judges and all those who dealt with the law to find out whether in particular cases of felony or misdemeanour the costs of the prosecution or

559
defence should be paid at all. A Departmental Committee was appointed in the year 1902, by the late Lord Ritchie, when Home Secretary. That Committee reported in 1903, and the Bill which he now introduced, and which he asked the House to read a second time, was based upon the unanimous recommendations of that Committee. They did not agree upon all points referred to them, but they did agree upon the points embodied in this Bill. He could not go in detail into the various provisions of the Bill except by occupying some considerable time, for he could not explain in a short time all the complicated questions which arose in a case of this nature. It was obvious that if the law could be consolidated, and if the few Amendments required could be made, it would be for the public convenience. Having said so much with regard to the general scope and character of the Bill, he hoped the House would agree to give it a Second Reading so that it might be referred to a Committee. It was essentially a Committee Bill, and there the sections could be considered by those who could bring their practical knowledge to bear on the subject. He begged to move.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Solicitor-General.)
MR. RAWLINSONthought it would be desirable that they should have some more detail of the amendments which were to be made in the law by this Bill. It would be better if some one could tell them what the more important Amendments were. If that were done they be would be able to form an opinion as to whether or not they should resist them.
SIR SAMUEL EVANSsaid he could not speak again without the leave of the House, but perhaps he might be permitted to say that a Memorandum had been prepared showing exactly the alterations proposed in various parts of the Bill. It was a very complicated matter, and he would be prepared to give a copy of the Memorandum to anyone interested so that he could see what the amendments were.
MR. RAWLINSONasked whether they might not have the information
560
now. If the Memorandum were before them it would be a great convenience to the House. If they assented to the Second Reading they would have no means of knowing what the important amendments were as they would be dealt with in a Committee upstairs.
*Mr. GEORGE FABERthought the House was not being quite fairly treated. The only Memorandum he had seen was that which he now had before him. Now the hon. Gentleman told the House there was another Memorandum which had not been circulated. The Bill was far more than a mere Consolidation Bill, and the House was entitled before it consented to its Second Reading to more information and more guidance from the hon. Gentleman. He protested strenuously against the way in which they were being treated.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYpointed out that when Bills were brought in which were partly Consolidation Bills and partly new legislation it was very difficult for a private Member to find out what was merely consolidation of old matter and what was new matter. The suggestion which under these circumstances he would like to offer to the Government was that when they introduced such Bills the new matter included in them should be in print differing from that which dealt with the consolidation matter. That would at once enable private Members to see what was new and what was already the law.

CHILDREN BILL.
Order road, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [24th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed.
*MR. GUINNESSsaid that when this matter was discussed last week hon. Members on the Unionist side were criticised for the manner in which

561
they dealt with the details rather than the principles of the Bill. But it was essentially a Bill of details. It gathered up and consolidated all the laws relating to children, and therefore it was essential that on the Second Reading the opportunity should be taken to discuss details and suggest Amendments, so that the Government might have an opportunity of considering them before the Committee stage. So far as the general principles were concerned, no one on either side of the House would be found to quarrel with the Bill. They all admitted that the State must step in and save the children of neglectful, ignorant, and criminal parents, but as all those who were not Socialists recognised that the State was a very blundering substitute for a parent they desired that its functions should be kept in as narrow a channel as possible. He was sorry to see that the Under-Secretary for the Home Department was going to make registration compulsory for single child homes even where periodical payments were made. The opinion of those Members of the London County Council who were in touch with the question of infant-life protection was that a great deal of harm would be done if foster-parents who adopted only one child for periodical payment were included in the operation of the Bill. If the payment was one lump sum it was certainly desirable that there should be inspection, because there the foster-parents had a great and direct advantage in the case of the early death of the child. Where, however, periodical payments were made the parents were in touch with the foster-parents, and it was very often the case that the child was adopted from motives of affection. The Under-Secretary had stated that local authorities would be allowed to make exceptions, but even so the necessity of notification would deter many of those most suitable from adopting a chill, and charitable societies who were trying to reclaim unfortunate women who had had the misfortune to have an illegitimate child would be very much hampered. He hoped the proposed Amendment would be re-considered by the hon. Gentleman. Another suggestion he desired to make was that the local authority should be enabled to veto the taking of more than one child into a home, and
562
to prevent the transference of a child from one home to another. Under the Bill the nurses would have to notify the local authority within forty-eight hours before taking another child, but that was not sufficient. Many cases occurred where women without the means to keep them took three or four children for a lump sum, with the result that when the money was exhausted the children were thrown on the rates. That part of the Bill should be greatly strengthened so as to insure that the local authority would be able to inspect the home before the money was paid and the child taken, and to ascertain that the woman who proposed to take the child had sufficient means to keep it after the payment was exhausted. The next Clause to which he wished to refer was Clause 9, a financial clause. Under that clause the City of London was to be exempted from contributing to the cost incurred by the county of London in connection with infant life protection. Under the Act of 1897, this charge had been thrown into the general county rate, and the City had thus borne its share. If, however, the City was now only to spend money in enforcing the Act within its own boundary, it would avoid contributing to this very necessary work, as, of course, there were few or no such homes in that area. Owing to the large number of women employed in the City who lived in the surrounding districts, the City was partly responsible for this work and ought to make some contribution. The next matter to which he desired to draw attention was the provisions for committing children to industrial and reformatory schools. This matter unfortunately came rather suddenly on the London County Council. The Home Office intimated their intention of bringing in this Bill and asked for suggestions just as the London County Council were going into recess, and it was impossible for that body to transmit their views. But as the London County Council dealt with far more children in the industrial schools than any other body in the country, he might mention one or two points where the Bill required Amendment. The first arose on the clause which allowed children of between twelve and fourteen years of age to be

563
sent to an industrial school for various reasons, but gave no power to commit children between those ages who had been guilty of theft or any offence punishable with imprisonment. It was desirable that such children should not be sent to a reformatory school until after they had reached the age of fourteen. Children did not become hardened criminals until after they reached that age, and it was not advisable that these young children should be sent to reformatory schools which contained youths of nineteen years of age, who might contaminate them. What they wished was that the magistrates should be allowed to send children to industrial schools up to the age of fourteen. It was also provided that where an order had been made in respect of a youthful offender of the age of fourteen years and upwards and no reformatory school would receive him, the Court could commute the order and send the offender to prison. That was not at all a desirable thing, and the power should be limited to children whose characters were known to be so bad that it was undesirable to send them to a reformatory school. The provisions stating that the conditions rendering the child liable to be sent to an industrial school were much the same as the provisions of the present law, but the present law in that regard needed strengthening At the present time it was largely a matter of chance as to whether a child was sent to an industrial or a reformatory school. It very often happened that magistrates refused to send a child to an industrial school, because they did not want to relieve the parents of the expense of supporting it. He could give many flagrant cases of that kind, and he would quote three of them. The first was that of a man who was guilty of flogging his two boys at intervals of half-an-hour for cutting a piece of Christmas pudding, and he had also been condemned twelve months before for a criminal assault on his daughter. Although he was certainly not a fit guardian, the magistrate refused to adopt the suggestion of the London County Council, and to commit the boys to an industrial school. In the case of a little child of four years and ten Months the father did not work but
564
lived by his wife's prostitution, and both parents were charged with being drunk and disorderly. The County Council proposed to send the boy to the Home for Little Boys. Again, a discharge was granted by a different magistrate. Another case was that of a child of seven years. The mother had recently served six months imprisonment, and the father was fined for assault; the child was in a verminous condition. In this third case, also, the magistrate refused to take action under the Industrial Schools Act. It was obvious what the magistrates had in their minds. They did not want to encourage parents to let their children fall into vicious ways in order that they might be sent in an industrial school; but he thought the State should strengthen the law and encourage the magistrates to send children to industrial schools, because he did not think it was fair to punish the parents at the expense of the children. It was very necessary where there was no proper home for the child, and where it was perfectly certain that, unless he was committed to an industrial school, he would be brought up as a criminal, that the magistrates should be encouraged to send him to such an institution. It seemed to him that it was possible to prevent a large number of these industrial school cases by bringing home to the parents the fact that if their children were sent to industrial schools they would lose all control over them. It was very' often asserted that many parents got their children sent to industrial schools in order to be freed from responsibility of keeping them. On some occasions, when he attended the responsible committee of the London education authority, he was startled to find cases it which whole families of children had been sent to the industrial schools. He believed that parents realised that in those schools their children got remarkably good education the standard of the Home Office being far higher than that of the Board of Education. If they looked through the reports of industrial schools they would find that in after life the children who had attended them did extremely well. He noticed that one had become headmaster in the shorthand department of a large college; another had become

565
a Bachelor of Science and manager of large Government works abroad. Many sergeants in the Army and superintendents of police and even justices of the peace and chairmen of boards of guardians had been educated in these schools. No doubt parents realised all this, and were, therefore, content to allow their children to become liable to be sent to them. A great many of these parents had a certain amount of affection for their children, but had no sense of responsibility. He urged that their sense of responsibility could be stimulated by working upon their affections, and by pointing out to them that under this Act, and under the existing law, when once a child was committed to an industrial school they lost all control over him. At present they did not realise that. A great many of them imagined that if a child was sent to an industrial school they still had control, and could say what his avocation was to be. What he proposed was that during the time these children were in the Remand Homes, to enable the local authority to make inquiry into their cases and forward suggestions t other magistrates, the magistrates should, under the law, be compelled to notify to the parents that if a child was sent to an industrial school they lost all control over him, and the boy could be apprenticed or sent abroad without the parents being consulted in the least. He believed that by such means a large number of parents would be induced to look after their children and prevent them from being sent to industrial schools. By Clause 64 it was proposed that the limit for supervision should be nineteen years, but it was felt that this was not long enough, and that a boy should be kept under supervision until he had reached twenty-one years of age. Before that age, there was a considerable prospect of his slipping back into his old ways, and getting into touch with his criminal companions from whom they were trying to reclaim him. He hoped the Home Office would be able to modify that provision. It would cost nothing, or practically nothing, and would cause no inconvenience to the child. As to the question of the expenses of certified schools, he would appeal to the
566
hon. Gentleman to try and do something to lighten the burden thrown on the local authorities. The very heavy cost of the administration of the existing law had deterred local authorities from doing their duty, the fact being that the cost of these schools was steadily increasing, while the Government contribution was fixed twenty years ago. Formerly the local authorities had only to pay 34 per cent of the cost of the schools, whereas today they had to pay 42 per cent. That was no doubt the reason why more children had not been sent to the industrial schools of the country. He would suggest that the whole cost of sending the children of vagrants to industries d schools should be borne by the Exchequer. It was not fair to throw it on the local authority, in whose district the children were committed. The plan he suggested was the only fair way of dealing with it, and the; only way that would encourage the local authority to see that the law was put into operation. As to the question of the expenses of certified schools, he would also urge that the local authorities should be compelled to make arrangements to send children to reformatory schools. He thought the hon. Gentleman agreed to that in the case of industrial schools, but he did not think he had done so with regard to reformatory schools. He did not believe that it would necessitate the building of any fresh schools; there was plenty of accommodation; it would only mean that the local authority would have to make arrangements with the managers of existing schools. On the question of day industrial schools it would be a very great assistance if the Home Department could see their way to adopting a suggestion in the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee appointed in 1905 to inquire into the system of funns for industrial and reformatory schools. The Committee recommended in 1905 that the Government contribution in the case of day industrial schools should be raised from 6d. and 1s., in voluntary and compulsory cases respectively, to 1s. and 2s. He believed that if they did that they would very much encourage the creation of day industrial schools, which were

567
most useful to the children of those parents who were not sufficiently delinquent or neglectful to justify the magistrates in committing the children to certified industrial schools. The London County Council, and, he believed, several other local authorities, were inking a large number of voluntary cases. The Government Inspector had stated in 1905 that it might be that there was a slight tendency to a decline in the numbers admitted into the day industrial schools, and that it was due to the matter of expense. There was no doubt whatever that the day industrial schools were most valuable in preventing children who had no supervision, their mothers being out on day work, from getting into criminal surroundings and eventually becoming a charge on the rates. Another point he would like to urge was that no child should be sent to prison wider sixteen years of age. Under Clause 99 it was proposed that a young person could be sentenced to imprisonment, but he thought that the value of the Bill would be very much increased if prison was confined to those who were over sixteen. He recognised the great value of the provision which would enable constables to arrest the children of vagrant parents and have them committed to industrial schools, but he did not think, unless the clause was strengthened, that it would be of very much use; he was afraid that it would be a dead-letter; and he would suggest that it should be made the duty of the officers in charge of casual wards to notify the police of any cases coming to their notice of children of criminal or vagrant parents who were liable under this provision to be sent to industrial schools. If they left it in the hands of the constables and made it optional, he was afraid that the provision would not be as valuable as it might otherwise be. Of course, his suggestions might be criticised on the ground that they would add to the cost of the Bill, but he believed that it would be money well spent, Of course it cost less to let children run about the streets and become criminals than to send them for a few years to these schools where they would be taught a trade. No doubt it was for the moment cheaper to send them to prison for a month, than
568
to send them to industrial schools for three years; but in the long run it was very much dearer. He thought it was quite justifiable to increase the number of children sent to these schools under the action of the law, and by that means to decrease the number in after life who would have to be supported either in our casual wards or in our gaols. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be able to embody some of these suggestions in the Bill, for he believed they would increase its efficiency in stopping the sources of physical deterioration, poverty, and crime.
*MR. GULLANDsaid he would like to join with others in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on the way in which this Bill had been introduced, and especially on his having listened to societies and others interested in the question and given effect to their proposals. It seemed to him that the great beauty of this Bill was that it was framed from the point of view of the children. Many children were in a vicious circle; of environment, and this Bill broke that and replaced it by a virtuous circle; indeed, the Bill was a perfect hospital of life-saving appliances. He would like to take up a few points relating especially to Scotland. The first was with regard to the reformatory and industrial schools. There were in Scotland a great many difficulties in connection with the management and the finances of those schools. The difficulty in Scotland was that those schools were neither fish, flesh, nor good red herring. They were neither State, municipal, nor private. They were a little of each, and the result was that they were extremely difficult to work. He had rejoiced the other day to hear the Under-Secretary say that he would make it mandatory for local authorities to provide industrial school accommodation just as they had at present to provide elementary school accommodation, and that he would make it compulsory for local authorities to contribute to the maintenance of the children. He did not think there was much controversy as to the advisability of the local authority doing those things, and he sincerely hoped the hon. Gentleman would be able to carry out that proposal. The question of the management

569
of those schools remained. That perhaps scarcely came under the purview of the Bill, but it would be wise to transfer the industrial schools, at any rate, to the school boards, so that they would be under somebody's definite control. At present school boards had power to establish industrial schools or to purchase existing ones, but it was not compulsory for them to do so. He knew that that was a big question, but he trusted the Secretary for Scotland would tackle it and settle it in a way which would be thorough and satisfactory. A point that occurred to him in connection with the Bill was the very beneficent nature of the relation of the Acts of the present Government dealing with social reform. For instance, the provisions in the present Bill in connection with the Infant Life Protection Act seemed to work in very well with the provisions of the Notification of Births Acts of last year. He was very glad the hon. Gentleman had said he would accept the Report of the Select Committee and include the inspection of one-child homes. The Report was unanimous, and while due weight was given to the consideration which had been put forward by the hon. Member who had just spoken, all the Members of the Committee were unanimous that the one-child home should be included, and he thought when Members read the Report they would agree that it was on the right lines. One thing that struck him very forcibly was that it might be a wise thing to transfer the charge of this matter from boards of guardians and parish councils in Scotland to town councils and county councils. That was the case in the Act of 1872, and he suggested that with all the greater emphasis because it seemed to him that in many of the parts of Scotland where the Notification of Births Act had been adopted the town councils were appointing lady health visitors to visit the mothers where the births had been notified. It seemed to him that it would help the working of this Act and make it much more thorough if those same ladies were appointed inspectors under the Infant Life Protection Act. The two things would work in very well together, and that might be done if the town council was the authority. Then on the other
570
side the town council was much more in touch with the police, whose aid unfortunately had to be brought in, than the parish council, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would consider in Committee whether the town and county council might not be substituted for the parish council. Then another relation of a previous Act with the present Bill was the Probation of Offenders Act of last year with the new proposals dealing with juvenile crime of this year. The institution of the children's Courts he very heartily approved of. They had these children's Courts in about a dozen places in Scotland. Public Opinion was very strongly in favour of them and he thought was ready now for their being made compulsory. In 1906, in Scotland no fewer than 9,765 males and 595 females under sixteen years were proceeded against—altogether over 10,000 young persons. To remove these young people entirely from the ordinary police court would be of immense advantage, and he welcomed very thoroughly the provisions of this Bill. In 1906, in Scotland, seventy-three young persons were sentenced to imprisonment, and in addition 249 were imprisoned in default of payment of fines, so that altogether 322 young persons under sixteen years old were put into prison, and received a criminal taint. He was sure the Bill would prevent that. By cutting off crime at the source they would also diminish adult crime. With regard to juvenile smoking that was a new offence, and he for one only agreed to it because young people found guilty of it would not be brought before an ordinary police court or subjected to imprisonment. He thought the other parts of the Bill made the prohibition of juvenile smoking not only possible but very feasible. He agreed that it would not immediately abolish juvenile smoking, but it would set up a standard, and it would enlist much more powerfully than at present voluntary efforts of both parents and teachers to prevent the evil which all authorities had told them did great harm to young people. He thanked the hon. Gentleman for the clause allowing parish councils in Scotland to subscribe to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, because much of the work of the Bill would have to be

571
done by such societies, and indeed had better be done by them, and therefore it was only right that power should given to subscribe to them. There was one point alluded to by the Under-Secretary in his speech that he had not included in the Bill—the provisions to exclude children from public-houses in Scotland. He said that that was in the Licensing Bill, but the Licensing Bill only applied to England, and therefore there seemed to be a possibility of England receiving this advantage before Scotland. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate would introduce some measure to exclude children from public-houses in Scotland also, or at least to give facilities to a little Bill which he had introduced upon the subject. One point of great interest was that all questions with regard to children were brought together in the Bill. That was good. But then again after the Bill was passed the interests of the children were dispersed, and duties were put upon different Government Departments to carry out the separate provisions of the Bill. He would very strongly suggest to the hon. Gentleman the desirability of somehow or other—he did not know how it was to be done—putting all the interests of the children under one Department, or, if that was not possible, of having a Consultative Committee of the different Departments, Education, Local Government and Home Office, to sit periodically and keep a constant eye upon the interests of the children. Even under this Bill they had the local duties with regard to children divided—he was speaking of Scotland—amongst school boards, town councils, and parish councils, and those three bodies were working separately and without much reference to one another. He knew that in some cases there were little joint committees working together, but he would like to see such a provision embodied in the Bill. He would like to have at headquarters and in each locality a definite organisation watching and working consistently and persistently to save the children. Another advantage of the Bill was that not only would it help the children but it would help those who were trying to help the children. They could not do everything by legislation. In this matter he thought they
572
could do a great deal by setting a standard and an example, and there were a large number of voluntary workers all over the country who were at present devoting themselves to the interests of the children. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that even by the introduction of the Bill he had done a great deal to give a new encouragement and a new stimulus to these good people to put forth new efforts for the rescue and the improvement of children.
*MR. COCHRANEsaid that from the course of the debate it must be apparent to the House that this was no party question. Where the children were concerned, inside and outside the House everyone was anxious to do what he could in their interests. They might differ sometimes as to the exact way in which their desires should be carried out, but he was sure those desires were genuinely held. If they could tap the evil at its source—if they took care of the pennies, the pounds would take care of themselves—and if they could look after the children while they were young and see as far as they could that they were safeguarded, when they were grown up they would not fall upon the poor rate or go to prison. The Bill had undoubtedly a great deal to recommend it, although in some points he should desire to be allowed to offer criticism. It was a consolidation Bill of considerable length, and he thanked the hon. Gentleman in charge of it for issuing a statement pointing out where there were changes in the law and where there was mere consolidation. The Bill dealt with so many questions that it became almost a Committee discussion, but that could not be avoided. The question of infant life protection had been raised. The evils of baby farming were familiar to everybody. Terrible outrages had been committee, and anything they could do properly to inspect homes to which small children were consigned was desirable. But tact and discretion must be exercised in inspecting homes. Questions of a religious character might come up which were extremely difficult to deal with, and again there might be legitimate cases where children had been bona fide consigned by well-to-do persons to homes

573
while they were obliged to be absent abroad. As far as he could see, under the Bill it would be absolutely necessary in each of those cases that some inspection should take place. He was sure the hon. Member would consider that that would be supererogation. It would be ridiculous that the Bill should apply to bona fide cases of that kind, and he hoped some means would be devised by which they might be excepted. There was a good deal to be said in favour of places of detention for juvenile offenders, but there would be considerable difficulty in setting them up, and he wished the Bill was a little more explicit as to how they were to be set up and paid for. No doubt anything was better than sending these little children to prison, but still there was room for discussion as to the class of house of detention that was to be set up. Then again, the hon. Member had suggested that in London there should be four Courthouses to form a part of the houses of detention. Surely that would not cover the ground very thoroughly. Children's cases were very fairly dealt with by the London magistrates, who were extremely humane and kindly in their manner towards the children. The Home Secretary had made arrangements with the London magistrates, by which the cases of children were not taken in Court during the ordinary business, but in the magistrates' room, and he thought the hon. Member would find it difficult to devise a better scheme. What was suggested seemed to him to be very elaborate machinery for so few cases. He noticed that imprisonment of children under twelve was to be abolished, but one case in which imprisonment under that age would be necessary had already been pointed out by his hon. friend. Where a child had been committed to an industrial school or reformatory, and the local authority refused to pay, that child might be committed to prison. It was hard upon that child that the local authorities who refused to pay should be able to ride off with the result that the child was sent to prison. He admitted that his own country had failed in some respects to do her duty in this matter. The hon. Member for Dumfries had alluded incidentally to the subject, and
574
had pointed out that there had been a failure in certain cities in Scotland to pay the necessary sums for children committed to reformatory and industrial schools, and that deserved the attention of the hon. Member in the conduct of the Bill. He was glad that children under sixteen were not to be committed to penal servitude. The evil effects of sending children to prison were set forth in every Report of the Prison Commission; those Reports showed how imprisonment made the children callous, hardened, and inured to prison life, and how they lost their self-respect. Those children in prison had a comparatively easy life with their food and clothes found them. Their lives were regulated with no initiative of their own, and no reward for energy, and when they were liberated from that hothouse climate they fell an easy prey to anybody who suggested to them that there was an easier way of living than being honest. As regarded reformatory and industrial schools he noted that some suggestions made by a Committee over which he had the honour to preside had been adopted, and he was glad to see that the House was taking such an interest in the question of reformatory and industrial schools. He knew from experience that it was very hard to get people to understand that kind of work. He had talked on the subject to hon. Members and they seemed to think that reformatory schools were a sort of place of torture for little boys, but nothing could be more absurd, because those boys were given a better education in some respects than was given in the board schools, because it was of a practical kind. The boys in reformatory schools were taught not only book-learning, but such matters as the growth of timber, after which they were put into the carpenter's shop. Other boys were taught the properties of leather, and were afterwards put to making boots and shoes, and when those boys went out into the world in after life they were often better equipped their living in industrial occupations than boys educated in the board schools only. They were also given liberty and freedom, and their self-respect was encouraged in every possible manner, in fact the career of those boys was more like public school

575
life than board school life. They were taken out to camps every year, and they could run away if they chose, but scarcely one had been known to abuse his privileges. The result was shown in the Report of the Inspector of Reformatories, who pointed out that from 85 to 90 per cent. Of the cases of boys sent to reformatories turned out a complete cure and the boys became good citizens. One inspector told him that when he went off to Canada to visit some of the children sent out there, he was met by a carriage and pair driven by a distinguished official who said that he had been educated in a reformatory school in this country. He was glad that the hon. Member proposed to encourage emigration in order to give these boys a new home and a fresh chance in life. Many local authorities rather hesitated to spend £12 a head to send a boy to Canada, but hitherto from 100 to 150 boys per annum had been sent in that way. He was glad to notice that the hon. Member took power to apply to the Treasury for a further sum to be spent in that direction. When a boy left a reformatory school he was very frequently returned to his parents and began life under his former surroundings with the result that he often lapsed again into crime. That evil would be remedied if the boys were emigrated. He would like to call the attention of the House to some of the clauses which he thought were less commendable than those to which he had referred. One of them was Clause 13, which dealt with cases of accidental burning. He hardly thought the lion. Member knew the full effect of that clause. It was not to be a criminal act to have a fire in one's room without a fireguard, but if an accident took place and a child got burned by going to the fire, then the fact that the parent had not a fireguard became a criminal act and the unfortunate parent was to be hailed before the Court. What would happen in the case of children called down in the drawing-room or the parlour for the children's hour? If an accident took place would the parent be hailed before the magistrate? He ventured to say that there were no statistics of any wilful or negligent burning of children in the country. In the case of burning because the fire was not
576
guarded, was the grief of the whole family to be accentuated by the parent being brought before the magistrate and fined? If they were going to make it a crime if a child met with an accident from an unguarded fire why not make it also a crime if an accident occurred from a lamp? A child would be far more likely to pull a lamp over. Why not make it a crime if a child was injured crossing the road in the middle of the traffic? He asked the hon. Member to consider that point in proposing such restrictions, for in that respect he did not think he was acting either wisely or well. Then again he would like to know what overlying was. Did he suggest that the mothers of this country deliberately lay over their children with a view to suffocating them? He thought that was a monstrous allegation and a statement which could not be proved. The late Home Secretary read out to the House during the course of his speech the experience of a coroner who said that in his district of London they had been engaged for some years in endeavouring to find genuine cases of overlying, but so far their search had been unfruitful. Overlying was a generic term probably used by medical officers to cover many cases where children were found dead in bed and a diagnosis proved somewhat difficult. He did not believe there was such a thing as wilful overlying of children. Hon. Members might call it grandmotherly legislation, but it would be a great reflection even upon a grandmother who suggested that any woman would wilfully overlie her child. If overlying was really an offence then a *10 fine was totally inadequate to meet the case. With regard to juvenile smoking he did not think that that was an offence of a very flagrant character. Little boys always had smoked and always would smoke, and it should not be overlooked that smoking in early years brought its own penalties with it. The hon. Member desired to check that habit and in doing so sheltered himself behind the Report of the House of Lords Committee. He did not believe that a House of Lords Committee was infallible, or that its recommendations should be slavishly followed. Their recommendation was that where a boy was seen smoking, or in the opinion of a constable was about

577
to smoke, he should be dealt with. A boy might be sent a message to a tobacconist's shop by his father, and on coming out of the shop he might be seen, pursued, and captured by a constable who desired to make the capture when he ought to be attending to more serious matters. The officer was to take the boy to a place of detention. The magistrate, as was explained by the Under-Secretary, would only go to the places of detention every other day, and the boy might have to spend a night in the house of detention. Under the Bill whenever a charge was brought against a boy the parent or guardian must attend the Court. The father would lose a day's wages in going to the place to prove that the boy was sent out by him to buy tobacco or cigarettes. What remedy would there be for the boy or the parent under those circumstances? Was it not a straining of the law to subject people to such treatment? Little boys still would smoke; they had only to go to their own gardens, or do as possibly the hon. Gentleman opposite had himself done—smoke up the chimney. The best way to deal with this matter would be to stop the practice at the fountain, and make it illegal to sell to little boys of a certain age. To have a little boy brought before a magistrate and to cause the parent to lose a day's wages was going a great deal too far. The object, no doubt, was to prevent the parent from evading the responsibility which ought to fall upon him. It was thought that if the boy's father lost a day's wages he would take the punishment of the boy into his own hands. Was that fair? If it was thought that the boy should be punished otherwise than by fine, if it was thought that punishment with a strap or a cane was sufficient for a boy who smoked, why not put it in the Bill and let the punishment be administered under proper judicial authority? If the parent had lost a day's wages, how would he treat the boy when he got him home? The punishment would be measured not by the fact that the little boy had smoked, but by the fact that the father had lost a day's wages. The punishment might be administered when the parent was in a fit of temper, and it would, therefore, be better to put in the Bill that
578
the boy might receive three or four strokes with a cane. He approved of many of the provisions of the Bill, but the clauses to which he had referred did not add to its strength, and if they were persisted in they would probably add to the difficulty of passing the measure.
*MR. MACLEANsaid the hon. Member for North Ayrshire had asked for figures showing the basis for the clauses with regard to accidents from burning and overlying. During the last seven years the number of cases of burning was 10,500, and the number of cases of overlying was 9,500. He submitted that was a huge national loss which the State must deal with, while having due regard to the feelings of parents which the hon. Member opposite had so well expressed. A case came to his notice two months ago in which a mother of drunken habits allowed two or three young children to play about in a house, with the result that some of them having gone too near the fire an accident occurred. The mother had placed herself in such a condition that she was unable to safeguard the children. She was prosecuted, but a conviction was not obtained. If the provisions of this Bill had been in force, she would have been properly punished. There was an enormous body of public opinion in favour of the suggested change in the law. Last year there were hundreds of meetings held all over England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, and the officials of the Government were in possession of piles of resolutions in regard to the matter. The Society of Coroners had considered the matter and given their adhesion to a much more drastic amendment of the law than was proposed by the Bill. If the hon. Member for North Ayrshire considered these facts he would perhaps take a different view of the clauses when the Bill went into Committee. As to the prevention of cruelty to children, excellent results had come from the action of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Fifteen years oases of brutal ill-treatment of children found about 45 per cent of the total cases dealt with by the society, and last year they had dropped down to 8 per cent. The influence of

579
public opinion was useful in preventing that form of offence. An extraordinary amount of public opinion on the part of all classes of society had been expressed in favour of the clauses dealing with juvenile smoking. He remembered reading a little while ago of the enormous amount of cigarettes consumed in Sheffield. That account stated that no less than 30,000,000 were smoked by young smokers in that city. The hon. Member opposite had said that that evil should be dealt with at the source. It was proposed by Clause 37 to make it an offence for any person to sell or give "to a person apparently under the age of sixteen years any cigarettes or cigarette papers, whether for his own use or not." He welcomed the provisions in the first portion of the Bill in regard to infant life protection. As to the proposals for the extension of the reformatory school system, he admitted that they were desirable, but at the same time he was old-fashioned enough to be very chary indeed of destroying parental responsibility for the child. The aim of the State should not be so much to take the child from the home as to take cruelty from the home. He believed they could, by insisting on the responsibility of the parent, do an enormous amount of good. He would beg the House not to entertain the idea that parents were to be relieved of their responsibility and allowed to dump their children into industrial schools. Parents must be educated as to their responsibilities. There was one point which had not been touched upon with regard to Children's Courts. There were many young rascals in the streets who seemed to like the notoriety derived from being placed in the dock. He thought a great deal of the incentive to wrong-doing would be taken away if these young persons who appeared in the public Courts were quietly dealt with in a private room by magistrates who knew all about them. A new era was opening up for the protection of these drift species of young humanity. These things had been dealt with effectually in America, even in Egypt, and certainly in Australia, and thousands of young people had been rescued from an undesirable life and surroundings. From his own personal experience, he
580
wished to join in the commendations which had been given to the Under-Secretary for the Home Office. The hon. Gentleman had seen everybody who could give him information on the subject-matter of the Bill, and it was owing to his ingenuity and skill, and the time he had devoted to it, that they found the measure in its present shape. He hoped he would be pardoned for a reference to the Rev. Benjamin Waugh, who was well known to all Members of the House for his tremendous earnestness in favour of Bills such as this. He deeply regretted that that great philanthropist had not lived to see the passage of this Bill into law; he had gone from them, but he was worthy of an equal place in their memories with Shaftesbury and Barnardo.
MR. SUMMERBELLsaid it was not his intention to oppose the Bill in any way. He commended it as consolidating all the various Acts of Parliament applicable to child life, and he recommended his right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board to adopt a similar policy in regard to Housing Acts. He thought there were two aspects of this question of child life. He agreed with those who asserted that every parent who, through drink or immoral conduct neglected his children, and allowed them to go to waste, should be prosecuted to the utmost extent. But the economic aspect of the question must also be recognised. Let them take the case of a widow left with four or five children, and compelled to go out to do charing work and washing for their support and her own. What was that poor woman to do with the children when she was out earning her living? She could not afford economically to pay for the protection of the children, however much she would like to. Was it then right to punish her if any harm came to them through what he called innocent neglect? In the slums of the City of London there were 35,000 children who had practically no parental care, and the wonder to him often was that the children were not really worse than they were. Where a child had been lost through accidental burning, it did not always follow that the parent had neglected the interests

581
of the child, and he repudiated the idea of punishing the parent under such circumstances. The loss of the child by fire was itself quite sufficient punishment. If they were to rescue the children for the future service of the State, the House must go a step further and recognise the necessity of putting within the reach of every parent the economic opportunity of looking after the welfare of his or her children. In the larger towns men who would do better if they had the opportunity were compelled to live amid miserable surroundings, and the children had nothing but the pawnshop and public-house as their constant companions and the gutter as their playground. These men should have an economic opportunity of doing their best for their children, which at present they had not. Reformatory schools had been spoken of very eulogistically. An hon. Member had led them to believe that reformatory schools were better than board schools, and had spoken about an individual who had been brought up in a reformatory school, and was now driving about in a carriage and pair. One would have thought from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that the board schools were inferior to the reformatory schools; but he maintained that so far as the education in the board schools was concerned, the hon. Member's statement was a gross exaggeration. He wished to say that so far as the occupants of the Labour Benches were concerned, they were pleased at the many good features in the Bill, and were prepared to allow it to go to a Committee upstairs, where a few Amendments might be made to make the punishment a little less severe on innocent people who were unable to take every care of their children. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had spoken of the big national loss involved in the sacrifice of child life to-day. That was an enormous loss to the nation, and they ought to do their best to lessen it. He submitted to the House, however, that the true remedy, if they wanted to rescue the children, was to tap the evil at its source, and to afford to the parents an economic opportunity to bring up their children as they ought to be brought up
*MR. BRAMSDONthought that the action of the Government in introducing this measure was statesmanlike. He commended the clauses which instituted child Courts and did away with imprisonment of the children. He especially thanked his hon. friend the Under-Secretary for having introduced Clauses 13 and 14, which were in substance the same as clauses in the Bill which he had brought in last year to prevent cruelty to children. He had been a coroner for nearly twenty-five years and a deputy coroner for five years in one of the largest towns in the Kingdom, and, from experience obtained in that capacity, he believed that if the Bill became law, the great loss of children through burning and overlying would be reduced by one-half. It was terrible to contemplate the awful punishment which a child was compelled to undergo from burning. It was a mistake to suppose that the children who were overlaid were weaklings. They were generally healthy children who were taken to bed by their mothers sometimes in a drunken condition. His hon. friend the Member for Sunderland had referred to the economic side of the question; but was it an economic question? He supposed it would be said that the parents were unable in the case of child-burning to provide fireguards, but his experience was that that excuse was rarely made. Charitable institutions would arise which would provide fireguards if necessary, but he believed that in the majority of cases when the parents got to know the responsibility which rested upon them they would find means to meet it. From an experience of thirty years he could assure the House that no fear need be felt that innocent parents would be punished. Let the people know that the responsibility rested upon them and they would set to work to think for themselves, as they did not too often do now, and they would take the necessary precautions. He hoped that those two clauses would be passed, and that generally the Bill would be acceptable.
VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid he wished to say a word or two

583
about industrial schools, and, differing from his hon. friend below him, he did not compare them with board schools. The children in the board schools were the children of the free, but the children in the industrial schools had been sent there for their own fault or more often for the faults of their parents. Considering the source from which children in industrial schools came they had accomplished some of the most remarkable things that had ever been seen in this country. When they considered that the children were recruited from the moral dregs of the population it was a testimony to their extraordinary success that they turned these children out as reliable men and women. That fact spoke greatly to the credit of these institutions. He fully agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Bath as to parental responsibility, and no person in that House could be more anxious to retain it than he was, but there was a class of parent to whom children could not be safely left. The hon. Member below him had quoted two or three cases which were quite enough to show that that was so, and it was unnecessary to amplify them. No Government or country could leave children in the hands of guardians such as those, and it was very difficult to provide for them except by the industrial school methods, which had, as he had said, been extremely successful. Anyone who had seen the sort of boys and girls they turned out, and the affection they had for the places in which they had lived, would understand what the work was which those institutions were doing. It was most important that the children should be sent to them in good time before it was too late to save them, because if they did not go to the industrial school they went later on to the reformatory or the prison. It was objected that the industrial schools were not sufficient in number, and were a burden upon the rates, but he would be glad to support the hon. Gentleman in any measure he might take, in order to supply an adequate number of industrial schools, whether it was by putting an obligation on the local authorities to erect them, or by giving larger grants for children in the schools. In regard to the Report of the Select
584
Committee in reference to single nurse-child homes, he said with some diffidence that he had doubts upon the matter, because he saw in the Report that the Members were unanimous on the question of inspection, and he had not the benefit of being a Member of the Committee which gave illustrations of carelessness, neglect, and cruelty even in single nurse-child homes, which necessitated some inspection. He could not help saying that all these things were a balance of advantage and disadvantage, and if there were some cases of neglect and cruelty in those homes, there were many hundreds of homes where much affection and care was given by the foster-parents to the poor children who were boarded out. Inspection was a necessary evil, and if no harm took place so much the better, but there were many homes in which, if there was to be inspection, the children would not be received so readily or so cordially. He noticed that at the end of the Report it was said that so far as possible the inspection should be deprived of any rigid or formal character, and carried out by women possessing special qualifications for the work. Locally they knew that there were great numbers of women ready to give their time to work of this kind, but very of tenthose women, zealous and keen as they were, had the defects of their qualities. Perhaps the excess of zeal which they put into the accomplishment of their work had an irritating effect upon the foster parents who received the children. The lady full of the expectation of a tidiness which was impossible, or of open windows which were not prevalent in this country, swooped down upon a cottage and made requirements which the foster-parents were unable or un willing to comply with, and very often the father of the family said that if he was to be exposed to visits of that kind he would rather do without the child. That was the difficulty which presented itself in country districts and it was a great one to overcome. He quite recognised, however, that inspection might be necessary, but he would suggest that when the Bill got into Committee the hon. Gentleman should carefully consider the matter, and see whether it

585
was not possible to put in qualifications which would enable him to exempt certain homes from inspection. He saw that there would be a difficulty in the case. If some homes were to be exempt while others were inspected, it would cast a slur upon those homes which were not considered worthy of exemption, but he hoped that some means would be found to get out of the difficulty. It was a great and real one, and if it was not dealt with incalculable harm would be done in regard to the boarding-out of children. Then as to smoking, he thought everybody agreed that it was bad for young boys, and he was very anxious it should be stopped, but to his mind the proper authorities to stop it were the parent and the school master. The Bill was brought in to prevent boys from coming into the atmosphere of the police court or the prison, and yet it went out of its way in regard to a not very serious offence drag boys into that atmosphere. If the Bill confined itself to forbidding the sale of tobacco to boys, he thought no harm would be done, and he would point out that that would follow the analogy of the Licensing Bill under which children were not to be allowed to go into a public house. The age-limit was sixteen, or such limit as the magistrates might determine, but they must remember that at sixteen a very large number of boys were not under the control of their parents and were not pupils, but were earning their own livelihood and standing on their own feet, and it was difficult to make restrictions on their liberty. He objected to the proposal because it would bring up boys to disregard the law, which was a more serious fault than smoking. They would learn to break the laws of the country and would think that it was a trivial and unimportant thing. The hon. Gentleman had said that the fact that the State had denounced the practice would impress the young, but he was afraid that the young had not so developed that any decrees of the State would impress them in such a matter. He did not wish to repeat what so many had said, but he desired to express how grateful they were to the hon. Gentleman for his excellent Bill.
*MR. BRIGHTremarked that as a member of the Select Committee he would like to say in regard to the single nurse child homes that they had very ample evidence that there was no necessity for inspection. They had also evidence that there was no difficulty in finding homes for a single nurse child amongst decent people. They had before then the evidence of the lady inspector. The noble Lord was inclined to imagine that the female inspectors would behave in a harsh manner, but he thought if he had seen the ladies who came before the Committee and heard their evidence he would not have entertained that opinion. They said that in the single nurse child homes which they had inspected, and which they had no difficulty in getting permission to inspect, the presence of the lady inspector was not only not resented but welcomed. He thought there would be no difficulty, from what they heard, in obtaining a large number of good homes. Unfortunately, a large number of these children, he was afraid were sent to these homes for the purpose of getting rid of them and never seeing them again, and in many cases they had been so neglected that their lives were shortened. In regard to the question of the appointment of inspectors they had evidence that in a great many places in the larger areas of the country no inspectors had been appointed to inspect the homes in which two or three children were kept, or that inspectors had in the first instance been appointed, but after that no appointments had been made, and the provisions as to inspection had become a dead letter. This Bill said that public bodies "may" appoint inspectors, but he thought it should be altered to "shall," so that all these homes should be inspected. There was a clause in the Bill which gave power for taking away little girls from immoral houses of course there was a distinction between the dangers to little girls and little boys in those houses, but he should say that it was desirable to remove little boys also, and he did not see why they should not be included in the clause. In Clause 106 it was provided that children under sixteen should not be allowed to pawn clothes, and he had had evidence before him that there was a great deal done in the pawning of little children's clothes

587
by drunken parents. He knew that an objection was made to any law which prevented pawnbrokers from taking little children's clothes, because it was said that the parents might wish to raise money on the clothes of dead children or cast-off suits. But in those cases the parents would not want to pawn them, but to sell, as they could get a better price than it was possible to get on a pawn ticket. He was told that in many cases children were provided with clothes for the purpose of going to church, chapel, or Sunday school, but on Monday morning the drunken father or mother took the clothes and pawned them till the following Saturday. He thought it would be a good provision to prohibit pawnbrokers from taking children's clothes in pawn. He understood that in some parts of the country, and he believed in Edinburgh, the police acted in conjunction with the charitable organisations to prevent the pawning of children's clothes. As to the question of fireguards, the accounts of accidents were terrible. Fireguards were extremely cheap, and a great many benevolent people were quite willing to provide them in cases where the parents were too poor to do so. The charges of overlying were often of a very serious character. He heard not long ago of a case where a woman had lost four or five children in this way in succession and apparently did not care whether they died or lived. He welcomed the Bill, and hoped it would soon pass through the House, for he believed it met with general approval.
*SIR HENRY CRAIKpointed out that under the present condition of discussion it was impossible for those Members who were not on this particular Committee to which this Bill would be referred to have anything to say as to the form the Bill would take, except in the present limited discussion, though many of them were interested in the subject, and had spent their lives in studying schemes to ameliorate the conditions of the children. One thing that had struck him in the course of the debate was that the criticisms upon the Bill had all followed a very usual course. It was the experience of all accustomed to
588
administrative work to find that objection was taken to the inefficiency of some part of the machinery; but the moment an attempt was made to touch the evil, the moment machinery was introduced which was to work drastically and efficiently and to remedy the evil, all sorts of objections were raised—the great social objection referred to by the hon. Member for Sunderland, or else some interference with the liberty of the individual, raised by many Members, and so on. It was, however, impossible to make an omelette without breaking eggs, and a great social reform of this kind could not be carried out without interference with personal liberty, and possibly with a good deal that might be picturesque enough in ordinary life. They wished to rescue "Oliver Twist" out of the clutches of "Fagin," and in the process it might become necessary to take "Little Nell" away from her grandfather. With regard to the gipsy clauses, it was said the proposals of the Bill interfered with the picturesque and free side of life. No one would suggest such a thing as that who had seen the actual conditions under which the gipsy children lived. It was not said by the one man in Scotland who knew most about the reality as well as the poetry of Scottish life—Sir Walter Scott. In the "Heart of Midlothian," and still more in the "Highland Widow," he stripped the life of all its picturesqueness, and pointed out what was the real state of degradation under which these people lived. In certain parts of Scotland he had seen it himself. He had entered the caves where some of these gipsies lived on the Caithness coast, and if after what he had seen people thought no change was called for, he could not understand their feelings. It was the same with regard to the drastic remedy proposed for overlying. That evil could not be remedied without something that would strike terror into the hearts of the careless, or those who were neglectful of their duties of motherhood. That could only be done by drastic machinery, which was always apt to be objected to as interfering with personal liberty. One point he desired to impress on the hon. Gentleman was that it would not do to

589
try and carry on all this remedial work of raising these waifs and strays as if it were part of the great educational work of the country. It was not educational but remedial work. And the work which was being dealt with in this Bill was more or less of a penal kind. It could not help being so. It had to deal very often not with the regular inhabitants of the locality where these persons were found. They were waifs and strays jettisoned by society—thrown by chance into a particular locality. Therefore it was not fair to lay the whole burden on the locality as was done in the case of ordinary education. The central authority of the State must step in in this case with a larger share of public money to the assistance of the locality which needed it. The local authorities often found that the public opinion of the locality was not behind them in spending adequately upon such remedial and casual work as this, urgent as it was. These waifs and strays had no one to stand up and criticise the provisions which were made for them, and the State must therefore step in, and while it imposed a high standard, must also largely assist the locality in maintaining that standard. This was not a municipal burden, it was a work that must be carried out at the expense of the State.
MR. L. HASLAMcalled attention to what he believed was an omission in the Bill, viz., that there was no provision to prevent insuring children by foster parents. Baby farmers ought not to be allowed to have any advantage in the case of the death of a child, and he suggested a clause by which it should be not only illegal for the foster-parents to insure children but for any company or person to insure them. He understood that the Home Secretary was prepared to introduce a clause to that effect, and he hoped it would receive the cordial assent of the House.
LORD EDMUND TALBOTcongratulated the Under-Secretary upon one feature of the Bill, which he described as contrasting very favourably with other legislative efforts of the Government in regard to children. As he read the Bill, adequate and definite
590
consideration was given to the religious denominations to which the children belonged. That very important part of the rights of the child and the parent as regards religion was properly safeguarded. In certain quarters an impression prevailed that the Catholic community was against the inspection of the one child homes. That, however, was not the case. It was not a religious question at all, and the Catholics were as much divided upon it as other people. Personally he was against inspection, but he was perfectly satisfied with the Report of the Committee and the exemptions that were recommended by that Report, the recommendations of which the Under-Secretary by this Bill was attempting to carry out.

EXPLOSION (GLENAHIERY).
*MR. HAVILAND BURKErose to call attention to all the circumstances connected with the explosion at Lord Ashtown's Lodge, Glenahiery, and to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the interests of truth and justice require a full public inquiry upon oath into all the circumstances connected with the explosion at Lord Ashtown's shooting lodge at Glenahiery on 14th August last, including the subsequent attempt made to incite a number of the inhabitants of the County of Galway to commit an outrage upon Woodlawn Church on 31st August last." He felt himself confronted, he said, by a very great and obvious difficulty, the difficulty of stating, on an occasion when they had only two hours and three-quarters left for discussion, the whole of the facts of a case which was not only very mysterious, but in his opinion, of the very gravest character, demanding the most searching and merciless inquiry by the Executive that claimed to be fair and impartial in its dealings between man and man in Ireland. He wished to recall the fact that, in the first instance, the explosion at Glenahiery was of a character almost unprecedented in Ireland. It was not

591
caused by an infernal machine, or dynamite cartridge, which could be carried in a man's pocket; it was caused, according to the official evidence, by means of a large iron pot of considerable weight, a balk of timber, several quart bottles, assumed to have contained paraffin oil, some yards of specially manufactured fuse, a wheelbarrow, and a pole of wood. One of his hobbies had always been the study of criminology, and he remembered distinctly, when he opened his paper which contained news of the outrage, saying to his friends that the thing on the face of it was not done hastily by one man, that it had been done deliberately, and with not the least hurry, and that far more than two men, let alone one man, had been concerned in it. So far, this case had not been tried by a jury, not even by a jury of respectable Orangemen. It had been tried in the first place by County Court Judge Fitzgerald, and tried next on appeal by Mr. Justice Kenny. Against the personal integrity of these Irish magnates he had not one word to say. At the same time it was the merest affectation to assume that a strong party man ceased to think about politics, or the bearings of general events upon political parties, because he was translated to the judicial bench. Judges were amply protected in that House against any undue criticism in the discharge of their duties, although he might remind the House that the first thing they did after the great Revolution was to put a curb upon the great and dangerous increase of powers of the Judges of the land. And he was bound to say that since Judge Jeffreys, in the era of James II., publicly threatened an English juryman that he would get his nose slit for him if he did not consent to a hanging verdict, few worse displays had been made from the Bench than the display made by County Court Judge Fitzgerald on the first hearing of this case. Now he wished to say to begin with——
MR. MOORE: On a point of order. I should like to ask if it is in order—[NATIONALIST cries of "Yes, it is."] This is not a matter to be decided by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway; it is for the Deputy-Speaker. I wish to ask, Sir, whether it is in order
592
for an hon. Member to say of a County Judge in Ireland that he is the worst example of judicial misconduct on the Bench since the time of Judge Jeffreys.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. CALDWELL): It is a well-known rule of the House that no reference of a derogatory character should be made to a Judge, and I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw it.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that his hon. friend spoke of Judge Fitzgerald, not in his capacity of County Court Judge, but in his capacity arising from his being authorised under the statute to decide malicious claims.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is no distinction. It is not a question of executive or administrative functions. I call upon Mr. Haviland Burke.
Mr. HAVILAND BURKE and Mr. Moorerose together, and there were loud NATIONALIST cries of "Shame," "Name" and "Sit down."
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Armagh has risen to a point of order.
MR. MOORE: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is it your ruling that the statement should be withdrawn? [NATIONAL cries of "No."]
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It was rather out of order, but I did not think it necessary to call upon the hon. Member to withdraw.
*MR. HAVILAND BURKEsaid that when interrupted he was about to say that he held no brief from District-Inspector Preston or any other member of the autocratic and military police force, which they believed to be extravagant, overmanned, and overpaid, and over which the Irish people and the representatives of the Irish people had no control whatsoever. But this matter of District-Inspector Preston did gravely concert the public administration of justice, and he said, and said it deliberately, with all respect to the feelings of the hon. and

593
learned Gentleman who had just interrupted him, that if District-Inspector Preston had been a thrice convicted criminal, if he had been a notorious and habitual offender, if he were a ticket-of-leave man when he came before County Court Judge Fitzgerald, he could not have been more hectored, bullied, and insulted from start to finish than he was on that occasion. And moreover, with all respect to County Court Judge Fitzgerald's personal character, and to the acute sensitiveness of the hon. and learned Member who had just interrupted him, he wanted to point out that the County Court Judge assumed, as the whole ascendancy party in Ireland habitually assumed, that a policeman's word was law and gospel as against a Nationalist, or against a Member of Parliament representing a Nationalist constituency; but if once in a way, just by accident, a policeman was so presumptuous as to express doubts in favour of the people, then he was a whited sepulchre and a traitor to his duty. He would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends: Did they really think they could get any man of the world inside or outside the House to believe that an ambitious police official who wanted to curry favour in high quarters and to gain distinction and promotion would choose the method of doing, saying, or writing anything to hurt the feelings of a big Irish landlord and a peer of the realm? It was absolutely preposterous. If District-Inspector Preston had reported in the first instance that the United Irish League emissaries had been busy in the district and that he attributed the bomb explosion to the activity they had displayed—if he had expressed the conviction that the feed was done locally as an act of agrarian or political vengeance—then he would have been the curled darling of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He would have been a prophet of the true gospel, the upholder of law and order against an effete and corrupt executive, and he would have stood higher in the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman and he low-down, anti-Irish English gutter Press that was fed by Lord Ashtown and by Members above the gangway. He had, however, the audacity to express a doubt as to the culpability of the local
594
people. He challenged any hon. Member on the Orange benches to get up and say it was so; but, if the hon. Gentleman above the gangway could produce evidence of reasonable ground for suspicion that there was a local Sergeant Sheridan in the case and of police complicity in this outrage, they would do their honest best to help them to track down the criminal policeman and have him punished, although they could not promise to assent to the immunity and hush money that Sergeant Sheridan and his satellites got from the Unionist Government. But, if there was no allegation of police complicity in this case, why should they have this forensic howl against District-Inspector Preston's Report? If he wanted anything to justify the phrase he had used, which might have been strong, and to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken objection, he could not do better than quote two or three phrases used by County Court Judge Fitzgerald in delivering judgment in censure of District-Inspector Preston. He alluded to what he called the gracious document which had been called the Report of District-Inspector Preston, and then said—
"As to the circumstances in which the so called report was manufactured, I have my own opinion, but I say nothing."
Again, by way of showing his views against the District-Inspector, he went out of his way after he had actually delivered his judgment to say respecting the area of the outrage that he would ask County-Inspector Jennings to consider that question, as, in consequence of the opinion he had formed of District-Inspector Preston, he would not ask his assistance. Profiting by those eminently refined and impartial remarks, the next move in the Orange game was to represent that the original Report was, as the County Court Judge put it, manufactured, but if they could get at the original Report sent in by District-Inspector Preston, they would find that it was mild as compared with the scorching fire which blazed forth at the first hearing. Their law and order friends, in the Press and through other channels, had asked for the publication of the original Report, and they got it, and at the same time they caught a tartar. He had the original Report arranged in pages parallel

595
with the Report against which County Court Judge Fitzgerald fulminated and raved so voluminously, and he found that so far from the original Report being milder than the one upon which very largely the County Court Judge had to adjudicate, the Report before him was a milk-and-water Bowdlerised edition of the Report originally sent in by Mr. Preston, and that if the Report before the County Court Judge was cooked at all it was cooked handsomely in Lord Ashtown's favour. He would exhaust his time if he alluded to the many passages in the original Report which were omitted, in his opinion with gross impropriety, under Castle influence, from the Report upon which the original proceedings were taken, but there were two omissions to which he might call some attention. The inspector said, for instance, in his original Report that he was actually obstructed in the execution of his duty, and that he had difficulty in getting information. He said that Alice Cudd, the sister of the wife of Lord Ashtown's gamekeeper—the more they went into this Ashtown business the more they saw what a merry crowd and how closely related they were—who showed temper at being questioned at all, whose demeanour was flippant, gave impertinence to the District-Inspector who, in the ordinary discharge of his duty, had the audacity to ask her some questions as to the facts relating to the explosion. He said another thing, also omitted from the second edition, and he thought this was a most important matter. Any man accustomed to study human nature and police cases and criminal trials would see its importance. The Inspector said, in his original Report—
"At this point it occurs to me to put upon paper what has struck me all along as unusual and not to be expected—the fact that the women of the household had taken the whole matter calmly and had never shown the least sign of alarm or natural fear, quite the contrary."
He put his own construction upon that, and it was that the ladies of the house were not in the least surprised and had some inkling of what was going to happen. But he would leave District-Inspector Preston's Report. The next sheet-anchor of the people who wanted to make this slur upon an Irish national movement was to say that County-Inspector Jen-
596
nings was dead against the District-Inspector. The only difference of opinion between County-Inspector Jennings and District-Inspector Preston was as to whether the window was open or not at the time of the explosion. District-Inspector Preston was of opinion that it was, and he was confirmed in that opinion by the evidence of the Home Office expert. He noticed that Mr. Justice Kenny, in his summing up, said he had three experts on one side and one on the other, and that other things being equal he would prefer the opinion of the three experts to the one. What did that amount to? It was as if after a railway collision the Board of Trade sent down its special inspector to make a report as soon as possible after the accident, and that then when somebody injured in the collision brought an action for damages against the Company he could bring up three experts who were not on the spot for weeks or months, when everything was put in order and tidied up, and the Judge told the jury to prefer the opinion of the three experts to the independent expert who was there as soon as possible after the disaster. Again, County-Inspector Jennings said, and this was going to lead him up to a graver chapter of his argument by and by—
"Lord Ashtown suspects none of his Waterford tenantry for the outrage. He is of opinion that it was planned by some of his Woodlawn tenants, aided by someone in the neighbourhood of Glenahierv."
This remarkable passage followed—
"It is inconceivable how any man would approach the house, as in this instance and run risks of detection with practically four armed, and experts in use of firearms, on the premises. I do not believe any of the natives would countenance or conceive such an outrage."
It might be of interest that he should remind the House that Mr. Graham, the mysterious gamekeeper who belonged to Lord Ashtown's menage, was one of those rolling stones that gathered no moss. He had never kept any responsible employment for any substantial period, and always appeared to treat Glenahiery as a safe harbour of refuge. He had, furthermore, to dwell upon the fact that he had been several times in trouble with the police, and that actually since this outrage he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for wanton and unprovoked assault, and was, for

597
some mysterious reason that he could not fathom, relieved by the authorities at Dublin Castle of the results. As he said, one sentence that he had just read in County-Inspector Jenning's Report led them up to a graver chapter in the case. They had been blamed for trying to connect the anonymous letters inciting certain Galway people to crime with the Glenahiery bomb outrage, and with Lord Ashtown. But who originally drew in the name of the Galway people to the Glenahiery business? It was Lord Ashtown himself. It was the explanation he gave to the local police. He did not believe any of his neighbours had done it. He said right out two or three times that it was the Woodlawn tenants, with whom he had had difficulties, who were responsible. Before he passed from that aspect of the case, he could not avoid reference to an ugly fact in Lord Ashtown's own conduct. At the first hearing of his claim for compensation he was asked, was he, or was he not, responsible for an article describing the outrage and life generally in that neighbourhood, that appeared in a very respectable and widely-read weekly paper in London. He point-blank denied all knowledge of the article, of responsibility for it, or of having given his signature, and only at the last moment, when beaten to the ropes under cross-examination by the hon. and learned Member for South Louth, confronted with the presence, at the second trial, of a special representative sent over by that paper to be there and give him the lie from the witness chair, then and only then did he admit that his article in Answers was not a concoction, that he was responsible for it, that he did give his signature for it, and he was censured by Mr. Justice Kenny for his previous evasions. The utmost plea that could be entered for Lord Ashtown was that he was the victim of occasional acute paralysis of the mnemonic faculties. If hon. Members on the Orange Benches preferred that definition of his mental state, he was perfectly willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. It made no difference whatever as to the value of Lord Ashtown's testimony on oath, or the anti-Irish garbage which he retailed for the benefit of the Unionist Press in this country. What was the next fact they had to deal with? It was
598
that shortly afterwards a number of letters were posted from Dublin inciting certain Galway men in the precise locality Lord Ashtown had indicated as being the locality that had been most criminal in this outrage, inviting them to plant a bomb outside a local church with a view to injuring him. Those letters were written when Lord Ashtown himself was in Dublin, but more than that happened. Simultaneously he wrote to the police saying that he had good ground to believe that an attempt at this outrage, would be made in Woodlawn on the very date bargained for in the letter sent to the Woodlawn people from Dublin. As the hon. Member for Galway had pointed out Lord Ashtown warned the police before he left Dublin, and the County Inspector went to Lord Ashtown and said: "Where did you get the information upon which you applied for special police ambush against a proposed outrage upon a definite date? Will you show us the letter or give us the information upon which you proceeded?" But Lord Ashtown point blank refused. The few points he had tried to place before the House in themselves justified the Resolution he had moved, and however strong they might seem to some of his opponents he thought the case justified the words he had used in support of his Resolution. An active campaign was being directed at the present moment by certain hon. Members for Ireland, who were, so far as he knew, and he was happy to know it, the only body of legislators in any legislative assembly in the world who made it their daily task of joy to defame the country in which they lived, and the people they represented. He had never heard of an instance in any Parliament or in any country, where a regularly constituted political Party filled the Notice Paper of that Assembly with Questions tending to show that the people whom they represented were abnormally criminal and required abnormal measures of repression. Lord Ashtown in himself was not a very important individual, and the ratepayers who had been mulcted in a couple of hundred pounds would easily survive that infliction. The fine on those ratepayers, unjust as he believed it to be, was a mere trifle compared with, the principle involved, which was that

599
the one thing upon which all the local police, the District and County-Inspectors and constables alike, were agreed, was that there was no local feeling whatsoever against Lord Ashtown, and the utmost length that County-Inspector Jennings—whom it had been attempted to play off against Inspector Preston—could be got to go, was that when he was asked if he had any opinion as to whether the outrage was done by insiders or outsiders, he said that he would not express any opinion. He absolutely refused under pressure to say that he had any reason whatever to believe that the outrage was inspired by local animosity. With great respect he contended that it was a case for a sworn inquiry, which he felt sure would show that at the bottom of it there was something worse than had yet been revealed and for which responsibility should be tracked down. He begged to move.
MR. POWERsaid that the Glenahiery outrage had naturally excited great interest in Ireland, but it had excited in the constituency which he had the honour of representing a special interest. Hon. Members might not be aware that if an accidental fire occurred, or malicious injury was perpetrated in Ireland, the ratepayers of the district were called upon to pay the damage. In England no such law prevailed, and they hoped to lay before the House in a very few days a Bill for assimilating the law in Ireland in this respect to the law in England, and they would ask the support of hon. Members to bring the present state of things to an end. He had an exceptional opportunity last summer of witnessing how different the laws were in the two countries. He happened to be at Droitwich shortly after the occurrence at Glenahiery, and as Droitwich was a loquacious place that incident was talked about, and he heard all sorts of speculations as to what Ireland was coming to. Matthew Arnold once said that the born swallower of all clap-trap was the British Philistine, and they were well represented at Droitwich. It happened that about the same time in the Midlands there occurred a series of the most shocking mutilations of cattle and horses, including the great
600
Wyrley case. There were many of those outrages, and the people who owned the mutilated horses and cattle had to bear the loss themselves or provide against it by insurance. There was one thing about those outrages which struck him, and it was that if anything like them had occurred in Ireland they would have been placarded not only over the whole of England, but possibly over the whole of the world. Fortunately for England, there was not an organisation in this country whose object it was to blacken the character of the English people. It was a very bad characteristic for any person to endeavour to blacken his own country, however bad it might be, but what were they to say of an organisation which took little or no care as to the truth or accuracy of the reports which they circulated broadcast, or of the pictures painted in lurid colours, which were calculated to injure Ireland with the object of imposing coercion upon that country. He might say on behalf of his colleagues and himself that they hated and detested that pandering to the base passions of any people. They did not like raking up those things, but when they went down to the constituencies of those hon. Members who were parading the shortcomings of Ireland, it was rather remarkable that they were able to show such a state of criminality that made the contrast most appalling. His hon. friend who had moved this Resolution had referred to District-Inspector Preston's Report. He did not intend to go into that subject at much length, but he wished to say that they held no brief to defend Inspector Preston, and all he would say was that he hoped he would never witness again such a painful exhibition and want of self-control as he witnessed at the Court where this case was tried. He remembered that District-Inspector Preston ventured to say a word, and in a most peremptory way he was told to sit down or he would be put out of Court. There happened to be slight applause in one of the galleries when he went up there, and he learned and impartial Judge told the police to clear out the ragamuffins, who, by the way, included such men as the Chairman of the County Council and other most respectable people. The same thing had occurred in other parts of Ireland.

601
The right hon. and learned Gentleman who acted for Lord Ashtown spoke of Inspector Preston as the new Sherlock Holmes. The evidence of District-Inspector Preston was corroborated in the most extraordinary way by the evidence of Captain Lloyd, one of His Majesty's inspectors of explosives, who was sent over by the Home Office to make inquiry, and Captain Lloyd's evidence had not been contradicted seriously by any evidence yet produced. Mr. Hagreave, who was examined for Lord Ashtown, and would naturally be anxious to give favourable evidence, said—
"That the balance of probabilities was certainly in favour of the door being shut."
That was all the exception he took to the report of Captain Lloyd, a gentleman whose life was spent in investigating such matters. District-Inspector Preston had been held up to odium for the action he had taken in the matter. He was informed, though he could not vouch for the truth of it, that District-Inspector Preston was the son of an Orangeman, and that his grandfather was an Orangeman, so that if he had any leaning at all it would have been on the side of Lord Ashtown rather than that of the people. The whole thing was only part and parcel of a conspiracy to defame Ireland. It might be in the recollection of the House that Lord Ashtown stated that, in his opinion, the plot originated in Galway, and that it was carried out by Galway men. A Mrs. Walsh approached Lord Ashtown with the view of finding out who the conspirators were. She wrote to Lord Ashtown, and after various letters had been sent to him and his agent she met Lord Ashtown in the agent's office, and the result was that she went to Galway and saw several people. Various letters were written, and several other letters were sent in the same handwriting to constituents of his hon. friend the Member for East Galway, who had done his best to unravel the mystery. She failed to get any direct evidence, and the most extraordinary anonymous letters were written to Mrs. Walsh stating among other things that a certain number of men were to meet at Woodlawn at eleven o'clock at night outside the church and opposite the pew which was
602
usually occupied by Lord Ashtown when he attended there. On the strength of that anonymous letter the police were asked to be in ambush. Five letters were sent in the same handwriting to the constituents of his hon. friend asking them to be there at eleven o'clock. Fortunately for themselves they never went there, because the police were brought across the fields, so that they should not be met by anyone, with the view of capturing anyone who might be implicated. It was said that that was done because Lord Ashtown gave the police the information. What he and his friends wanted to know was how Lord Ashtown got the information. His constituents were deeply interested in the matter. He believed that the campaign of vilifying Ireland, of holding up their shortcomings to the gaze of the world, was doomed to failure, and he believed it would fail in one respect. This Protestant Federation was, he believed, determined to fan up religious fanaticism as much as they could in Ireland. What strange things were done in the name of religion! He found that they made bad blood between Catholic and Protestant. He did not know what the result would be among Protestants, but he said with pride that he knew that among the Catholics of Ireland they would never succeed in stirring up that bitter feeling of animosity among those who differed from them. It had been the proud boast of Ireland—and God will that it should remain so—that if they found a man true to the people, they cared not from what land he came, from what class he sprang, or at what altar he might choose to worship. Their politics had always been essentially unsectarian, and they would hunt from political life as a renegade anyone who endeavoured to raise that wretched spirit of religious animosity. When he heard of intolerance among Orangemen, in his heart he blamed them hardly in the least; for this reason, they had been brought up in that spirit of intolerance, and if one generation was educated in that spirit it would take many generations to undo the work and to remove the poison which had been instilled into them. In a remarkable speech on the bigotry in connection with the class

603
of Protestant schools prevailing in Ireland, Lord Byron said—
"Better send children to those islands in the South Sea where they might more humanely learn to become cannibals—it would be less disgusting to see them brought up to devour the dead than to persecute the living. Schools do you call them! Rather call them dunghills where the viper of intolerance trains her young that when their teeth are cut and their poison is mature they may issue forth filthy and venomous to sting the Catholic."
Well had the lesson been learned, and he said, with all confidence on the part of Catholics, that they would never retaliate in a spirit so lowering and degrading on those who differed from them. They and their forefathers had learned the lesson of religious toleration in the best of all schools—in the bitter school of persecution—and in the words of another eminent Englishman—
"The children of martyrs can never be persecutors."
He begged to second the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, the interests of truth and justice require a full public inquiry upon oath into all the circumstances connected with the explosion at Lord Ashtown's shooting lodge at Glenahiery on 14th August last, including the subsequent attempt made to incite a number of the inhabitants of the county of Galway to commit an outrage upon Woodlawn Church on 31st August last."—(Mr Haviland-Burke.)
MR. MOOREsaid he could not help thinking, when he heard the reference made by the seconder of the Resolution to the avaricious maw with which the British Philistine swallowed clap-trap, that the observation must have been particularly odious to the mover, who addressed the burden of his remarks to British Members. He had heard a very spirited defence of Mr. Inspector Preston, for which that gentleman would be duly grateful. He had heard repeated over and over again, under privilege of the House, unworthy insinuations against the honour and uprightness of character of Lord Ashtown, and suggestions of complicity on the part of Lord Ashtown in the explosion at Glenahiery. [Cheers from the IRISH Benches.] He was
604
glad to hear those cheers, which showed that he was not wronging hon. Members below the gangway. He thought it was a hard thing that, under the shelter of the privilege of the House, a man should be attacked in that way after having faced the music, and having twice gone through the Courts. [Ironical cheers from the IRISH Benches] He understood the contempt which hon. Members below the gangway had for all Courts of Justice. After Lord Ashtown had run the risks of two. Courts, after he had stood the cross-examination of special counsel brought down from Dublin to blacken his character, it was a hard thing that when the findings had been conclusively in his favour, the same insinuations should be repeated under the privilege of the House of Commons in a manner which they dared not repeat outside. Did the House realise in what position Lord Ashtown stood? Lord Ashtown had been attacked that night by the proposer and seconder of the Resolution, who had stated in so many words that in their opinion he was a defamer of the Irish people. He put it to the sense of fair-play on the part of hon. Members below the gangway that, however much they might agree or disagree with a man's action in political criticism—he did not care how intense the disapproval might be—was it a justifiable thing, because they disapproved of Lord Ashtown's methods of criticism, to come there and repeat under the protection of the House, insinuations affecting in the grossest way Lord Ashton's personal character, and suggesting his connection with an outrage for which, if proved, he would be in ordinary course under custody? Lord Ashtown's defamation consisted in printing, publishing, and circulating extracts from the identical newspapers which were the organs of hon. Members themselves. It was no shame for those papers to make the statements, but it was a shame for Lord Ashtown to extract them and circulate them! However much hon. Members disapproved of such defamation, it did not warrant them to repeat there, under privilege, insinuations against Lord Ashtown which, if proved, would drive him into disgrace

605
for ever. The House had just listened to a very eloquent and moving peroration—not his own—of the hon. Member for East Waterford about the viper of intolerance. Did the hon. Member agree with him that the viper of intolerance should be crushed out? [Cheers from the IRISH Benches.] He concurred in those cheers, but he did not concur in the suggestion made by the hon. Member that the viper of intolerance was only bred to sting Roman Catholics. Lord Ashtown was a Protestant; he lived in the west of Ireland. He was unpopular, and the reason was that he was the champion of the Imperial Protestant Alliance. [IRISH cries of "Oh, oh," and "No."] He was only taking the ground occupied by the hon. Members below the gangway, and he wanted the House to consider how far the viper of intolerance in Lord Ashtown's case had been bred to sting Roman Catholics. Lord Ashtown could not walk up his own avenue without the protection of a patrol of four policemen, and he carried a shot-gun with him every day of his life. Twelve months ago a man was indicted in his own county, at the Galway Assizes, for inciting to murder Lord Ashtown. It was not an incitement sent by post to one or two people, but an incitement made to an excited and crowded audience on a public occasion.
AN IRISH MEMBER: Were not a large number of police present on that occasion?
MR. MOOREsaid that the fact that a large number of police were present showed the character of the audience, and that the police were required to maintain order. The Solicitor-General for Ireland, who always discharged his duty with great ability, prosecuted the man who was indicted for inciting to murder Lord Ashtown, and the hon. and learned Gentleman told the jury—he could say nothing else—that it was a clear case, and that on the Crown side they were entitled to a conviction. The Judge also said that it was a clear case, that the evidence was all one way, and that the incitement had been made almost at Lord Ashtown's own hall-door. However, the jury triumphantly acquitted the prisoner, and no further action was taken under the present
606
Administration. That was a case where the viper of intolerance was brought up, but not to sting a Roman Catholic. Lord Ashtown had a gamekeeper to prevent trespassers on his property, and on two occasions within the last eighteen months his gamekeepers had issued summonses against men for poaching on the estate. Gamekeeping was not a popular business in some quarters, but assuming the existence of the viper of intolerance, it happened that the gamekeeper in this case was a Protestant. One of the men, as soon as the summons for poaching was issued, took out a cross-summons for assault. The taking from him of the rabbit which he had poached constituted the assault by the gamekeeper! As soon as the Protestant gamekeeper complaining of trespass by the man came before the bench of magistrates the case was dismissed as trumpery, and the prosecuting gamekeeper was lodged in gaol for assault. So gross was this, that even the Government which was loth and slow to run across the wishes of hon. Members below the gangway, telegraphed, without waiting for a process of certiorari, to the prison authorities to liberate the prosecuting gamekeeper. That had happened twice within the last eighteen months. If in England such a case had happened the Lord Chancellor would have moved the magistrates from the Bench, but in Ireland there still remained a sure and certain hope that the next time the gamekeeper summoned a man for trespass, similar treatment would again be dealt out to him. These were the conditions under which Lord Ashtown enjoyed existence! Reference had been made to Judge Fitzgerald. He had nothing but praise for Judge Fitzgerald, having known him long before he went on to the Bench at Waterford; and under stress of public life he would be sorry to hear anything said derogatory to that gentleman. As a Judge in a case which came before him he gave a decision according as lie saw it his duty to do. After that, Judge Fitzgerald proposed to hunt on the plains of Meath where he had hunted for years; but the local branch of the Irish Land League said he was an absolutely unfit man to ride to the hunt in his own country, and that if he did so they would break up the hunt.[An

607
IRISH MEMBER: And properly so.] Did the House want any further corroberation of what he had just stated than the interruption of the hon. Member below the gangway? Judge Fitzgerald was consequently obliged to go to England for his hunting amusement, but there was no viper in that case, because Judge Fitzgerald was a Roman Catholic. In the case in the County Court about the explosion, there were several witnesses for Lord Ashtown, including Mrs. Graham and Graham himself, and it was their misfortune to give evidence. The witnesses were met by a hostile crowd on their way back from the Court and were hooted and stoned. They heard a lot about intolerance, but surely in the case of Lord Ashtown, who was treated as an unconvicted criminal, there had been a greal deal. Moreover, everyone who dared to lift up their hand in a Court of Justice and swear to what was true was assailed, as also was the Judge, and if there had been a jury they would have been boycotted. They had as an expert professional witness a gentleman named Scully, a surveyor, and because he swore on his oath that in his opinion a window was shut on the occasion in question, he was ordered by the Corporation of Waterford to send in his account, and his employment with them had been terminated because he attended upon subpoena and gave evidence in favour of Lord Ashtown. And yet they heard so much of intolerance. How was Lord Ashtown situated? His character had been twice investigated in regard to these most despicable charges, and it had twice been cleared when every possible effort had been made by witnesses and counsel to blacken it. And these attacks continued, notwithstanding the fact that on one occasion the counsel representing the opposing interest got up in Court and with all the sense of responsibility of a professional man said that not a shadow or vestige of charge was made against Lord Ashtown.
MR. T. M. HEALYinquired if he correctly understood the hon. Gentle man to say that special counsel had been brought down with instructions to blacken Lord Ashtown's character?
MR. MOOREsaid he never intended to apply that to the hon. and learned
608
Member. There was another special counsel who was brought down on behalf of the United Irish League, and anyone who read his examination would see that his instructions were to blacken Lord Ashtown's character. He said that, entirely unlike that counsel, the hon. and learned Member for Louth, who did not appear on that occasion, but on another with a full sense of his responsibility to those he represented, made no charge that Lord Ashtown was guilty of any personal or criminal complicity in any outrage.
A NATIONALIST MEMBERsaid there was no counsel brought down by the United Irish League. The other counsel to whom the hon. Member referred was employed by the ratepayers of the county.
MR. MOOREsaid he did not think it was necessary to pursue the inquiry as to how long these ratepayers had been members of the United Irish League or not.
A NATIONALIST MEMBER: They were defending their own interest.
MR. MOORE, continuing, said it was a hardship that, with all these circumstances in the knowledge of hon. Members below the gangway, again from those benches insinuations had been made against Lord Ashtown under the protection of the privilege of the House. Lord Ashtown had been placed in such a position that practically the only pleasure he had left to him was that of defending himself. In the face of the findings of these two tribunals recorded in his favour he did not see that Lord Ashtown had anything further to gain from an extraordinary inquiry. Why should he go to an extraordinary inquiry when he had already faced twice the regular tribunals of the land and left the Court according to the Judges without a stain upon his character? In the case of the hon. Member who was indicted and tried with great reluctance by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary at the Wicklow Assizes the jury disagreed.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): By what authority does the hon. and learned Member say that the case was tried with great reluctance?
MR. MOORE: I did not say the case was tried with great reluctance, but he was prosecuted with great reluctance?
MR. CHERRY: On what authority does the hon. and learned Gentleman say that?
MR. MOORE: The authority of a conversation between the right hon. Gentleman and the Lord Chief Justice in which he said he regretted to have to prosecute Members of Parliament and lamented having to do so.
MR. CHERRY: Quite inaccurate.
MR. MOOREwent on to say that in the case of the hon. Member he alluded to the jury disagreed and there was no suggestion of another trial. He did not want another trial, but merely desired to point out that while the hon. Member was held to be exonerated, in the case of Lord Ashtown, although a Court had found twice in his favour, the suggestion was made that he was allowed to go about an unconvicted criminal. He was not going to rely upon the presumption of British law that every man was deemed innocent until he was found guilty. That was not what hon. Gentlemen below the gangway held in dealing with the case of Lord Ashtown, their idea being that he was guilty until he was found innocent. But let the House suppose that Lord Ashtown was an innocent man, he had been treated in this case with great unfairness. If he was an innocent man, charges which were absolutely false had been sedulously distributed throughout the country and to the public that the noble Lord addressed through his monthly magazine. Those charges had been brought into existence five or six months ago, and published and circulated with all the authority which must necessarily attach to a document which could be claimed to be official. He made no charge whatever against the Executive Government of Ireland. He was dealing with subordinate officials with whom the Government would have eventually to thresh out matters, and at present he was dealing with the Report of 11th September, which was formulated to the public, and he was dealing with the man who had been praised and defended that evening below the gangway, District-Inspector Preston, because he was the signatory of that
610
Report. He did not know how many statements District-Inspector Preston made against his own superiors, whether true or not, but by his Report the gravest injustice was done to Lord Ashtown if he was an innocent man, and not a tittle of evidence had been produced which would lead the House to assume Lord Ashtown's guilt. They had had a large amount of heated rhetoric, clouds of panegyrics and perorations, and a certain amount of argument, but absolutely without a new suggestion of fact from beginning to end. For seven months that charge of District-Inspector Preston had been circulated through the country as an official document, and if Lord Ashtown was an innocent man it did him grave injustice. What did that Report contain? They had it on the evidence of District-Inspector Preston who wrote it. There was no mistake on District-Inspector Preston's part as to how the statement of 11th September affected Lord Ashtown, because, on cross-examination at Dungarven, he admitted that his statement contained the inference of a most grave and terrible charge, that he knew it was contained in it, that he did not intend to convey it, and yet he signed it. That was the case at Dungarven in September, 1907. From that time to this every opportunity had been taken, by circulating that Report, to blacken Lord Ashtown's name. On 14th March, at the second trial, District-Inspector Preston made the same admission, and the men who circulated that Report knew that he admitted that he never intended to make that terrible charge, but had been obliged to sign it by order of his superiors. Was that fairplay to Lord Ashtown? That identical Report was part of the case on each occasion it came before the two Judges. Judge Fitzgerald recognised the serious import of that statement, and said that in his opinion there was no foundation for the imputations, charges, insinuations, and suggestions which from first to last had been heaped on Lord Ashtown and his innocent servants; and that those imputations had their origin mainly in the egregious document which had been called the Report of District-Inspector Preston. The other Judge dealt with

611
it in the me way. That document was not only unfair, but it was irregular, and the person who was responsible for it was District-Inspector Preston, who was held up by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway as a model of a straight forward witness. It was irregular because it contained that terrible charge, and because he admitted he never intended to make it. The constabulary regulations were very clear and explicit on that point as would be seen if they were referred to. But the matter did not end there.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: We wish it did.
MR. MOOREsaid that hon. Members had brought the statement forward and made the charge, but as soon as a person got up to examine it inch by inch he was continuously and unfairly interrupted. The lie had had six months run in the newspapers which reported hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. There was another instance of the conduct of District-Inspector Preston and his subordinates. Sergeant Ryley was produced at Dungarven in September and stated that he visited the premises the day after the explosion and saw Lord Ashtown, who was under the influence of drink, but on 4th March after that lie had been running for six months he went into the witness box and voluntarily withdrew that charge and admitted that he was mistaken. He said he had seen Lord Ashtown since and had studied his manner and was perfectly satisfied that he was not under the influence of drink. In spite of that this charge continued to be circulated, and that was another specimen of the very unfair treatment Lord Ashtown had had meted out to him from first to last. The time had come when the Government should say that, having had a fall inquiry into the matter, they entirely acquitted, as two Courts had already done, Lord Ashtown of any share in the business. There were other extraordinary matters in the course of the trials. There was one about gunpowder. The explosion took place on 14th August. On the 17th County-Inspector Jennings became aware of the fact that a large quantity of gunpowder and the fuse with which it was said the explosion occurred had
612
been purchased of a man named Kelly in Waterford. District-Inspector Preston, who was in charge of the inquiry, and was a subordinate of County-Inspector Jennings, never learnt that fact until 17th September, and more curious still the Inspector-General never heard of it until 3rd October. It was not until 4th October that the matter became public property when the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford wrote a letter which appeared in the newspapers, saying it was common knowledge that that large quantity of gunpowder and fuse had been purchased. All that was in the knowledge or the County-Inspector and the District-Inspector at the trial before the County Court Judge, but not a word of it was tendered in evidence by the police who were engaged in clearing up the matter. Another curious thing was the extraordinary amount of inadvertence there had been in the case. From start to finish, when endeavours were made to find the explanation of certain events which were not clear at the trial, they had been met with the statement that such and such a matter was an inadvertence. District-Inspector Preston made extraordinary charges against his superiors. He said he was forced under professional discipline to put his name to a charge which he did not believe; that he was obliged to do it in the presence of the law officers, the Inspector-General and Sir Antony MacDonnell; that it was a matter of authority. One would have thought that when those statements were made on oath hon. members who would be affected by the charges would have insisted upon an explanation. He would have thought that District-Inspector Preston would have been called on for an explanation of that charge which was found to have no foundation; that he would have been reprimanded, or that the authorities would have considered he was not a very efficient or safe police officer. But that generous flow of mercy which occasionally prompted the action of the right hon. Gentleman appeared and they were told that that momentary aberration on the part of District-Inspector Preston was a matter of inadvertence. The right hon. Gentleman told them on 11th March that the

613
statements of District-Inspector Preston, a responsible police officer, were entirely inaccurate, and that it was only another instance of the hopeless confusion to which an unfortunate witness could be sometimes reduced when in the hands of an able counsel, and, with those excuses, the very grave charges made by District-Inspector Preston against his superior appeared to be allowed to drop. District-Inspector Preston stated that he had prepared an original draft, that his copy was taken, typed, and signed, and that then the original draft was destroyed. The Chief Secretary gave them an explanation, practically in those terms, on 11th March. He wanted to draw the attention of the House to the full import of that matter. He was not suggesting that there was not a perfectly adequate explanation. There were only two documents in existence. There was the original manuscript which the District-Inspector called the draft, and there was the typewritten copy taken from it, which was signed. The original draft, he said, was destroyed, and in his evidence the District-Inspector said it was burned. A question was raised at a later stage, and a more extraordinary conglomeration of inadvertencies he thought had seldom come to the knowledge of a person unaccustomed to such cases. On 30th March the Attorney-General told them that the document which the Inspector-General produced at the Waterford Assizes was not the original statement of 11th September furnished to the parties, but District-Inspector Preston's original unsigned draft of that statement, which was exactly what the Chief Secretary had told them on 11th March had been destroyed after a typed and signed copy had been made. The Attorney-General's attention was directed to that on the spot, and he said no statement had ever been made and the original had been destroyed. Those statements were absolutely irreconcilable. It was quite possible the right hon. Gentleman might have an explanation, but so many inadvertences and discrepancies——
MR. CHERRY: Does the hon. and learned Member suggest that the documents were destroyed on my suggestion, or on the suggestion of my right hon. friend?
MR. MOOREsaid he would have to ask the right hon. Gentleman again to do him the honour of paying a little attention.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL, on a point of order, called attention to the fact that the hon. Member had been speaking fifty minutes, when there was only a limited time for the discussion, and asked whether that was not an abuse of the liberties of the House.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member introducing this Motion spoke nearly forty-five minutes.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: With great respect——
*MR. SPEAKER: However long the hon. Member speaks. I have no power to interfere.
MR. MOOREsaid that no interruption from below the gangway would deter him from doing his duty justly and fairly. On 29th February, in order to take adequate steps for the conduct of his case, Lord Ashtown's advisers wrote to Dublin Castle, asking if the Reports would be produced. They got a reply that they would not be forthcoming. Two days later the Attorney-General wired to the Castle instructing the Inspector-General to produce them, but, by another inadvertence, no step was taken to contradict the information already given to Lord Ashtown's advisers, who went down, not expecting to have the Reports, although, according to the statement of the Attorney-General at the time, they wore entitled to have them. When the Inspector-General was called upon to produce the original statement of 11th September, he did not do so because, as the Attorney-General said in his answer, he had with him a marked copy, and he considered he could not hand that in. Then when asked on 30th September to produce it he claimed privilege, and, when the Attorney-General was asked why privilege was claimed for the Report, he said their instructions to produce the Report at the trial were not present to the mind of the Inspector-General. With such an accumulation of inadvertencies at Waterford Assizes, Lord Ashtown could, if the trial had been in any way adverse to him, have called for a new trial; but, in spite of them, he was able to succeed. The ratepayers

615
who made the original charge against Lord Ashtown had withdrawn, and the Courts which tried his case had unreservedly acquitted him. These horrible and unfounded charges were absolutely and in every way unsustained. Every police officer called in the case, including District-Inspector Preston himself, told the Court that they had not a tittle or suggestion of evidence against Lord Ashtown. When asked, they one and all on their oaths said they had no evidence or suspicion against him, and, yet after the sworn evidence of that army of witnesses, hon. Members below the gangway attempted to raise suspicion against him again in that House. Reference had been made to the evidence of Major Lloyd, the Home Office expert. His evidence went to establish that the window was open and not shut and that, therefore, the explosion took place from inside. There had been a good deal of declamation on the part of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway because the Judge did not accept his evidence; but what was the evidence on the other side? Every police officer—County-Inspector Jennings, County-Inspector Richards, District-Inspector Tweedle, all competent men against whose characters not a word could be said—contradicted Major Lloyd. Mr. Hargreave, of the firm of Hargreave and Curtis, of London, a gentleman who ought to be just as good a practical man as Major Lloyd, swore that the window was down and the shutters barred. A second expert from Glasgow, Mr. Hunter, who had been trading in gunpowder all his life, gave evidence absolutely the same way. Some of these experts were on the spot before Major Lloyd. The County-Surveyor of Tipperary, Mr. Hackett, and Mr. Scurry, all gave evidence agreeing that the window was down and the shutters barred. That absolutely knocked the bottom out of the structure on which this terrible charge was based, that the outrage was committed from the house. He thought, when the House considered all the circumstances, they would think it unfair that such a charge should have been made that night. So far as Lord Ashtown was concerned, he did not think any further inquiry was required. The proper place to investi-
616
gate a criminal charge was before the regular tribunals of the land with Judge and jury. If there should be an inquiry, then the proposals made were not adequate. There must also be an inquiry into the conduct of the subordinates who conducted the prosecution, and who made the statements containing that terrible charge against Lord Ashtown. The whole matter must be inquired into as to the inception of the charges and as to how the statement of 11th September, on which the hon. Members based their case, came into existence, and he moved an Amendment to secure that end.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he would not detain the House many minutes in seconding the Amendment. He would like to recapitulate very shortly to the House, because he thought it had for the moment forgotten, the sequence of events. The explosion, which formed the subject of that debate, took place on 14th August last. A few hours after the explosion a police-sergeant arrived and made a Report, to which he had no objection of any sort. Later in the day County-Inspector Jennings together with the county-inspector of the adjoining county and a district inspector arrived on the scene, carefully examined the results of the explosion, and one of them at least, Inspector Jennings, made a Report practically on the spot, which was forwarded to headquarters in Dublin. The police authorities in Dublin, for some reason or other, did not see fit to leave the investigation of the crime and the conduct of the case generally in the hands of any of the three officers, but telegraphed to District-Inspector Preston, who had been detached from his ordinary duty in Waterford for special duty in the North of Ireland, to come back and take charge of the case. He arrived on the scene of the explosion on 17th August, inspected it, got together all the information he could, and then telegraphed to headquarters asking for a personal interview, he presumed, with the Inspector-General, and also for the services of an expert in explosives. Both these requests were granted. The services of Captain Lloyd were given him, and he went to Dublin and interviewed, he presumed, the Inspector-General. That

617
information was contained in the first Report made on 7th September. Presumably after that interview he compiled the Report, which he supposed, in the ordinary routine of police business, was submitted to the Inspector-General before being handed over to the parties to the case. He was not in the slightest degree astonished, in fact, he would be astonished if it was otherwise, that the Inspector-General, or whoever read that Report, decided instantly that it was a Report which ought not to go any further. The reason was perfectly apparent why the Inspector-General did not wish, it to see the light of day. A subsequent document, founded upon it, was called by one of the Judges who tried the case an egregious document. If he had had an opportunity of reading the first Report of Inspector Preston, he could not conceive what adjective he would have applied to it. Of all the ridiculous documents that ever came from the hands of one who was supposed to be an impartial person giving a calm and reasoned statement of what he saw, there never was the equal of that first Report of Inspector Preston. The instructions to police officers in Ireland said that the statement which they were expected to furnish should—
"Have no relation to evidence which would indicate the views or suspicions of the police, but should simply be a record of the appearance presented by the scene when visited by the police."
Inspector Preston said in one place—
"A searching examination led me to form a very definite conclusion—"
—that was the first thing he had no right to say—
"That at the time the explosion occurred the window was wide open."
He had no right in the world to make any such suggestion as that.
"Secondly, that the shutters of the window were neither shut nor barred and the drawing room door was wide open."
Later on he said—
"In view of the statements of Graham and Curran on 17th August, and the facts as regarded the window, I drew the four conclusions which I reported personally at headquarters on 20th August, and which I now repeat as they practically amount to facts: (1) Strangers would have been deterred from a criminal intention on finding the window unexpectedly open; (2) Had the perpetrators intended to kill Lord Ashtown they would have been more likely to do so if they had put the bomb inside the room, which was simple when the window
618
was open;(3) To open the window shutters and door was calculated to minimise the damage by reducing the resistance (4) If Graham's and Curran's statements are correct the shutters must have been unfastened by someone from inside between 9.30 and the time of the explosion."
There were many more pecularities in that egregious document with which he need not trouble the House. Whatever authorities the Report came before, exercised a very wise discretion in deciding that it was not to be supplied to either party in the case. Another Report was furnished—a Report which was ostensibly founded on the Report from which he had read extracts, and that Report, although boiled down very considerably—he did not say in favour of Lord Ashtown, because there were several statements contained in the second which, had they been printed as they were originally made in the first, would certainly have been very much more in his favour, was sufficiently extraordinary to have had an instant effect when it was posted to the parties concerned in the case, one of them being the district council, which was the party against whom the action for malicious damage was brought. From one end of Ireland to the other, and in England also, to a very great number of people who read it the idea was at once borne home that Lord Ashtown was guilty of the abominable charge of trying to blow up his own house. Here was a document published and given a full week's start before any other document counteracting or minimising its effect in any way was sent out. For one week that document was allowed to have currency throughout the length and breadth of the land. He was not at the moment blaming anybody in particular for that. All he said was that that document having been published, the effect was that Lord Ashtown was looked upon, not only by hon. Members below the gangway, but by many persons in England probably with Unionist leanings, as the author of that vile deed. It was no wonder that they, the friends of Lord Ashtown, had taken a great interest in the matter and had scrutinised each step in its progress and everything connected with it. They were justified in doing so because the very first act of those responsible for the document was to throw, wittingly or unwittingly—and

619
it was very hard to believe they did it unwittingly—a very heavy cloud of suspicion over Lord Ashtown. Without going into details he maintained that Lord Ashtown had thrown all those suspicions off in the most conclusive manner, and that, according to the evidence given at the two trials, to every fair-minded man Lord Ashtown stood to-day absolutely absolved from any complicity in the crime. One of the chief questions brought up at the trials was as to whether a certain window was open or shut. There were two witnesses who said the window was open. One was District-Inspector Preston, whose opinion he did not suppose anybody claimed to be better than that of the three other police officers who examined the scene of the explosion. The other was Captain Lloyd. District-Inspector Preston in his evidence admitted that he accompanied Captain Lloyd to the scene of the explosion and went round with him, without having at the same time any representative on behalf of Lord Ashtown, and pointed out the shutters lying on the floor, the burning window-sash, etc., and explained to him his own theory as to the windows being open. That was a very curious and significant fact, and to his mind very largely minimised any weight that might be attached to Captain Lloyd's evidence. On the other hand, every other witness who examined the premises said he had no doubt in his mind that the window was shut, the shutters were barred, and the pot had been put on the window-sill by some person outside. Another significant fact was that he left out from his Report practically all the information with reference to what he saw under the tree some 60 or 70 yards away. When giving a full statement the inspector ought to have put down all he saw beneath that tree. In the first Report drawn up by Inspector Preston he did state all he saw under that tree, but in his second Report he only reported the part which told against Lord Ash-town. The two Judges before whom the case was tried both said in the most distinct terms that there was no jot of evidence to prove that Lord Ashtown or any one in his house had any part in the outrage.
MR. BELLOC: Both Judges were Unionist hacks.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's observation is most improper. In the first place it is an interruption which is not permissible, and in the second place it is grossly offensive. [Cries of "Withdraw."]
MR. BELLOC: I withdraw. [Cries of "Apologise."] And I apologise.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that he and his hon. friends would be failing in their duty if they did not try to elucidate the question and clear the character of Lord Ashtown. They welcomed, therefore, the opportunity again given to do their best to remove the unjust suspicion resting against Lord Ashtown, and in that he felt perfectly sure that they had been successful. And then as to the case of Minnie Walsh.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the Amendment was supposed to apply to the whole Resolution, and he understood that the idea of the mover of the Resolution was that if there was to be an inquiry the whole case of Minnie Walsh, as well as the case of Lord Ashtown, should be inquired into. As to the case of Minnie Walsh, he said that on two occasions it had been stated by the Attorney-General, on behalf of the Crown, that he had not made the slightest accusation against Lord Ashtown. Every letter that had passed between Lord Ashtown or his agent and this lady had been at once communicated to the police. ["No."] It was impossible to argue in the House of Commons a legal case which had been argued in Court and that was not the place to do it, but he stood by his statement that every letter which passed between Minnie Walsh and Lord Ashtown and his agent was handed to the police as soon as it was received. The whole thing was a job. Heaven knew by whom it was got up, and all he had to say was that the House and the country had the word of the Attorney-General for Ireland and the Chief Secretary that Lord Ashtown had no more to do with that outrage than he had.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 4, after the word 'last,' to insert the words 'including the action of the police

621
authorities, and all the circumstances connected with the preparation, contents, and circulation of the police reports, and of the statement of the 11th September, 1907, signed by District Inspector Peston relating thereto, and.'"—(Mr. Moore).
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. CHERRYsaid he was sorry he could not give way to the hon. Member for East Mayo, as there was not much time left and somebody must speak on behalf of the Government. The hon. and learned Member for North Armagh, who moved the Amendment now before the House, had done so in a speech of unusual length for a Wednesday evening debate, and another long speech had followed, the effect being to exclude a large number of hon. Members who desired to take part in the discussion. He proposed to take notice of one or two of the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh's remarks before he stated the case for the Government. The hon. and learned Member began his remarks by making some observations about Lord Ashtown being very unpopular, and he stated that because he was a Protestant he was unable to go about in the county of Waterford without the protection of a gun and the police. Personally that observation he certainly must resent very much, for he knew, and every person who came from Waterford or Galway knew, that no man would be attacked there because he was a Protestant.
MR. MOOREsaid he was being misrepresented. He stated that Lord Ash-town was unpopular because lie was a Member of a Protestant circle. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: You are a slanderer of Ireland.]
MR. CHERRYsaid the impression conveyed to him by the hon. and learned Member's remarks was that Lord Ash-town was unpopular and required the protection of firearms because he was a Protestant. That was a statement that he resented very much, because he was a native of the county and he knew no man who was attacked by reason of his being a Protestant, and the statement was directly traversed by the Report of County-Inspector Jennings, who was supposed to be the friend of Lord Ash-town. At the end of his Report, Inspector Jennings, dealing with the ques-
622
tion as to whether he thought the outrage had been committed by persons in the neighbourhood of Glenahiery, said that he did not believe that any of the native would countenance or conceive such an outrage, because Lord Ashtown had always been well-disposed towards his tenants, and appreciated by them as a landlord. The Inspector stated that Lord Ashtown was popular in the district, that there was no ground for suggesting that anybody in the neighbourhood committed the outrage, and that he was quite satisfied that those tenants who had been suspected of committing the outrage were quite incapable of carrying out such a plan. He had been able to trace satisfactorily the movement of several local persons whose names were suggested as being implicated. As he was trusted with a free hand in the case, he thought it hardly necessary or expedient to set forth in detail the methods adopted by him.
MR. DILLON: Would you read the opening part of the District-Inspector's second Report?
MR. CHERRYsaid the later Report contained the following—
"I visited the scene again yesterday and spent a considerable time in looking into matters in connection with my first visit. It was by no means clear what was the motive, or how or where the outrage was planned. The only point of which there is no doubt is that whoever placed the explosive engine had a thorough knowledge of the domestic arrangements."
A curious thing about the Report was that it was one of the documents which the Government were charged with suppressing. It was moved for by an hon. Gentleman opposite, and it was published at his request. The hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment had made some reference to the unpopularity of Lord Ashtown, and had gone on to say that he made no charge against the executive Government, his only charge being against the subordinates of the Government. Only the Government, however, were there to answer; the subordinates were away. After the last seven or eight months, during which, on the platform and in the Press, the Government had been charged with fraud and actual forgery in connection with the matter, he thought that was a cowardly attitude to take. The charges were made, among other places, in Court,

623
where the Government were not represented, and where a Member of that House, appearing as counsel for Lord Ashtown, turned what ought to have been the trial of a Civil matter into an attack on the Government as regarded their conduct of public affairs. When the Government came to the House prepared to face their accusers the charges were withdrawn. [An HON. MEMBER: Not withdrawn.] The hon. and learned Member, after formally withdrawing the charges, went on to make insinuations practically repeating the charges made in Ireland of falsifying reports and suppressing documents. [An HON. MEMBER: Who made the charges?] The charges were made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and by Lord Ashtown himself.
*MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid there was not one particle of truth in that statement. He never made any such charge against the Government until District-Inspector Preston stated to him in Waterford that he had but his name to this Report of the 11th under the coercion of the Inspector-General, that he did not believe the contents of it, and that, so far as he knew, the contents were false. When the District-Inspector said that, he replied—
"Very well. I withdraw any imputation against you, and the blame should rest on your superiors who compelled you to do this."
MR. CHERRYsaid the right hon. Gentleman addressed a meeting in Dublin on 28th November before the Primrose League, and in the Irish Times there was a full report, headed "Paralysis of the Law in Ireland." In that speech the right hon. Gentleman said that the circumstances would yet be brought to the light of day, and when revealed would form the most discreditable incident in the lifetime of the present tottering and discredited Government from whom might God grant them a speedy and happy deliverance. The right hon. Gentleman also addressed speeches to two Judges, and both speeches contained a violent attack on the Government, and totally disregarded the facts of the case he was supposed to be stating. What had been the action of the Government? The first they knew of the matter was on 11th September, when they heard In-
624
spector Preston's Report. It occurred to them that that Report contained a number of statements which were grossly compromising to Lord Ashtown. It also contained a number of statements which it occurred to his learned colleague and himself it was only fair that Lord Ashtown should know before the hearing before the County Court Judge, but they were anxous also to protect him from statements which were not direct evidence, but only hearsay evidence, obtained by Inspector Preston from his subordinates. They therefore directed the inspector to prepare a statement of the facts giving only the facts to which he could himself depose and excluding any inference from the statements of other parties. He obeyed that instruction to the best of his ability, and ally person who could say that that second document was cooked or prepared for the purpose of injuring Lord Ashtown said what was absolutely contrary to the facts, For eight months the Government had been attacked on the platform with a violence seldom equalled even, in the busy politics of Ireland. When certain documents were published Members of the House, friends of Lord Ashtown, suggested that there were other documents more friendly to Lord Ashtown, and asked that they should be published. Now that the Papers were in the hands of hon. Members, he would ask anybody to say whether the papers which were published or those which the Government were accused of suppressing were the more fair to Lord Ashtown. Absolutely unfounded as the charges were against the Government—and he believed hon. Gentlemen opposite knew them to be unfounded, although they had not the courage to withdraw them—they were still more unfounded, if that could be possible, against the permanent officials Sir Neville Chamberlain and Sir Antony MacDonnell. Both were gentlemen high in the service, and both were incapable of dishonourable conduct. [An HON MEMBER: "What about the inquiry?"] It would be impossible to hold an inquiry which would be of any real use. The only power the Government had was to appoint a Vice-Regal Commission, and that Commission would have no power to compel the attendance of witnesses, or to administer an oath. The

625
only alternative would be to have a special Act of Parliament passed, and with the amount of business before the House now it would be utterly impossible to pass a Bill for the purpose of setting up a fresh tribunal with the requisite powers. In a case of this kind, where there was such a conflict of testimony and such serious charges made, it was highly undesirable that anybody should be examined before a tribunal no0t empowered to administer the oath. Therefore he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment.
MR. DILLON: Before we go to a division I only wish to say we are for an inquiry. The one point made plain by this debate is that hon. Members above the gangway are afraid of an inquiry.
MR. MOOREasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. WALTER LONG: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I would like to say that it is impossible
for us to reply to the speech of the. Attorney-General, which I may say was not the most fortunate speech under the circumstances, and in view of what has fallen from the hon. Member for East Mayo, I have only to say that throughout the whole of this matter we have contended that any inquiry ought to be complete and thorough, and I entirely agree that an inquiry other than by oath would be ridiculous and a farce. In these circumstances, so far as Lord Ashtown is concerned, we maintain that he ought to be defended from the bench opposite in the face of the fact that the inquiries which have already been held have cleared him. If a special Act of Parliament were to be passed in this case, there are many other matters which would have to be dealt with.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 110; Noes, 137. (Division List No. 66.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Doherty, Philip

Ambrose, Robert

Hazleton, Richard

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Dowd, John

Barnes, G. N.

Hodge, John

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Hogan, Michael

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hudson, Walter

O'Malley, William

Boland, John

Jowett, F. W.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Bowerman, C. W.

Joyce, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Kekewich, Sir George

O'Shee, James John

Byles, William Pollard

Kelley, George D.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Power, Patrick Joseph

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Reddy, M.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Kilbride, Denis

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Crean, Eugene

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Crooks, William

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Delany, William

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Devlin, Joseph

Lundon, W.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Dillon, John

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Seddon, J.

Duffy, William J.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Shackleton, David James

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Sheehy, David

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Ffrench, Peter

M'Kean, John

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

M'Killop, W.

Summerbell, T.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Meagher, Michael

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Fletcher, J. S.

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

Wadsworth, J.

Flynn, James Christopher

Mooney, J. J.

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Muldoon, John

Walsh, Stephen

Gilhooly, James

Murnaghan, George

Watt, Henry A.

Gill, A. H.

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Wilkie, Alexander

Glover, Thomas

Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Grayson, Albert Victor

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Nolan, Joseph

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Hall, Frederick

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Halpin, J.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Captain Donelan and Mr.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Connor, T.P. (Liverpool)

Patrick O'Brien.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Findlay, Alexander

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Agnew, George William

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Nicholls, George

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Fullerton, Hugh

Norman, Sir Henry

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Barker, John

Hart-Davies, T.

Radford, G. H.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Rees, J. D.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Rendall, Athelstan

Beale, W. P.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Beck, A. Cecil

Hedges, A. Paget

Ridsdale, E. A.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Helme, Norval Watson

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Bennett, E. N.

Higham, John Sharp

Robinson, S.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Roe, Sir Thomas

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

Rowlands, J.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Horniman, Emslie John

Runciman, Walter

Bramsdon, T. A.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Russell, T. W.

Bright, J. A.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hyde, Clarendon

Sears, J. E.

Bryce, J. Annan

Illingworth, Percy H.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Simon, John Allsebrook

Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight

Jardine, Sir J.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Chance, Frederick William

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Laidlaw, Robert

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Clough, William

Lambert, George

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lamont, Norman

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Thompson, J.W.H (Somerset, E.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Tomkinson, James

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

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Toulmin, George

Cory, sir Clifford John

Lough, Thomas

Walters, John Tudor

Cowan, W. H.

M'Callum, John M.

Waring, Walter

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

M'Crae, George

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Crosfield, A. H.

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Whitbread, Howard

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

Massie, J.

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Dobson, Thomas W.

Menzies, Walter

Wiles, Thomas

Duckworth, James

Micklem, Nathaniel

Williamson, A.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Middlebrook, William

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Mond, A.

Winfrey, R.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Montagu, E. S.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Montgomery, H. G.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Everett, R. Lacey

Morse, L. L.

J. A. Pease and Mr. Herbert

Fenwick, Charles

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Lewis.

Question put, and agreed to.

FERRIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
CHILDREN [EXPENSES].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred under any Act of the present session to consolidate and amend the Law relating to the Protection of Children and Young Persons (King's Recommendation signified), Tomorrow—(Mr. Pease.)

LOTTERIES AND ADVERTISEMENTS.
Lords Message [25th March], relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee
628
on Lotteries and Advertisements, considered.
Ordered, That a Select Committee of Five Members be appointed to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords to inquire into the law:—(1) as to lotteries, including the sale of lottery bonds, competitions for prizes which involve an element of chance, and advertisements relating there to (2) as to indecent literature and pictures and advertisements relating to things indecent or immoral; and to report what Amendments, if any, in the law are necessary or desirable.
The Committee was accordingly nominated of:—Mr. Beckett, Mr. Herbert

629
Craig, Mr. Hastings Duncan, Mr. O'Malley and Mr. Henry Joseph Wilson.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Three be the quorum.
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—(Mr. George Whiteley.)

DUBLIN STEAMBOAT SERVICE.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the House do now adjourn."
MR. CLANCY: I desire to put a question either to the Chief Secretary for Ireland or the Postmaster-General with reference to a very curious, if not a very serious, state of things which has arisen at Kingstown Harbour in connection with the mail service, and the permission given to the London and North Western Railway Company to use the Carlisle Pier at that place. Two telegrams have been handed to me in the course of the evening. The first says—
"When "Ulster" landing mails and passengers, Harbour Master's representative attempted by force to prevent the ship's rope being let go, and in doing so assaulted company's packet porter in charge of the rope. Attempt was un successful, and vessel swung and got into her usual berth. Will wire any further information."
The second telegram read—
"Harbour Master has issued notice to Captain Birch to move ship to buoy."
I presume away from the pier.
"He will not, of course, comply. If he did morning mail could not go out, and company would be liable to heavy penalties. Shall wire again if anything transpires."
The question I have to put is whether either of the right hon. Gentlemen have any information on the subject, and whether they can confirm, deny, or explain these statements. If they cannot do so, will they take immediate steps to ascertain the exact state of things at Kingstown? It must be perfectly obvious to the Postmaster-General that if the mail steamers are not allowed to remain at their usual berths, they will not be able to comply with the contracts into which they have entered with His Majesty's Government, and, I suppose, in that case, the Postmaster-General will hardly put the company to the cost of an action to recover the heavy penalties for which they are liable by
630
any failure to deliver the mails in time. I cannot say anything more on the subject now, but it is quite obvious from what I have read that a serious state of things has arisen, and that possibly we are only at the commencement of a state of things still more serious. I must say that, for my own part, I have convinced myself that the action of the Government and the Treasury in coming to this arrangement with the London and North Western Company, which has led to the state of things mentioned in these telegrams, is a most important one for the Port of Dublin. It has robbed the Port of Dublin of £5,000 a year, and that is a thing which the Postmaster-General, the Chief Secretary, and the Secretary to the Treasury may take from me will be debated in this House on every possible opportunity.
MR. MOONEY: Before any reply is given, I should like to say I also have received a telegram in connection with the same matter. It reads as follows—
"When "Ulster" was moving into her berth to start to-morrow morning a notice was received from the Harbour Master ordering her master not to move the vessel from her present moorings without authority. Captain Birch disregarded the order. Had he obeyed it the "Ulster" would have sustained serious damage at low water, and been unable to take out the the mails to-morrow morning, in all probability. When one of the packet porters was ordered to throw the rope off the bollard to move the ship, Superintendent Talbot ordered him to desist, and arrested him for not obeying the order. The superintendent informed the managing director, who was present, he would take bail, and accordingly Mr. Watson proceeded to the police station to give the required security.—Watson."
The Postmaster-General ought to have that information before he makes any statement.
MR. T. M. HEALY: This is an attempt by the Treasury to hold the King's mails exactly comparable to the case in which a postboy in Galway is carrying the King's writs to put the people out of their cabins, and in which the people sometimes assemble, seize the postman, and destroy the writs. They do that to save their lives and their cabins. The Treasury, which is now supreme in all, are doing this in order to save a few ducats. What I want to know is this, Are we governed by the Treasury or by the King? Who is in command of the police? Why are the

631
King's officers lent in a dispute pending in London in the King's Court, where a Petition of Right is being tried on this question? Why should the Chief Secretary lend the armed forces to take one side in this dispute? Really the time has come when we shall have to take the Treasury thugs by the throat. They seem to be superior to the law. We will have to take some stand with reference to this Treasury action. I do not care who is right or who is wrong in the matter. There is at this moment pending in London a matter in which it must be declared, "Let right be done" That is signed by the King, and here are vessels getting a subsidy of £1,000,000 for twenty years, and the Treasury see the chance of saving a few hundreds with the London and North Western, which swindles Dublin out of £5,000 a year, and the Treasury, in order to promote this sordid arrangement, break in upon every tradition of the law, and actually get the Chief Secretary to lend the Dublin police, for which the city of Dublin is paying £40,000 a year, to swindle Dublin out of £5,000 a year. Is Ireland governed by a Treasury clerk or by a Cabinet Minister? The insolence of this body will have to be put down. We will have to have a separate Department to deal with Irish affairs. That is not "separatism." We will have to have a Select Committee to inquire into the Treasury conduct. We will not allow a single action of the Treasury to go forward without inquiry. As for the Post Office, they have always been the slaves of the Treasury, because they are dependent upon them; but Ireland is supposed to have an independent Minister, and here we have the fact of the Chief Secretary lending his police to take part in this dispute. He has, in my opinion, vindicated the action of the Galway peasants, who seize the postboy who is carrying writs.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,)The hon. Member told me that he would raise the question on the adjournment. The telegrams were not then in my possession, I had no such information myself. I have no doubt the information contained in them will be conveyed to the Treasury, and to me, in the morning, and meanwhile, I am sure the House would not expect me to give any expression of
632
opinion with reference to it now. I would remind the House that the whole question is sub judice—
MR. T. M. HEALY: Then why call the police?
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The question being sub judice, the point remains: upon which side action should be taken? The whole matter is a very difficult and delicate one to deal with, and of course, my interest in it, as Postmaster-General, is in the effective carrying of the mails. To-morrow, no doubt, I shall have full in formation upon the subject.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that he will make inquiry by telegraph, so as to be in a position give us information at question time to-morrow.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. BIRRELL,): I may say I have lent no police to any one. I have heard of this matter now for the first time, and it was only when the telegram was read I became acquainted with it. I will also make inquiries by telegram.
MR. MOONEY: If the right hon. Gentleman finds that what has been stated is correct will he order the immediate release of the porter?
MR. BIRRELL: I will do what I can.
MR. CLANCY: I will to-morrow put, Questions both to the Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General with regard to this question.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why any official has dared to take any such action without consulting him?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): I wish to say on behalf of myself and the Treasury, that the first I heard of this matter was at five minutes to eleven. As far as the Kingstown harbour is concerned we will never consent to its being under the control of any private company.
MR. T. M. HEALY: That is not the question
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Honourable Artillery Company.—Petition of the Honourable Artillery Company, under their Common Seal, praying for leave to bring in a Bill to appoint special trustees in regard to certain land and premises of the Honourable Artillery Company, and for other purposes, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
Cardiff Railway Bill [H.L.]; Argentine North Eastern Railway Bill [H.L.]; St. Marylebone Borough Council (Super-annuation) Bill [H.L.].—Reported, with Amendments.
Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Water Board Bill.—Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Derby Gas Bill.—Read 2a, and committed.
Stockport Corporation Bill.—Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Pontypridd Water Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Aire and Calder Navigation Bill [H.L.]; Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan District Railway Bill [H.L.]; Rochester Bridge Bill [H.L.]; Stratford-upon-Avon, Towcester, and Midland Junction Railway, Evesham, Redditch, and Stratford-upon-Avon Junction Railway, and East and West Junction Railway (Amalgamation) Bill [H.L.]; Barry Railway Bill [H.L.]; Monmouthshire County Council Bill [H.L.]; Stockport Corporation Bill.—Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select
446
Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.):—

M. Anglesey,

E. Hardwicke,

L. Dunboyne,

L. Seaton,

L. Newton (Chairman);

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday, 12th May next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
Bristol Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Bristol Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Keighley Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Wath-upon-Dearne Urban District Council Gas Bill [H.L.]; Ravensthorpe Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill [H.L.]; Leith Burgh Bill [H.L.]; Ammanford Urban District Council Water Bill [H.L.]; Llanelly and Burry Port Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Water Board Bill—Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.:—

E. Carnwath,

E. Verulam,

E. Liverpool,

V. Hill,

L. Ludlow (Chairman);

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 12th of May next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3965. Venezuela (Ciudad Bolivar).
  No. 3966. Russia.

  POLICE (SCOTLAND).
  Fiftieth Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, for the year ended 31st December, 1907.

  CROFTERS HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS, 1886–1887.
  Report by the Crofters Commission, for the year ended 31st December, 1907.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  JOURNAL COMMITTEE.
  Report from, that the One hundred and thirty-ninth Volume of the Journals (7th and 8th Edward VII., 1907–1908), with an Index, was ready for delivery; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and the said Volume ordered to be delivered in the same manner as the preceding Volumes of the Journal have been delivered.
NEW BILL.
  COMPANIES CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to consolidate the Companies Act, 1862, and the Acts amending it—Was presented by the Lord Granard (E. Granard); read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 44.)
MOVABLE DWELLINGS BILL [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, this Bill deals with a subject to deal with which several attempts have been made. The leading principles of the Bill are few, and, at first sight, I think, almost incontrovertible. The first of those principles is that it is inequitable that movable dwellings should be entirely outside the sanitary, social, and educational laws which govern stationary buildings; and the second is that, as far as possible, each movable dwelling should have some one authority which should be responsible for its compliance with the regulations. The Bill has been carefully restricted to dwellings which are in their nature
  448
  movable, or which are, in point of fact, generally in the habit of being moved about. A building which, for any lengthened time, is in one particular spot might very safely be left to be dealt with by the sanitary and educational machinery which at present exists.
  I will touch briefly on the history of this legislation. In 1877 an Act was passed for regulating boats that ply up and down the canals, and it is upon that measure that the present Bill is modelled. In 1885 there was a Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, and that Commission dealt with the subject as it is dealt with in this Bill. The Commission recommended that—
  "The local authorities should be given jurisdiction over dwellings of this class by means of the extension of their power by statute to all habitations, and the powers given in Section 23 of the Public Health Act (drainage) should be extended to any hut or tent and to any cart used for sleeping which remains for more than two nights within 200 yards of the same spot. The recommendations of your Majesty's Commissioners are made for the benefit of the neighbourhood in which van towns are situated as well as in the interests of the settlers themselves."
  An Act for the Housing of the Working Classes was passed in 1885, and, among other provisions, there is one very excellent provision from the sanitary point of view from which great good was expected, but which we have every reason to suppose has, in a great many instances, been singularly inoperative, for reasons which I will shortly point out Section 9 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885, provides that—
  "9. (1) A tent, van, shed, or similar structure used for human habitation, which is in such a state as to be a nuisance or injurious to health; (a) or which is so overcrowded as to be injurious to the health of the inmates whether or not members of the same family, shall be deemed to be a nuisance within the meaning of Section ninety-one of the Public Health Act, 1875; and the provisions of that Act shall apply accordingly; (b) (2) A sanitary authority may make bye-laws (c) for promoting cleanliness in, and the habitable condition of, tents, vans, sheds, and similar structures used for human habitation, and for preventing the spread of infectious disease by the persons inhabiting the same and generally for the prevention of nuisances in connection with the same (d)."
  The difficulty that arises is this, that when these wanderers infringe the bye-laws of a local authority and their attention is

  449
  called to the fact, they adopt the simple expedient of moving into the area of another local authority where they wait until again detected in their malpractices. It would, therefore, seem to be necessary that there should be some one authority to which these dwellings should belong, an authority which could make regulations for them and enforce those regulations, by taking away, if necessary, the certificate in right of which they move about the country.
  A Committee of the House of Commons sat upon a Bill introduced in another place in 1887, and Sir Hugh Owen, who was appearing for the Local Government Board, said—
  "I think it is very likely that before the summons was served the van would be outside the jurisdiction of the justices."
  That is practically what, in practice, is found generally to happen. Another difficulty which has arisen is that it is impossible to expect a van dweller to be acquainted with the multiplicity of bye-laws. Giving evidence before the same Committee, Sir Hugh Owen said—
  "It would be unbearable that a man who can pass within ten minutes out of one district into another should be subject to varying provisions of bye-laws."
  The Bill of 1887 was not proceeded with. With regard to bye-laws, the Local Government Board have rightly objected to sanction varying bye-laws for various districts. Sir Hugh Owen told the Committee in 1887 that up to that time the only bye-laws to which the Local Government Board had given their assent were those of Battersea, and I do not think many have been sanctioned since. Middlesex, however, a couple of years ago obtained a provision in a private Act which enabled them to deal with movable dwellings. The effect of that Clause is that where a movable dwelling is occupying land within fifty yards of a public highway or dwelling, so as to cause injury to the residents or to be a nuisance, or dangerous, or injurious to health, the local authority may complain, and the council may make an Order; but an exception was made in favour of vans frequenting fairs.
  I now come to the Bill before your Lordships. Clause 1 has for its object, first, the registration of all movable
  450
  dwellings, and this registration is committed to counties and county boroughs. The object of restricting the registration authorities to these two bodies is that they are, as a rule, the educational authorities of the district. They are not too numerous, and therefore, we avoid the difficulty which I mentioned a moment ago of a great multiplicity of regulations. They also cover fairly large areas. Clause 2 provides for the making of regulations for the registration Of movable dwellings, for the lettering, marking, and numbering of such dwellings, and for registering the number, age, and sex of the persons who may be allowed to use a movable dwelling as a place of abode, having regard to cubic space, ventilation, provision for the separation of the sexes, and general healthiness and convenience of accommodation. I might remark here that I admit there is no necessity for those regulations being so stringent in their nature as in the case of permanent dwellings in towns for instance, regulations with regard to cubic space which are eminently suited too lodging houses may be somewhat too stringent when applied to a van in the open air. The clause also enables regulations to be made for promoting cleanliness in and providing for the habitable condition of movable dwellings, and for preventing nuisances, fire, and the spread of infectious disease. Clause 3 defines the registration authority, and Clause 4 deals with the certificate of registry. Clause 5 is somewhat on the lines of that in the Middlesex Act. It provides that—
  "Where it appears to the registration authority that the encampment of occupiers of movable dwellings on any specified place or places within their area would be dangerous to the public health, or constitute a nuisance to the neighbourhood, the registration authority may by bye-law prohibit such encampment on such specified place or places; and any person acting in contravention of any bye-law made under this section shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
  This clause goes, perhaps, a little further than the principles I have enunciated, because it deals not only with vans halting on common land but with movable dwellings on private land or on land leased or hired; and it seems to me that this is reasonable on the analogy of the building bye-laws and other sanitary

  451
  provisions, which are equally applicable to tile owners of private and public lands.
  Clause 6 provides for the making of regulations with a view to enforcing the law relating to school attendance in the case of children resident in movable dwellings. This is a clause on which, I think, great stress ought to be laid, for I am informed that in many instances these children almost entirely evade the Education Acts. It is not so much that the machinery which at present exists is insufficient to deal with these abuses, as that the inhabitants of these dwellings are able to evade supervision altogether owing to the control of movable dwellings being assigned to no one authority. Another difficulty, of course, is that the education bye-laws differ in various districts, and there is also a very strong objection to these children being admitted casually. If, however, they were under some one authority that authority would be able to insist on these people making provision for the education of their children and if they failed they would be able to enforce their authority by withdrawing the certificate upon which depended the movability of the dwelling. In subsection (2) of Clause 6 there is a provision that it shall not be deemed to be a reasonable excuse that there is not within three miles of the movable dwelling a public elementary school. The reason for that, of course, is that it would be very easy for the owner of a movable dwelling to halt on some distant moor far from any school, and so entirely evade the Act. Clause 7 applies statutory provisions relating to legal proceedings and the forgery of certificates. Clause 8 provides that—
  "It shall be the duty of the sanitary authority having jurisdiction in the place where a movable dwelling is for the time being situate to assist the registration authority in carrying out the objects of this Act by giving information and otherwise."
  There is a clause in the Government's Children Bill which appears rather to touch upon this point—Clause 107; but it seems to me to be directed to the sending of truant children to industrial schools and rather supposes them to be tramping about with people with no regular occupation and no regular dwelling. I submit that this falls very
  452
  far short of what we are aiming at—namely, that there shall be one authority responsible for the proper education of these children. If, however, the Government think that these educational clauses had better be left until we come to consider the Children Bill. I should not object. The definition clause leaves out temporary dwellings such as dwellings for hop-pickers and others, because they are not in the habit of being moved to any very great distance, and can be easily dealt with by the local authority in whose area they are placed. In conclusion, I have only to say that I am far from not having sympathy with those who live an open-air life; but I confess I can see no reason why, in matters of education and sanitation, they should not be subject to the same social regulation as others.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, I think the House ought to be greatly indebted to my noble friend for bringing forward this Bill. I had a great deal to do with the provisions dealing with children in canal boats in the year 1877, and I had the honour of serving or the Royal Commission in 1885 to which the noble Lord alluded. I can assure your Lordships that there is a real grievance which requires a remedy. When these people infringe the bye-laws of a local authority and are attempted to be dealt with, they move out of the jurisdiction of that authority and are consequently very difficult to get at. Without committing myself to the actual wording of the clauses, some of which, I think, will require considerable amendment I hope that, on the whole, the Bill will commend itself to the favourable consideration of His Majesty's Government. The point as to whether the education clauses should be maintained in this Bill or inserted in the Children Bill is one on which I care nothing, so long as these provisions are enacted. I know that there is a real evil to be dealt with, and I trust that the Bill will be read a second time.
  LORD FARRER: My Lords, I rise to support the Bill. I happen to live

  453
  in the County of Surrey, where this grievance is assuming proportions of enormous magnitude. I can remember the commons of Surrey being entirely free from vans and gipsies. One-tenth of that county is common land, and it is of enormous importance to keep the lungs of London free. Whereas it was formerly possible to enjoy those commons, they are now infested with tramps and gipsies of very description. The Census of 1901 showed that there were 634 persons sleeping in these vans on the night of the Census, and there were a very large number of tramps and nomads. These people pay no rates, no education is provided for their children, and the honest cottager who lives on the land detests these people in a way that would probably surprise your Lordships.
  We all have some sympathy for the picker-up of unconsidered trifles, but the old-fashioned gipsies are rapidly dying out, and the commons of Surrey are now infested with tramps and nomads to such an extent that a real and serious evil exists. One day last summer I found, on a marsh close to where I live, sixteen vans, with thirty-two children of school age who were attending no school at all and were being brought up in a most miserable condition. Two Sundays ago I was walking on the downs between Dorking and Guildford, and found twelve families camping there with about seventeen barefooted children in an almost savage condition. Last year alone there were three confinements in vans on Leith Hill Common, and at a recent meeting of the Dorking Board of Guardians attention was called to the terrible conditions under which medical men had to attend these cases. No satisfactory or decent preparation was made, and it was declared that the only satisfactory solution of the question lay in fresh legislation. Under the law as it stands sanitary authorities are quite powerless to deal with the evil.
  The education authorities are also powerless to deal with these children. I was informed by a county councillor that the reason for a great number of gipsies infesting a particular common was that the schools in the neighbourhood were quite full, and they knew they could not in those circumstances be compelled to
  454
  send their children. An attempt was made in another case at Reigate to get the police to interfere, but the chief constable replied—
  "I beg to acknowledge your letter relative to the existence of contagious skin disease which you consider was probably introduced by the gipsies in the neighbourhood. This appears to be a matter to which the sanitary authorities should give attention. Only the Lord of the Manor can remove gipsies from waste land. I cannot instruct the police to remove them. I am sorry I cannot help you.
  We are, therefore, powerless to deal with this matter under the present law, and I sincerely hope the Bill now before your Lordships will be accepted. I might add that we have managed to get rid of some of these people through the great powers which the Thames Conservancy possess. They have power, under their Act, to deal with all the watersheds of the Thames and it is extremely important that the water supply of London should be kept pure and clean. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I have been rather surprised at the approval with which this Bill has been received. There is a tendency to too much registration and too much lettering and numbering in the Bill, and I think the reasons which have just been given apply not so much to this particular Bill as to some method for abolishing these vans and gipsies altogether, because there is nothing in the Bill which would prevent the greater part of the evils referred to by the noble Lord who had just sat down. As long as vans and tents are registered, they will be still permitted. Of course, I recognise that there is a good deal to be said for the children obtaining the necessary education, although, on the other hand, I am not at all sure that any great harm would be done to them if a considerable portion of their youth were spent on open commons instead of in public elementary schools. If your Lordships will look at Clause 14 you will see that the definition of the expression "movable dwelling" includes more than insanitary and overcrowded gipsy vans. It includes—
  "Tents and other structures capable of being moved front place to place"

  455
  So that boating parties on the Thames who took with them tents which they could erect on places where camping was allowed would be required to have their tents registered and numbered, and would have to receive a certificate as to the number, age, and sex of the persons who could use them. That seems to me to be carrying interference with people camping out in the summer farther than is necessary. It was, and, so far as I know, still is a habit for people sometimes to spend a portion of the summer in caravans and dwellings which are pulled about by horses—people who keep the interior of those dwellings in a very habitable condition. It is true that it will not be any very great nuisance to them to observe the provisions of this Bill, but it seems to me an unnecessary interference with persons who are doing no harm. Indeed, the effect of this Bill will be to create a large number of offences out of acts which are at present perfectly innocent. Persons who combined together to enjoy a trip through the country in a caravan or went up the river in order to camp out on the banks would apparently come within the scope of the provisions, and in my view this would be carrying registration further than is necessary. The Bill will need amendment in Committee so as not to cause unnecessary inconvenience. It would, I think, be very simple to give some control over both the education of the children and the sanitary provisions of the dwellings without requiring all these elaborate precautions as to registration and cetificates. I do not know how the certificate is intended to work as to the number, age, and sex of the persons using the dwelling. Suppose four undergraduates go for a trip in a caravan. Would the licence in that case be for four men? If a man took his wife for a trip would he have to get a different licence, and another later on if he took his sister with him? I submit that the Bill interferes far more than is necessary to secure the purpose of the promoters. But the root objection appears to be to the class of nomads as nomads. That is a natural objection on the part of those who are not nomads. But this Bill does nothing to do away with them; it will only harass them, and it will harass them to a greater extent than is needed

  456
  for attaining the objects which are stated to be those for which the Bill is promoted.
  *LORD ALLENDALE: My Lords, I have no doubt that the general objects aimed at in the Bill evoke the sympathy of your Lordships, but I am doubtful whether the provisions are altogether workable and will secure the desired object. The Local Government Board, however, have no wish to oppose the Bill at this stage. A Bill with a similar object was introduced in the House of Commons in 1889, but a greal deal of opposition was aroused on the part of showmen and others of the van-dwelling fraternity, and the Bill did not make progress. Movable dwellings have also been the subject of legislation. Section 9 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885, applies the provisions of the Public Health Act, with respect to nuisances to tents, vans, and similar structures used for human habitation, that are in such a state as to be dangerous or injurious to health. Urban and rural district councils have already powers to make bye-laws for promoting cleanliness in, and the habitable condition of, such structures, and for preventing nuisances and the spread of infectious disease in connection with them; and the Local Government Board have from time to time framed a series of model clauses for the use of councils who wish to make such bye-laws. Then there is the Infectious Diseases (Notification). Act of 1889, which applies to van and tent dwellers in the cases of infectious-disease.
  This Bill seems to be the result of views held in some quarters, and notably, I believe, by the County Councils Association, who passed a Resolution last year in favour of legislation on the subject, existing provisions being insufficient. In regard to regulations, this Bill appears to follow the lines of the Canal Boat Act. Canal boats are a special type of dwelling, and, from the very nature of the case, are restricted to the waterways of the country. It is obvious, therefore, that they can be much more easily registered and controlled than movable dwellings such as have been described to your Lordships to-day. It does not follow

  457
  that a system of registration applicable to canal boats is necessarily applicable to vans, and much less so to tents. If we only had vans to deal with, they might, perhaps, be made capable of registration and supervision; gipsies not only use vans but cleverly-constructed tents, which are suitable for their purpose, but which it would be almost impossible to register; and if it were made illegal to occupy these, large numbers of gipsies and other persons connected with travelling shows, would have to cease their present form of existence. Perhaps some of your Lordships—and I think we had an indication of that in the speech of Lord Farrer—would not regret that, but it has not been part of the general public policy of the country hitherto, and if this policy were to be adopted, I think it would be better that it should be done by a more direct enactment.
  As I have said, the provisions of the Bill with regard to registration are not quite appropriate to structures such as have been referred to, and when the Bill goes into Committee it will need a good deal of amendment in that respect. The definition clause, to which reference has been made, will also require amendment. The Local Government Board consider that the scope of the regulations which the Board would be called upon to make under Clause 2 is much wider than is desirable. As drafted, the Bill would appear to include tents used by people who prefer to camp out in the summer by the river and elsewhere, whom it would be difficult to register. As to general sanitary control, Section 9 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885, authorises urban and rural district councils to make bye-laws as to cleanliness, the habitable condition of the dwellings, and the prevention of nuisances generally; and bye-laws made by 179 authorities have been sanctioned by the Local Government Board. The Board consider that some of the matters comprised in Clause 2 would be very difficult to deal with—such, for instance, as the separation of the sexes and the prevention of fire. The Local Government Board are disposed to think that Section 9 of the Act of 1885 goes as far as is reasonably practicable
  458
  in controlling movable dwellings, and that if general regulations as distinguished from local bye-laws are needed, it would be better to make general regulations under that section than to proceed as proposed by Clause 4 of this Bill.
  Clauses 6 and 7 have reference to the question of education, which would be more properly dealt with by my noble friend the Lord President of the Council; but I may, perhaps, observe that this matter will no doubt receive consideration in connection with the Children Bill which is being discussed in another place to-day. As to Clause 8, which makes it the duty of the sanitary authority to assist in carrying out the object of the Bill, there does not seem to be any objection; but Clause 9, authorising county and borough councils to make bye-laws to prohibit encampments in specified places, will certainly require amendment. So also will Clauses 10 and 11, especially if the earlier clauses to which I have alluded are amended. While in the opinion of the Local Government Board the Bill goes rather further than seems desirable, the Government nevertheless are not prepared to offer any objections to the Second Reading, but hope a reasonable time will be allowed to elapse before the Committee stage, when the Government will themselves propose Amendments.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board, although somewhat critical in his speech as regards the details of the Bill, will offer no opposition to the Second Reading. I should not have thought it necessary to make any remarks after the full account which was given of the provision of the Bill by my noble friend Lord Clifford in moving the Second Reading; but I should like to mention that the Bill has been promoted by the County Councils Association in consequence of the very serious representations which have been made, not only by the county to which my noble friend Lord Farrer referred, the county of Surrey, in which there are a very large number of these movable dwellings, but by a large number of other counties in England. The noble Lord who spoke

  459
  on behalf of His Majesty's Government referred us to a great many clauses which are supposed to be of some value in regulating movable dwellings. But as a matter of fact the difficulty is that the moment a sanitary authority or any authority steps in and tries to exercise jurisdiction, the people immediately move their vans or tents to a neighbourhood where the authorities are not so active. We want to prevent these scandals in some way. I do not know what the Local Government Board intend to propose; but unless there is, I will not say some form of registration as that seems to be objected to, but, at all events, some means whereby you can lay your hand on these people and prevent them evading the law, no legislation will be effective. Without that the provisions of this Act, if it passes into law, will be just as useless as the provisions referred to by Lord Allendale. In the county of Surrey alone there is a very large population living in movable dwellings—I think between 1,500 and 2,000; and of the 340 children only forty are attending school. That is a serious state of things, and one to which I think we have a right to ask the Government to assist us in putting a stop. I have not the past objection to the criticisms which have been made, because they were all criticisms of the drafting. As long as the principle is admitted we shall be only too glad to meet the Government in regard to the details. As to the penalties in the Bill, let me say that if you are going to enforce the law you must have penalties. It is necessary on moral, educational, and sanitary grounds to get control over these people in sonic way, and I hope that when we get into Committee a serious attempt will be made to enable those councils who wish to deal with these people to enforce education on the children and to regulate the sanitary arrangements.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord who has just spoken on behalf of the county councils should have given a little further stimulus to attention being devoted to this matter than would have been afforded by the rather luke-warm support extended to the Bill on behalf of His Majesty's
  460
  Government. I am perfectly certain that this is a matter which requires very urgent attention, not merely on sanitary, but on moral and educational grounds. It was my duty, all the time I was Bishop of Winchester, to deal with this subject in connection with the migratory folk living in the New Forest and the similar nomads who frequent the commons in the county of Surrey. The problem is an exceedingly baffling and difficult one, and for that reason it is apt to be left to solve itself. The evil is increasing; there are more dwellers of a vagrant type living as permanent campers-out than was the case some years ago. That is the case, not mainly in the sparsely populated parts, but in the regions where the ordinary population is increasing. The explanation I suggest is that some of these movable dwellers are not entirely free from a predatory inclination, and they are happier where there are houses and people than where they are far removed from human habitation. I am particularly apprehensive lest the question of the children should be found to suffer by falling between two stools. This question lies on the margin both of the Children Bill now before the other House and of the Bill now brought before your Lordships; and those charged with the one Bill may be apt in each case to throw off the responsibility on those charged with the other. I hope the question is not going to be treated as of comparatively small importance. It is one which eminently deserves the kind of consideration which this Bill endeavours to give to it. Some of the clauses appear to me to be better calculated to do their work than the critics suppose, and I hope the matter will continue to receive the attention of your Lordships.
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, the most rev. Primate and the noble Lord opposite both seemed to think that my noble friend who answered for the Government had thrown a certain degree of cold water on the Bill; but so far as he did, they, I think, supplied good reasons, for they both admitted the really exceptional difficulty of the subject; and when a subject of this kind is a very difficult one, it is necessary

  461
  for those in charge of the Government Department which will have to administer any measure which may be passed to point out the difficulties which beset its administration if it becomes law. The real difficulty of the subject is—I think it has appeared from the speeches made in the course of the debate—that there is a considerable number of people who would like practically to prohibit the existence of this nomadic population altogether. We often pass these people on the roads, and we look at them with interest, not always, I am bound to say, without a certain degree of envy; and when the conditions under which they live, as regards sanitation and other matters, are spoken of, I think it is only fair to compare them, not with people who live in comfortable houses under good sanitary conditions, but with those who live in the slums of the towns—people of the same class and who lead the kind of existence which these people would have to lead if they were confined to urban areas. I do not know that I need say anything more on the general question.
  As regards the education clauses of the Bill, there are one or two words I should like to say in order to point out the very great difficulty which surrounds the subject. As matters now stand, except in the case of the children of canal boatmen, whose position is a different one from that of these nomadic children, for canal boats go on regular journeys, whereas these people wander about from county to county—except in the case of the children of canal boatmen there are no special regulations which enable school attendance to be specially enforced. By the Education Acts as they stand, if a child is found habitually wandering, a school attendance order can be made in his case, and no reasonable excuse, as it is called, can be produced in such a case; but it is very doubtful if that provision was ever intended to apply to people who live in movable dwellings. It was rather intended to apply to children who wander about with tramps. In any case, however, the practical difficulty is that the attendance order can only be made in respect of a particular school, and it is perfectly obvious that if a child is going to be made to attend a particular school
  462
  the dwelling then ceases to be a movable one and the whole position is changed. Therefore, the fact has been that it is not the law which is in fault; but it is practically impossible to enforce the law so long as children are allowed to travel about in these dwellings. If you are prepared to go so far as to prohibit children of school age travelling in this way, you may solve the question after a fashion; but I am not at all sure that public opinion would support a proposal of that kind. That is one of the points which no doubt can be carefully considered when the Bill is being examined more closely in Committee.
  Clause 6 of the Bill provides that the Board of Education shall make regulations with a view to enforcing the law relating to school attendance in the case of children resident in movable dwellings, and they have to designate the local authority whose duty it shall be to enforce the regulations of the Board. They might thus provide for the giving of certificates of due attendance in the case of children who were unable to attend regularly at any one public elementary school. This sort of school attendance, however—one day at one school and another day at another school—is one which arouses the utmost indignation in the minds of school managers and school teachers, and if you are really going to enforce it, I am afraid you will find yourselves in a practical difficulty. The clause says that the Board of Education is to designate the local authority whose duty it should be to enforce the regulations of the Board. That means, I suppose, the local education authority, because clearly the Board of Education can only deal with educational authorities. But how is the local education authority going to enforce the regulations when the parents, being ex hypothesi in movable dwellings, have left that area? That is a difficulty which I do not see the Bill will meet. There are various other minor criticisms which I might make with regard to these education clauses, but they are more suitable for consideration in Committee.
  On the other hand it is the case that to a certain extent my hon. friend Mr. Herbert Samuel, in another place, is trying to deal with this matter in the

  463
  Children Bill. I think it is worthy of consideration whether the whole discussion on the question should not be postponed until the Children Bill comes up, or, if the noble Lord prefers it, whether these particular clauses should not be omitted for the time, leaving the whole question to be discussed on the Children Bill. I am bound to say that, notwithstanding the fact that the Government are trying to deal with the matter in that measure, I am not, for the reasons I have stated, very hopeful that a solution will be arrived at, so far as the educational part of the matter is concerned. But we shall do our best. We feel that the wrong done to the children from an educational point of view is in many cases a considerable one. I rather sympathise with what Lord. Russell said as to the preferable condition of children living a great part of their time in the open air to that of some children who lead more regular lives; but we feel that the educational question is one which we ought to try to meet. We are, however, impressed by the extreme difficulty of it, and I cannot, personally, confess to being very confident that it is capable of a satisfactory solution.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Earl the Lord President that if you allow these children to wander about they must attend school spasmodically, and that to that the school managers and teachers have a strong objection as the instruction is necessarily of an inferior kind. But if you insist upon their attending school regularly they cannot wander about. To that restriction, however, the noble Earl thinks public opinion would not agree. It appears to me that the only alternative is to let them wander and not attend school, and why this should be permitted to persons living in movable dwellings when everyone else is obliged to send his children to school I cannot conceive. I imagine that the education authority would, under the rules, be empowered to require from these people some return as to where their children were being educated, and to oblige them to give a notification when they were leaving the area of that authority as to the authority into whose area they were moving. The local education authority would then
  464
  communicate with the authority into whose area they were moving so that the regulations with regard to the children could be enforced. The only outcome of it would be that these people would be obliged to make some provision for the education of their children while they were wandering about the country. I cannot think that the alternative foreshadowed, that these children should be allowed to wander about without any education at all, is an admissible one. On many of the points on which the clauses have been criticised I hold no very great objection to emendations. I shall be most willing to accept anything which will make the Bill a more workable measure, and I will certainly consult the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board before I take any further steps with regard to the Bill.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I should like to say a word with regard to the attendance of these children at school. Nobody can contend that they are wandering. The parents may be, but the children are under the control of their parents and do not come within the same category as children found wandering. I had many years experience of the entire failure to give effect to the Act relating to canal boat children. It is no use having a boat or a van registered in a place as long as you allow the children to travel about with their parents. In those circumstances the ordinary regulations for enforcing attendance are useless, and I do not think any ingenuity will enable you to make them effective. The canal boats had to be registered at their ports of departure, and in London they were mostly registered at Paddington; but we were unable to do anything in practice to carry out the Act owing to the impossibility of enforcing it. You could, of course, prohibit a parent from taking his child about in such a way as to render it impossible for the child to receive education. That would mean that the child would have to be deposited with a friend or boarded-out, while the parents tramped the country. But I think there would be considerable difficulty in bringing that about. Something could be done to enforce attendance if you had a provision in the Education Act to the effect that

  465
  parents could be furnished with a book which would show the schools the child had attended during the wanderings, and the attendances made. Of course, if the book were falsified and false entries made, that would have to be an offence, and if at the end of the year the parent, on applying for a renewal of his licence, showed an imperfectly filled book that might be made an offence also, and a severe penalty might be imposed if no steps at all had been taken in the education of the child. I am not going to say whether that would be good or not; but the ordinary machinery of bye-laws and the ordinary discharge of their duties by local education authorities would be insufficient to cope with these cases. Take the West Riding. It would be too much to expect that tramps could be tracked from one end of that county to the other; there is no machinery in a county for following them. I do not say that what I suggest is a good thing to do, but I think clauses might be devised which would make it extremely disagreeable for a wandering parent to have done nothing for the education of his child.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, whatever we may think as to the somewhat intricate problems to which this Bill gives rise. I hope we shall not hesitate to give it a Second Reading this afternoon. By doing so we commit ourselves only to the principle of the Bill, and the principle of the Bill is, I conceive, this, that we do not desire that persons who adopt a nomadic mode of life should thereby emancipate themselves from the laws and regulations to which other members of the community are subject, whether those laws have reference to sanitary matters or to the education of the children concerned, or to other matters. I hope, therefore, we shall read the Bill a second time. With regard to the manner in which it might be dealt with further on, I would venture to suggest that my noble friend would do well to confer with the representative of the Local Government Board and consider with him what course would be best. I should be rather sorry, speaking for myself, if the further examination of this Bill were to stand over until the moment, which we cannot at present anticipate,
  466
  when the Bill now before the House of Commons will reach your Lordships' House.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATION BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

LOTTERIES AND INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS.
The Lords following were named of the Committee—

L. Steward (E. Beauchamp).

V. Llandaff.

V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore).

L. Ramsay (E. Dalhousie).

L. Herschell.

Ordered, That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet in the Chairman of Committees' Committee Room on Tuesday next, at Three o'clock.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

NAVAL REPAIRS.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government if they will grant a Return of the amount of money spent during the last two years on the repairs of each battleship and first class cruiser launched since 1st January, 1898, separately, divided under the following headings—(1) Repairs of boilers, engines, and other

467
machinery used in the propulsion of the ship; (2) Repairs to armament, including all gun-mountings, torpedoes, and machinery connected with them; (3) Alterations in design, such as making cooling chambers, fresh ventilators, or supplying and fitting new apparatus of any description; also a Return of the number of days that our battleships and first class cruisers launched since 1st January, 1898, have been unavailable while undergoing repair during the last two years; and in addition to these Returns, for purposes of comparison, if the information is obtainable, a Return of the number of days that twenty or thirty of the best-known liners in our mercantile marine have been unavailable for the same reason during the last two years; and lastly, the weight allowed for indicated horse-power for all the vessels named in the above Return.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has been called away on an engagement connected with his Department, and he has, therefore, asked me to make the reply which he would have given to the noble and gallant Lord's Question. He says that he is anxious to give the noble Lord as much of the Return asked for as is possible, but he cannot give it exactly in the form in which it is asked for by the noble Lord My noble friend assents to Paragraph 1, but be is only able to give the figures for 1905–1906, and 1906–1907, those for 1907–1908 not yet being available. As regards Paragraph 2, my noble friend says that the form in which the ordnance accounts of the Admiralty are framed differs from that of the dockyard accounts and for service reasons he does not feel justified in giving information with regard to repairs to armament. He will be happy to give the information requested in Paragraph 3.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: What about Paragraph 1?
THE EARL or CREWE: My noble friend agrees to that, with limitations. He cannot agree to No. 2, but he agrees to No. 3. As regards the last paragraph, my noble friend says he can give the information asked for if the noble Lord
468
thinks it very desirable—that is to say, the noble Lord really presses for it—but it will involve a very large amount of research which my noble friend, if possible, would like to spare his staff, whom he considers very much overworked. My noble friend does not know how he could obtain the details with regard to the length of time that the great liners mentioned in the Question are kept under repair from time to time, and he considers that it is against the interests of the service that the weight allowed for indicated horse-power should be publicly disclosed. My noble friend has asked me to say that even the modified amount of information which he is able to give will take some little time to produce.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: I am sorry to give the officials at the Admiralty additional trouble, but the Admiralty have been greatly attacked on the subject of repairs, sometimes justly and sometimes unjustly, and if these figures were given it might set the matter at rest. Therefore, I press for the details as to the number of days on which vessels were undergoing repairs. My reason for asking for the weight allowed for indicated horse-power, was that I believe the Admiralty, as a rule, have not allowed sufficient weight for indicated horse-power, and that is the reason why such a large proportion of our ships are kept under repair.

TERRITORIAL ARMY ADMINISTRATION.
*LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will consider the possibility of amending the new Regulations for the Territorial Army in the case of those regiments the recruiting areas of which lie in more than one county, with a view to alleviating the extreme inconvenience to which such regiments are put. This question refers to very few regiments, but they feel that they are suffering under a considerable grievance. The scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War is that the Territorial regiments in a county should be brought under the County Association, and it is conceivable

469
that the administration of their affairs will be no more complicated than they were under the War Office. But there are a few regiments in the extraordinary and unfortunate position of being under four or five counties, and those of your Lordships who have had experience of communicating with Government Departments I am sure, realise the confusion that will be caused thereby, for these unfortunate regiments will have to apply in all matters of finance, administration, etc., to each of these County Associations. Finding it difficult to deal with the cases of those regiments which recruit over several counties the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has apparently left it to the regiments and to the County Associations themselves to get out of the difficulty as best they can. I suggest that it is the business of the War Office to get the regiments out of this dilemma, and that it would not be difficult for the War Office to devise a scheme by which the colonels of such regiments might have to do with only one authority. I may add that this is not a personal grievance of my own. I have been asked to put the Question on behalf of another commanding officer.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of PORTSMOUTH): My Lords, I regret that the noble Lord has not informed me what are the particular cases to which he refers.
*LORD HARRIS: They are perfectly well-known. The Marquess of Tullibardine's regiment, for instance, recruits over four or five counties.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I understood the Question to refer to another matter—namely, the condition of those counties which practically adjoin London. Some men domiciled in Kent, Surrey, and Essex will, no doubt, want to join the London regiments, but I am afraid we cannot depart from the general principle established in the Act, that the county of which the Lord-Lieutenant should be the head should be the recruiting area for the different County Associations. No doubt in the neighbourhood of London some difficulties may arise, but these we trust will be
470
overcome by the mutual good feeling of the Associations, whom, in matters of this kind, we expect to be able to come to some arrangement
*LORD HARRIS: I regret that my Question has been misunderstood. The cases I refer to are those of regiments coming under various counties for administration. Perhaps the noble Ear will look into that point.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I now see what is in the mind of the noble Lord, and will inquire into it.

TERRITORIAL ARTILLERY.
THE EARL OF ERROLL: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the estimated cost of the 196 batteries it is proposed to raise for the Territorial Army, supposing the ranks are all full, including the hire of the horses for fifteen days training, cost of gun sheds, harness, ammunition for practice, and generally for the administration and training of the artillery; also the proportion due for the expenses of the County Associations; and whether he can also state the whole annual cost of a battery of Regular field artillery on the higher and lower establishment respectively. I understand that there will be a debate on Monday, initiated by Lord Denbigh, into the whole question of the Territorial artillery, and I cannot help thinking that it will be of great advantage to your Lordships that we should possess the information for which I am asking before that debate takes place. The noble and gallant Field-Marshal, Lord Roberts, told us the other day that imperfectly trained artillery were absolutely useless in war and liable to become a danger. After that statement from so high an authority it would be only prudent to consider whether it would not be preferable to have a smaller number of Regular and very highly trained artillery in the place of a larger number of imperfectly trained gunners. It is an acknowledged principle on the Continent of Europe that the less trained the infantry the more important it is that the artillery should be very highly trained. I have

471
put clown the Question as to the cost of a Regular battery because I think it is important that we should have some idea how the cost compares with that of a Territorial battery, with a view to seeing whether we cannot secure fewer highly trained Regular artillery for the same price that we should get this larger number of less perfectly trained Territorial artillery.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, as we shall be debating the general question of the artillery on Monday, I hope my noble friend will excuse me from entering into the various matters to which he has referred in putting his Question. I am glad to be able to give him the information for which he asks, subject to one or two reservations. The total number of batteries to be raised is 182, not 196 as stated in the Question. I do not know exactly how my noble friend arrived at the number of 196, but I think it is possibly a miscalculation arising from reckoning three batteries instead of two to a brigade of howitzers. The number of field and howitzer batteries to be raised for the Territorial Force is 148, the annual cost of which will be about £350,000, which includes the expenses of the County Associations. I am afraid I cannot give the noble Earl any accurate estimate as to the proportion due for the expenses of the Associations, as the Associations administer other units. The other batteries to be raised are fourteen horse, and twenty heavy batteries. The grants for these cover their ammunition columns and are not comparable with the figures for batteries of field artillery. As to the Question whether I can also state the whole annual cost of a battery of regular field artillery on the higher and lower establishments, respectively, I have to say that the annual cost of a Regular field battery on the higher establishment of 163, all ranks, is £15,000, and on the lower establishment of 132, all ranks, £12,000.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Is any allowance made in the £350,000 for the cost of arming the batteries originally, or is that what they are going to cost when they are a going concern?
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: That will be the annual cost when they are a going concern.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Six o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.