Sitting of 3 April 1908

Preamble
The House met at Twelve noon of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Hull and Barnsley Railway Bill.—Read a third time, and passed.
Great Eastern Railway (General Powers) Bi11.—As amended, considered; to be read a third time.

PETITIONS.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from London, against; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Ayr; and Dalmellington; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Kingston; Sevenoaks; Wear Valley; Winchester (five); and Wood Green; to lie upon the 8 Table.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES BILL.
  Petition from Falkirk, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN).
  Petition from Blandford, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Barmboro'; Blackburn; Blackpool (four); Bolton on Dearne; Bradford; Chipping Wycombe; Conisborough (three); Desborough, Dorchester; Fairford; Fulham; Goldthorpe; Harlington; High Wycombe; Kennington; Leeds; Littlemore (two); Nailsworth; Sheffield (eight); Stoken-
  810

  church; Swindon; Tetsworth; Thurncoe (two); Wath on Dearno (three); and Wheatley; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Allerton; Bradford (six); Rochdale; and Wibsey; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour; From Aberdeen (two); Attleborough; Aysgarth (two); Barnsley; Bath; Batley (five); Benwell; Blackheath; Bradford (two); Brandon Colliery; Brymbo; Byker; Codnor; Coleham; Cowes; Crosshills; Deer; Denholme; Egerton (three); Fenton; Fraserburgh; Glasgow; Guisbrough; Hackney; Halifax; Hempnall; Hoolgerrig; Herne Hill; Hopewell; Horwich; Kelvedon; Kilsyth; Kingston; Lancaster (two); Leeds; Liskeard; Lymington; Macclesfield; Middleton; Newport; Newton Heath; Ovington; Pendleton; Penwith; Port Isaac; Prestwich; Ramsgate; Raydaleside Ripponden; Rugby; Sandown; Sevenoaks; Smithy Bridge; Southsea; Stakeford; Stockport (three); Streatham; Sudbury; Truro; Turriff; Ventnor; Watergrove; Wear Valley; Wensleydale; West Auckland; West Norwood; Winchester (five); Wood Green; Worsley; Worthing; and, Yardley; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Deer; Falkirk; Glasgow (two); and, Saltcoats; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Bilston; Coseley; Erith; Pontypool; and, South Nutfield (two); to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Edinburgh; and, Wolverhampton; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 3968 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Post Office Surveyors' Districts.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state the numbers of surveyors' districts in Ireland and in England, respectively; and whether, with regard to applications for head postmasterships or other superior appointments, one application is allowed to be forwarded from each surveyor's district in England, if one or more than one candidate applies in each of such districts, whereas one application only is allowed to be forwarded from the whole of Ireland even when there are several applicants in each surveyor's district in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The number of surveyors' districts in Ireland is three and the number in England is eleven. All applications for head postmasterships and other superior appointments, whether from candidates in Ireland or England, are forwarded to head quarters and considered there. Naturally, however, much weight is attached to the opinion of the Secretary at Dublin as to which of these candidates is the best.

  Imperial Grant for Upkeep of Highways.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that damage is done by traction engines and heavy locomotives to roads which have to be kept in constant repair by the local authorities, he will consider the advisability of recommending the imposition of a tax upon such conveyances and thereby relieve the ratepayers from the burden now imposed on them.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Any question as to the imposition of a tax should be addressed to my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Argentine and Natal—Supposed Preferential Tariff.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information as to recent negotiations be-
  812
  tween the Government of Natal and that of the Argentine Republic, in which Natal is stated to have offered preferential terms to Argentina in wheat and meat.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) No information has been received in the Colonial Office on the subject.

  The Tug "Rover's" Engines.
  MR. HOLT: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what are the number and diameter of the cylinders and length of stroke of the engines of the tug "Rover."
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The tug "Rover" will have—Two high-pressure cylinders, 14½inches diameter; two intermediate pressure cylinders, 23¼inches diameter; two low-pressure cylinders, 37¾inches diameter; length of stroke, 2 feet 9 inches.

  Unappointed Learners in Belfast Post Office.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General how many learners with two years service and upwards are still unappointed in the Belfast post office, and whether the officers recently appointed have received notification.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The appointment to the establishment of each of the learners at Belfast with as much as two years service is already being proceeded with. These officers will be notified of their appointment in due course.

  Irvine Post Office.
  MR. YOUNGER: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has yet come to a decision with regard to a now post office at Irvine.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) This matter is still under consideration.

  Sentence on Mrs. E. Pelosi.
  MR. REMNANT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Elizabeth Pelosi, of 17, Baker's Row, Holborn, who was sentenced on 14th March by Mr. Mead at Marlborough Street Police Court

  813
  to a month's imprisonment, and recommended by him for deportation, for playing an organ in the streets accompanied by her child of two years old, which, according to the magistrate, seemed to have been well treated; and whether, seeing it was her first offence and that she has several children depending on her, he will cancel the remainder of the sentence.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have gone very carefully into all the circumstances of this case, hut, as I informed the hon. Member in a letter of yesterday's date, I have not seen my way to recommending His Majesty to remit any portion of the sentence passed by the magistrate. It is to be observed that the conviction was not as stated in the Question, but for the offence of causing a child to be in the streets for the purpose of inducing the giving of alms. I have, however, felt justified in deciding not to make the expulsion order which was recommended in addition to the sentence, and to allow the woman to remain in this country.

  Small Holdings.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, in view of the fact that the intention of the Small Holdings Act of last Session was that interest on the purchase money and a yearly sum as a sinking fund sufficient to recoup the whole cost of the land should be included in the rent charged by the county council to the small-holder, without the latter acquiring any interest in the fee simple of the property, if it would be competent for the county council to exclude such charges and defray them itself, if it so desires, without its members becoming liable to be surcharged by the auditor.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) It will rest with the auditor to determine in the first instance what course he will take if a case of the kind referred to comes before him. Any action taken by him in the matter would be subject to appeal to the Local Government Board. Of course I cannot say beforehand what the decision of the Board upon any such an appeal would be, but in dealing with it they would take into consideration all the circumstances of the case.

  Largy National School—Publican as Master.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have had it brought to their attention that Largy school, county Antrim, near Portglenone, is situate within a few yards of a public-house, and that the name of the schoolmaster and the licensed proprietor of the public-house are the same; is the schoolmaster the licensed person; and, if not, where does the nominally licensed person reside, and is the public-house in fact managed by the schoolmaster or members of his household; and is the management of a public-house by any schoolmaster, or any of his household, in close proximity to the school, permitted by the Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that under their rules teachers are strictly forbidden to keep public-houses or to live therein, and the Commissioners do not recognise as a teacher the husband or wife of the owner or occupier of a public-house. The Commissioners have no information as to the alleged breach of the rule by a teacher at Largy national school, but will make inquiries on the subject.

  Kenmare Fair Rent Applications.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of applications to fix fair rents received by the Irish Land Commission for the two years ended 30th June, 1907, from tenants in the Kenmare rural district; how many of these applications have boon heard by the Sub-Land Commission; the date of the last sitting of the Sub-Land Commission in Kenmare; and, having regard to the number of applications remaining unheard on the 30th June, 1907, and the period that has elapsed since the last sitting at Kenmare, he can state the earliest date of the hearing of these applications by the Sub-Land Commission.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The number of applications to fix fair rents received by the Land Commission from the rural districts of Kenmare during the two years ending 30th June, 1907, was seventy-two.

  815
  Two Sub-Commission sittings were held at Kenmare in 1907. The latest sitting was held on 3rd October, 1907, at which all cases lodged prior to 1st April, 1907, were dealt with. Of the seventy-two cases referred to only thirteen remain unheard. A further sitting will beheld at Kenmare at as early a date as possible, regard being had to the claims of other districts.

  Repair to Boat-slip at Roads, Glen Cove.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Congested Districts Board has been called to the present state of the boat-slip at Roads, County Kerry, and to the unfinished condition of the slip at Glen Boat Cove, whereby it is impossible for the fishermen to carry on the fishing industry; and whether steps will be taken to repair these slips at the earliest possible moment.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Congested Districts Board propose to carry out certain works at Roads Slip, County Kerry, in the summer of the present year, but will have no funds available for work at Glen Boat Cove, or for any other project to which they are not yet already committed.

  Purchase of the Estate of Mr. R. Keys' of Crolly.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the trustees and tenants of the estate of the late Mr. Richard Keys, of Crolly, County Donegal, have mutually agreed as to the sale and purchase of the estate; whether the Congested Districts Board has intimated that it is unable to carry out the purchase for lack of funds; and whether, seeing that the rental amounts only to £44 per annun and the purchase price is consequently small, he will make such arrangements as will enable the Board to cause the purchase to be carried out forthwith.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) In April, 1906, the Congested Districts Board informed the owner's solicitors that they were willing to make an offer for the estate in question upon receiving the rental of the estate, but no reply was received. I am not aware of any agree-
  816
  ment between the trustees and the tenants of the estate. The Board are not now in a position to reopen negotiations in the matter for reasons which I have already fully stated.

  Aghatubrid Estate Dispute.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the solicitor of the Aghatubrid estate of the late Mr. J. W. Leahy has now replied to the letter of the Estates Commissioners; and whether, in view of the fact that processes have been issued against the tenants for arrears of rent which had been agreed to be wiped out by the late owner, and that the case is fixed for hearing at Killarney on 4th April, he will cause the hearing to be postponed in the event of the solicitor to the estate not having replied to the letter of the Estates Commissioners, seeing that the tenants have fulfilled their side of the agreement, and that the production of this letter is a material fact in the case.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The reply to the first part of the Question is in the negative. I have already intimated to the hon. Member that no proceedings for sale are pending between the present owner and the Estates Commissioners. The Commissioners, therefore, have no power, nor have the Government, to interfere in any legal proceedings which may be taken by the owner for the recovery of rent.

  Cordite Destroyed.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the whole of the Ordnance depots were under War Office control up to the 31st March, 1908; whether he can state what amount of cordite has been destroyed or got rid of up to that date at these depots since the 1st January, 1907; and what is the amount of cordite still remaining in which mercuric chloride has been found, or which is awaiting examination for the purpose of ascertaining if it contains mercuric chloride, or is in any way deteriorated.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) There are naval ordnance depots at certain places which are not under the control of the War Office. The amount of cordite destroyed cannot be stated

  817
  without reference to the various stations. None has been destroyed because it contained mercuric chloride unless it was found by testing to have deteriorated. All cordite is periodically examined to see whether it has deteriorated, and the tests applied for this purpose determine the stability of the cordite, whether mercuric chloride is present or not. I have no materials available to enable me to state the actual quantities.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether hitherto it has been the invariable practice for cordite to be passed for both Army and Navy by inspectors under the War Office; whether any statement has been obtained from the companies which used mercuric chloride as to the dates at which the practice was commenced of adding this unlawful ingredient, and so masking the only test which was applied to the cordite; and whether he can, from this data, state approximately the total quantity of cordite containing mercuric chloride which was thus passed into the Army and Navy and to India, irrespective of what may have since been used at target practice.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane). The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the Question only the National Explosives Company have informed us as to the date when mercuric chloride was first used. As regards the last part of the Question, it is not possible to give any figures, but the whole of the stock of cordite in which mercuric chloride may be present will in the usual course be tested for stability.

  Permanent Staff of Norfolk Garrison Artillery (Militia).
  MR. FELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War what will be the position of the present permanent staff non-commissioned officers of the Prince of Wales's Own Norfolk Royal Garrison Artillery (Militia) when the regiment becomes field artillery; and will they still continue on the staff.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Any sergeants who formerly served in Royal Horse or Field Artillery will be available for posting to the permanent staff of the Reserve Field Artillery, or of
  818
  the Territorial Horse and Field Artillery. If not so required they will be absorbed in the Royal Horse or Field Artillery. Those who formerly served only in the Royal Garrison Artillery, if not required for the permanent staff of the Territorial Artillery, will be absorbed in the Royal Garrison Artillery. Every consideration will be shown in dealing with the permanent staff and preference as regards appointments on the staff of the Territorial Artillery will be given to any individuals whom it is impossible to employ with the Reserve Artillery.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (in respect of the Children Bill): Sir Maurice Levy; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Children Bill) Mr. Wedgwood.
Report to lie upon the Table.

PORT OF LONDON BILL.
Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Port of London Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

POOR LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
CAPTAIN CRAIGin moving the Second Reading of the Poor Law (Ireland) Bill, asked the indulgence of the House while he tried to be as concise as he could in bringing forward this measure which dealt with a question of grave importance. Doubtless everyone would be aware that the question of Poor Law reform had agitated people's minds, not alone in Ireland, but throughout Great Britain for many years past, and there could be no question that the verdict of the country had been expressed at all events outside that House, to the effect that the present Poor Law system was bad in very many directions and needed vast reform. In many respects it was quite out of date, and it had proved to be unconsciously

819
cruel in many of its administrative details. Very few of those who paid poor rates in this country were acquainted with the manner in which their money was spent. Very few of them had gone to the trouble of entering the workhouses in order to see for themselves the conditions under which the poor of the country lived in those institutions. He wished to cast no reflection whatever on the officers charged with the administration of the Poor Law throughout the country, for they were a capable and very intelligent body of men; what he was referring to was the system which had grown up in the last seventy years in Ireland, and the conditions under which the officers of the Poor Law had to carry out administrative details. In the Bill which he was bringing before the House they did not pretend to go into details; indeed, they could not formulate a scheme which would meet all objections; nor did they lay down any hard and fast rule, or sketch any scheme to which they asked the House to bind itself, by setting to it the seal of its approval. He made those remarks because what was to follow was merely an outline or an indication of a desire which some of them had for the reorganisation of the whole Poor Law system in Ireland, root and branch. The largeness of the subject precluded him, in the first instance, from dwelling upon its past history in order to set forth and describe the exact conditions under which the Poor Law was administered in Ireland in the present day. He would approach the subject not alone from the point of view of the present but of future generations, and also from the point of view of the appliances, improved scientific methods in all physical branches, from the point of view of the poor themselves, and of the capacity of the people of various localities to bear the rates which would be necessitated under the Bill. They hoped the rates would be no higher than hitherto, but they trusted that they would greatly increase the possibility of securing payment from those who were able to pay, while attaining a sufficient amount of work from all the able-bodied who found themselves in Poor Law institutions. He asked the House particularly to bear in mind that whilst charity must temper their consideration of any such
820
measure as this, they must also bring to bear common sense and business prudence to guide their footsteps. The Bill referred entirely to Ireland; and it would be interesting to know that the first Poor Law Act for Ireland was passed on 31st July, 1838. That Act was the groundwork of all the Poor Law Acts under which they were living. The great famine in 1847 brought untold misery upon Ireland, and numerous alterations were made and extensions effected in the Poor Law in order to cope with that terrible time. About that period, or after the famine, boards of guardians were permitted to give outdoor relief, and he believed that, at present, the state of the law in regard to outdoor relief was exactly the same as when it was first introduced. A Royal Commission on this subject presented a Report to King William IV. in 1836, and he would ask the House, if they had not already done so, to consider what that Report said. Seventy years ago a Royal Commission inquired into the whole matter, and made recommendations which would astonish the House, for they afforded a very interesting lesson on this subject. That Commission recommended land drainage and reclamation on modern lines, the provision of labourers' cottages and allotments, the bringing of agricultural instruction to the doors of the peasant, the improvement of land tenure, the transfer of fiscal powers from grand juries to county boards, the employment of direct labour on roads by such county boards, the sending of vagrants to colonies to be employed or to penitentiaries in this country, the closing of public-houses on Sundays and the prevention of the sale of groceries and intoxicating drink in the same house for consumption on the premises. That Report, was, undoubtedly, far in advance of its time, but they could not but be struck by the fact that, by the flux of time, nearly all those recommendations had been carried out, some of them unwittingly, not by law, but simply by the good sense and feeling of the people. He quoted the Report because he wished to contrast it to a certain extent with the Viceregal Commission's Report, in 1906, which was the basis of the present Bill. Some

821
hon. Members might be inclined to say that, taking the Report as a whole, it was Utopian; indeed, some hon. Members had already expressed that opinion. He could not conceive how any one, knowing that the recommendations of seventy years ago, which doubtless were considered Utopian in those days, had all come to be realised, could fail to give proper consideration to the recommendations of the Viceregal Commission—recommendations which might be considered Utopian, but which had the same chance of realisation as the recommendations made seventy years ago. The Report of the Viceregal Commission which showed that this was a matter of grave national importance for Ireland, had received widespread approval in Ireland, and the Royal Commission now sitting—he spoke subject to correction—on the question of Poor Law reform in the whole of the United Kingdom, had decided to adopt the Viceregal Commission's Report in toto, in regard to Ireland. In his opinion, it was most valuable to see that that Commission had put the seal of their approval to the Report of the Viceregal Commission, and decided to adopt it. It afforded conclusive evidence of what was necessary for the amelioration of the condition of the poorer classes so far as Poor Law reform in Ireland was concerned. He did not intend to go further into the past. If further evidence was necessary he would read to the House a few extracts from what the Commissioners said in their Report of 1906. They said—
"We have inspected, as far as we are aware, all workhouses, county infirmaries, fever hospitals, and other hospitals in Ireland, maintained wholly or in part out of local rates. Moreover, for the purpose of reporting whether any further hospital accommodation for the sick poor is desirable, we visited and carefully inquired into the circumstances of those localities, including many islands off the sea coast, which are remote from any hospital. The number of witnesses examined by us was 743 and in nearly all cases our inspection of the various institutions concerned took place before we heard the views of witnesses. In this way we were better able to understand the suggestions made, and to discuss the various local proposals with the witnesses."
So that they had there, at all events, a most complete inquiry on the spot by Commissioners appointed by the
822
Lord-Lieutenant. And the next short quotation was one which had guided them in framing this Bill. The Commissioners said—
"It seemed to us that it would be our duty to ascertain how, if at all, a reduction could, without impairing efficiency, be made in the expenditure for the relief of the poor, and at the same time to show, if possible, how all improvement in the method or system of affording relief might be effected."
That was the kernel of the Bill—how an improvement in the method of affording relief might be effected, and how, if at all, reductions might be effected without impairing efficiency. He would explain to those who were not familiar with the intricate details of the subject, that in the poorhouses of Ireland, the inmates were gathered from all classes of the deserving and undeserving poor, and they were classified according to law in a manner which lie would explain to the House. With few exceptions the way in which they were classified was as follows:—The sick, the aged and infirm, lunatics and all kinds of insane cases, sane epileptics, unmarried mothers, infants, children between infancy-and fifteen years of age, casuals, or ins-and-outs, vagrants and tramps, and able-bodied paupers. They had to deal with 45,195 of all classes in 1905, and the point which he wished the House thoroughly to understand was that each of those classes which he had enumerated found a resting place in one or another of the workhouses in Ireland. The Commission reported—
"We think that the present system of keeping so many different classes of persons in the same institution is one that ought not to be continued, and we received evidence throughout all Ireland strongly in favour of changing the system in this respect, provided that the rates would not be increased."
They had 159 union workhouses in Ireland, and under the county system there were thirty-four county infirmaries, and fourteen fever or infectious hospitals. A separate and very urgent question was dealt with by the Commission, namely, that of improvements in the treatment and isolation of patients suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis or consumption. Although they could not set up in the Bill a definite, clear, and cut-and-dried scheme which would meet that terrible

823
disease in Ireland, still it had been one of their guiding principles in framing the measure that consumption, one of the greatest evils in Ireland, should be properly dealt with. In. considering the lines which they should adopt, they thought it only right, and he hoped that the House would bear this in mind, to allow local energy and local ideas and the sympathetic feelings of the people to operate in their own particular way, and the Commissioners appointed under the Bill would guide their efforts stamping out that disease in Ireland. They all knew the great effort that had been made to awaken the feeling of the people of Ireland to the proper treatment of the disease, and he believed one of the first effects of passing the Bill would be to strengthen the hands of those who had the idea constantly before them. He would pass from that clause to the question of children who were born in workhouses or who found their way into them in their early years. The Bill would in such cases as were considered desirable extend the power of boarding-out children. He had gone to the trouble of getting sonic information on the subject. The chief committee, had, of course, been the Viceregal Commission, and they, like anyone who had read the Report, must have been particularly struck by the statistics handed to them from Scotland. In 1903, and he believed there had been very little change in the figures since then, there were 7,110 children in receipt of relief in Scotland, of which number 6,195 or 87 per cent. were boarded-out, 1,800 with relations and 4,395 with strangers. The balance of 915, which was a very small percentage, were mainly in poorhouses, some sick and infirm, and others waiting to be boarded-out. The Commissioners had arrived at the view in favour of boarding-out children as far as possible before they saw the figures in Scotland, but they felt much strengthened in their opinion by what existed there. They also said that the system was similar in its plan of management to that adopted in Ireland by the Protestant Orphan Society, whose reports were most favourable as regards the condition of the children. They had there whit he considered to be most valuable testimony from the Commission.
824
They said that independently of any other inquiry, they went into the whole matter as regarded Ireland alone, and no sooner had they arrived at their conclusions on the matter than they were informed that Scotland hid discovered after actual trial that the scheme worked admirably in every part of the country. That was testimony of the thoroughness and care with which the Report was prepared. Then he had obtained a few details from the City of Belfast with regard to the expense of keeping children in the workhouse, and he found that during the half-year ending 31st March, 1902, the number of children receiving indoor relief in that city was 3,860. It was practically the same in 1907. The education of those children showed a very considerable waste of money. The average attendance of children in Belfast workhouse for 1907 was 160. There were seven teachers, three male and four female, who received annual salaries amounting to £505. They received first-class rations, which amounted to about £40 a year, and their bonus brought it up to £93 11s. Thus the cost of educating 160 children was £878 11s., or roughly, £5 10s. per annum per child. If those children were boarded-out, there was no doubt that they could be educated at much less cost. By the boarding-out of children, they would remove them from the influence of hardened criminals in workhouses, and place them with chosen families, not necessarily the very best families in the district, but in families of such respectability, at all events, that by associating with the children of the family, they might grow up and become creditable citizens, whereas now in the workhouses they were shut out from a great deal of the human side of life, and went from bad to worse, and being born and bred iii the workhouse, were very apt to live the greater part of their life there and to die there. By being taken from the workhouse and placed in families where they could be properly looked after, and have some home life and associations, they were prevented from becoming criminals and probably being put on the rates for the whole of their natural lives. There was economy in the boarding-out principle outside the question of education altogether. Taking

825
education alone they found that it saved a considerable amount of money to the rates. Provision was made in the Bill to safeguard the interests of any of the old loyal servants of the Poor Law in Ireland, because it was only fair that in any readjustment every care should be taken that an officer should not suffer in any way by losing his appointment or by being transferred from one part of the country to another, it being no fault whatever of the schoolmaster or mistress, or the workhouse master or any of the various staffs, that they had either changed their occupation or lost it altogether. The next point to which he wished to draw attention was the desirability, at all costs, of having labour homes established in Ireland, for the able-bodied who sought refuge in Poor Law institutions. The Commissioners recommended that four labour homes should be established for the whole of Ireland where these able-bodied men might be sent to contribute something towards the rates, and also to prevent such vagrants wandering through the country, finding it more pleasant to go into the workhouses and subsist on the rates than to work. An amount of work suited to their capacity, would be imposed upon them which would prevent them, at all events, seeking shelter there unless they were prepared to do a lair day's work. Of course, that would undoubtedly require a little alteration in the law. It was not as if one was advocating any harsh proceedings against innocent people, but those who habitually wandered from one union to another, and did no good to themselves and less to the community, should be placed in some such home as he had described. The details might be worked out later on. The scheme proposed in the Viceregal Commission provided that the sick should be provided for in county or district hospitals, that the aged and infirm should be placed and classified in most conveniently situated disused workhouses, that the insane of all kinds should be removed to the county or district asylum, that two or three disused workhouses might be set apart for insane epileptics, that mothers of illegitimate children should never be admitted or retained in any workhouse or institution where they would have freedom of ingress or egress,
826
that all children should be boarded-out, that casuals and vagrants should be sent to labour houses, and that all other able-bodied should be put with the casuals and vagrants. So far as he could ascertain, the Report was unanimous with the exception of the hon. Member for Mid. Tyrone, and his exception was of a very trifling nature and he hoped could be met. Anyone would appreciate his difficulty, and great divergence of opinion would undoubtedly exist when any scheme was being framed as to the size of the area to be included under the scheme. He felt confident, however, that the hon. Gentleman assented to the whole of the Report, with the exception of what he had just stated, and they would do their utmost to meet him in that respect. The hon. Gentleman himself had said:—
"Save upon this point and as regards the mode of admission to county district hospitals I am glad to say we find ourselves in harmony in our views upon all matters as sot out in this Report."
He had done now with that part which dealt with the Commissioners' Report, and the Royal Commission which reported seventy years ago. Then he wished to point out how it was intended to bring all into the Bill, the suggestions in the Report which were not of a highly contentious nature. The basis of the Bill was the Educational Endowment (Ireland) Act, 1885, which settled the whole matter of educational endowments in Ireland, which was a wider and more vexed question. All parties agreed that something must be done to remedy the Poor Law, and he thought the best thing to do was to take as a model a Bill which had proved successful in a much more difficult case in former years. They felt compelled, while touching on all the vital points dealt with by the Viceregal Commission, to leave out the controversial question of the State Poor Law service, because that would arouse considerable feeling in individual localities where the ratepayers were anxious to have complete control of the local appointments. Although the Bill left out of consideration what steps might be taken to develop the natural resources of Ireland, it did not prevent their being dealt with later on. They decided to eliminate such matters, because they were desirous of appealing

827

to the sympathies of the great Liberal Party to assist them in passing the Bill. This was not a party question, and he would be ready to hand the Bill over to any hon. Member if he thought the matter would be brought to a conclusion on the lines laid down by the Commission. The Bill was divided into four compartments. The first compartment contained the Interpretation Clause, Short Title, and the date of commencement of the Act, and the next compartment, Clauses 4, 5, and 6, dealt with the constitution of the Commission, their salaries, expenses, and powers. Clause 6, which was practically the whole Bill, showed that the Commissioners would have power to prepare draft schemes suggesting the area to be assigned to various institutions other than hospitals. Every safeguard they could think of had been put into the Bill, and it followed the idea of the Judicial Commissioners, and also gave power to consult every local authority in Ireland as to their desire to agree to a scheme which would enable many of those gathered in one workhouse to be distributed and classified in a number of other workhouses. Instead of having children, ne'er-do-wells, and decently respectable women who, by the hard circumstances of life had fallen upon the rates, the epileptics, the insane, all together in one institution, they would be placed in homes of their own under conditions which would suit the particular classes dealt with. In those homes they would receive as humane and as judicious treatment as was consistent with a proper regard for economy, and that would be a great triumph, if nothing else resulted from the measure. They wanted to sort out all classes and have the rogues and vagrants put into labour houses by themselves where they would not contaminate others. The young children were to be boarded-out. The Local Government Board was called in in every instance and full liberty was given to every association, local authority, and individual to appear before the Commissioners and make out their case, and. they would be allowed to arrange schemes either for a county or a group of counties. Clause 7 provided that—
"In framing schemes the Commissioners shall save or shall make full compensation for
828
the interests of individuals holding any office, place, employment, pension, compensation allowance, or emolument, under or arising out of his or her employment by any local authority or governing body for the purposes of the Poor Law service at the date of the passing of this Act."
Clauses 10 to 23 dealt with procedure as to the manner in which power was to be held, and the only part he wished to call attention to was Clause 23, which was as follows—
"On and after the passing of this Act it shall not be lawful for any board of guardians or other authority in Great Britain to remove into Ireland under the Acts relating to the relief of the poor, any person who shall have become chargeable to the rates after a residence in Great Britain of a period of six months continuously, and Section 1 and Subsection 1 of the Poor Removal Act, 1900, and Section 4 of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1898, are hereby repealed."
There were other provisions which would appeal to those in Ireland who had to pay rates in an unfair way, and another clause provided for the termination of the Commission on 31st December, 1913. That would allow five clear years to elapse, after which the Commission would cease altogether, except in the instances mentioned. During that period it was hoped that the whole of Ireland would have fallen under schemes suitable to the various localities. Under the Educational Endowments Act there were two Judicial Commissioners who were Judges of the Supreme Court, but they felt it would be more convenient to make a departure from that, and provide that Recorders and County Court Judges in Ireland should be able to exercise the same powers. He was sure that there would be no objection whatever to the making of such a change. That was a matter which could be arranged in Committee. The financial clauses of the Bill would necessitate an urgent appeal to the Government, but he was perfectly convinced that the members of the Government were as fully alive to the importance of the question as he was. It was impossible at present to give any indication as to the cost of the scheme, but he believed it would in the end prove efficient and economical. There was an enormous waste of money and energy at present in connection with the Poor Law system, and though at the outset a sum of money would have to be

829
advanced, he believed that in the long run the scheme would, from the economical point of view, satisfy every Member of the House. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had taken in the past considerable interest in this subject, and in Belfast last November, speaking on the Report of the Viceregal Commission, the right hon. Gentleman said—
"I have in hand the Report of the Poor Law Reform Commission in Ireland. I wish everybody in this room would read that Report. It is better reading than all your newspapers; it is better reading than most of your novels; it is more moving than a thousand sermons. It goes right clown deep into the very life of the people. It is concerned with matters that arc going on at this moment, day by day and night by night. It describes the conditions of hundreds of thousands of poor people; it enters into the question how their status can be raised; it enters into the question how disease may be averted; it enters into the question how old age can be protected; it enters into the question how honest people can be saved from associating with the debased—all these questions it enters into and discusses… Here are only a few of its principal recommendations: '(1) The poverty of Ireland,' it says, 'cannot be adequately dealt with by any Poor Law relief such as that of 1838, but by the development of the country's resources, which is, therefore, most strongly urged. (2) The English and Scottish Removal Acts, so far as they relate to Ireland, should be repealed. (3) The present workhouse system should be abolished. (4) The various classes of inmates, except children, should be segregated into separate institutions. (5) The existing hospitals, whether Poor Law or county, should, except in a few cases, be retained in their present localities, but all should be placed under the management of county or district committees. Such hospitals should, as far as possible, be used only for the acute sick, and a sufficient number of consumptive sanatoria should be established. Additional cottage hospitals should be established at certain places in Ireland, and the system of home nursing for the poor extended.' I say the country is ripe—ripe and ready—for legislation upon those lines. When it is to obtain its opportunity I don't know; but all I can say is, If Irish people would only unite upon questions of this kind instead of disuniting upon other questions, progress could and would be made."
On Monday last, in the Home Rule debate, the Chief Secretary said in this House—
"Ireland cannot afford to have her Poor Law reform delayed."
Members on the Unionist Benches cordially endorsed that remark, and when successful in the ballot they, after careful consideration, decided to introduce a Bill on the subject. As to
830
the drafting of the Bill, everyone must have been struck with the care with which it had been prepared. Needless to say, he did not himself draft the Bill. Credit for that was due to the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh, who had taken infinite pains and trouble in putting their ideas into legal phraseology and presenting to the House a Bill which, whether passed this session or not, would, he was fully convinced, be for years to come the groundwork of the future Poor Law of Ireland. He begged to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Captain Craig.)
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman and his friends seriously expect or hope that this Bill can be treated as a practical legislative measure in this session of Parliament. I do not think myself that it is possible, and I think it will be found on examination of the Bill that the subject dealt with is of so vast a character that it will be practically impossible for it to be dealt with by a private Member's measure. But if the object of the hon. Gentleman and his friends is simply to raise a discussion upon this matter, I entirely sympathise with him. From my point of view it is another reproach to this Parliament that, although the Report of the Viceregal Commission was issued as far back as October, 1906, there has not been found time in Parliament to consider that Report or its recommendations. There is probably no grievance connected with Ireland of a more serious character than that dealt with by this Bill. For my part I have the utmost sympathy with those who desire to remove that grievance. The system of Poor Law in Ireland is extravagant and demoralising. The cost of the Poor Law is enormous. It costs about £1,250,000 a year, and the rate per head of the population is about 5s. 8d. So far as the demoralising character of the system is concerned it is enough, I think, to point out that there are congregated together in the same institutions, under the same roof, all sorts of classes of people who have met with reverses in the struggle

831
for life. The sick are there, the aged and infirm, innocent children, helpless mothers of young children, the insane, tramps and casuals, and able-bodied paupers, all congregated together in the same institutions, and all subjected to the same workhouse stigma which, hateful as it is in this country no doubt, is, if possible, more hateful still to the feelings of the people of Ireland. The number of people so congregated in the Irish workhouses—taking the figure given in the Report—was 45,195, but I ask the House to note this significant fact, that out of that number only a little over 4,000 consisted of casuals, tramps, and able-bodied paupers who were there through destitution brought about by idleness or laziness and so forth. All the rest of the 45,195 inhabitants of these workhouses are people who are there from no fault of their own, who are simply the unfortunates in the struggle for life, and who ought to be dealt with in separate institutions, and not subjected to this horrible stigma of the workhouse system. I think there is no reform demand d in Ireland on which public opinion in that country is so unanimous as it is upon this. If I do not vote for the Bill of the hon. Members above the gangway—if they indeed think it wise, and no doubt they will consider the point, to push it to a division—it is simply because I am convinced, as I will show in a moment, that the machinery they provide for carrying out the reform is inadequate and unsuitable. It is not that I differ in the smallest degree from them in their view as to the necessity of a drastic dealing with the matter. I would like to call the attention of the House a little more precisely than the hon. Member 11s done to the history of this question. I suppose it will be said—I do not think it a matter for reproach—that I look at every Irish question from the point of view of Home Rule, and there is, in my opinion, no more dramatic and conclusive argument against the system of governing Ireland by this House since the Union than is to be found in the history of the Poor Law question. What occurred? In 1833 an Irish Royal Commission was appointed to consider the question whether or not it was desirable to extend the English Poor Law system to Ireland. That Com-
832
mission was presided over by the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Whateley, the Catholic Archbishop was a member, and the whole body consisted of able and representative Irishmen. They sat for three years and investigated the whole question fully, and in the end they unanimously reported that the English Poor Law system was entirely unsuitable to Ireland. What did they say? The English Commission had been inquiring into the question of the Poor Law system for England, and the English Commission declared that the English problem required the provision of a system which would deal with ignorance, improvidence, vice, and refusal to work. The Irish Commission declared in their Report that that was not the problem to be dealt with in Ireland, and that, so far as Ireland was concerned—
"The labouring classes there are very eager for work but no work could be got for them."
So that the two problems, English and Irish, were essentially different, and the Irish Poor Law Commission unanimously recommended that the problem in Ireland should be dealt with in the first instance by schemes for the development of the resources of Ireland, and in the second instance that the question of provision for the sick poor, aged and infirm, lunatics, tramps and casuals, and able-bodied paupers, should be dealt with by separate institutions. I would like to emphasise this a little he recent Viceregal Commission the Chairman of the Commission says—
"The Report of 1836, made just seventy years ago, must be read with great surprise when one carefully notes the recommendations made then, and at the same time observes how almost all the suggestions were, as time passed on, unconsciously acted upon. This shows how well and truly the Commissioners understood the requirements of the country. It would probably surprise most of those who study the condition of Ireland, and who have considered how to improve it., to find that a Commission that sat seventy years ago recommended land drainage and reclamation on modern lines, the provision of labourers' cottages and allotments, the bringing of agricultural instruction to the doors of the peasant, the improvement of the land tenure, the transfer of fiscal powers from Grand juries to county boards, the employment of direct labour on roads by such county boards, the sending of vagrants to colonies to be employed or to penitentiaries in this country."

833
Those were actually the very objects of the Commission seventy years ago. What was the fate of the Report of that Irish Commission? Why, every one of its recommendations were over-ruled. Lord John Russell, who, I think, was the Home Secretary, when he read the Report, sent over to Ireland an English Poor Law official, called Nichols, to investigate the matter afresh, and after spending six weeks in Ireland—and the means of transit were not then as efficient as they are now, and he could not have moved much about in Ireland in the course of six weeks—this English official, who was never in the country before, came back to England and submitted a Report to Lord John Russell to the effect that the Irish Commission were entirely wrong, that they knew nothing about the subject, that they were entirely mistaken, and that the real thing Ireland wanted was an extension of the English system to that country. Lord. John Russell threw the Report of the Irish Commission into the waste-paper basket, never referred to it again, and introduced a Bill into Parliament forcing the English system upon Ireland. That Bill was opposed vigorously in this House by the English representatives. It was opposed by O'Connell on the floor of Parliament and in Ireland. His opposition to the Bill was participated in by all the Irish Members of all parties in that day, the Lord Castlereagh of that day joined hands with O'Connell, and yet these omniscient governors of Ireland, who always know better what is good for Ireland than Ireland does herself, forced this Bill upon the country, and now, seventy years afterwards, a new Commission is appointed, and they unanimously report that the Commission of seventy years ago was right in every particular; that the system you forced upon Ireland seventy years ago was radically wrong and unsuitable for the country; that it has been a failure from that day to this, and they recommend its complete abolition. I do not want to turn this into a Home Rule debate, but it is fair, at any rate, that I should direct attention to the fact that there is no more dramatic, startling, and sensational proof of the incapacity of English statesmen to govern Ireland
834
than is to be found in the history of this question. This is really an enormous question—a question which, in my opinion, it would be hopeless to deal with in a private Member's Bill. Let me just quote for the House shortly what the recommendations of the Commission would amount to. Like the Commission of 1833 they say that Irish poverty can only be removed by schemes for developing the industries of the country and giving employment. They recommend the total abolition of workhouses in Ireland, the segregation of the different classes of inmates into separate institutions, the deserving and decent sick folk to be put into workhouses and hospitals where there will be no taint of the workhouse upon them; the aged and the infirm to be put into other institutions; the insane to be put into asylums under the regular lunatic authorities; the vagrants—a small class, being 4,000 in all Ireland—the vagrants and the ne'er-do-wells who are destitute through indolence, vice, and the refusal to work to be put into separate institutions for themselves and not to be any way herded with the deserving poor. They recommend the repeal of the English and Scottish Removal Acts under which an Irish man or woman who spent a life of labour in England or Scotland, but who, at the end of their days become chargeable upon the rates, can be deported to Ireland, whereas Ireland has no such power to return English and Scottish paupers to their native places. These recommendations mean the total abolition of the system of Irish workhouses and the creating of new institutions for these separate classes. I do not think I agree with the view of the hon. Member who moved the Bill that this operation need not necessarily be an expensive one. I think the whole of this could be done, and whatever the initial cost might be it would, in the end, prove to be an economic transaction, but it is an enormous operation, and I fully realise that it could not be carried into effect by a private Member's Bill. Let me say what I conceive to be the duty of the Government. The Chief Secretary said the other day that there are enough great and vital problems affecting Ireland to occupy the whole of a session

835
That is quite true, and this is one of those great vital problems. Even with your present system of Grand Committees the examination of a measure to deal with this reform would take a considerable time. These great problems are waiting for solution, and the Irish people are suffering all the time, and my view is that it is the duty of the Government to act promptly in this matter. The Chief Secretary promised in Belfast that this problem was engaging his attention. How long is it going to engage his attention? When is he going to get his opportunity of dealing with it? He may say that he cannot do it this session because of the University Bill. What about next session? Will he give a promise that he will introduce legislation on the subject next session and send his Bill to Grand Committee and see what can be done? So far as the present Bill is concerned, I welcome it, from the point of view of its affording us an opportunity of ventilating the matter. But as a piece of practical legislation, I cannot vote for the Bill if a division is taken. The machinery is entirely inadequate, and, indeed, is preposterous in its character. The Bill proposes to create a Commission consisting of two Judges. Then there are to be three lay assistant Commissioners to be associated with them, but they have no power at all. Their duties are to be assigned by the Judicial Commissioners, and apparently the intention is that they should hold inquiries, but all the judicial and administrative acts are to be performed by the two Judges, and their powers, therefore, would be enormous. They would have powers to abolish local bodies in Ireland, to amalgamate them, and to create new governing bodies—in fact, to interfere all over Ireland with the whole system of local government. If that is a right thing to do, surely the tribunal appointed to do it ought to be one in some sense representative of the Irish people. But to set up a tribunal consisting of two Judges without any representation of the regular public bodies elected by the people, is simply a preposterous proposal, and for my part, I could not dream of supporting it for one moment. I will not go into the other objections against the Bill; although they are
836
many I am not anxious to pull the Bill to pieces. I welcome the opportunity of discussing this matter. I fully recognise the difficulty of private Members in drafting a Bill at all upon the subject, and I take up the position that while I cannot vote for this Bill because of this preposterous proposal which would throw the whole system into the melting pot, yet so deeply do I sympathise with the object the hon. Member has in view in trying to bring about this reform, that if he goes to a division I will not vote against him, though I cannot vote with him. We regard this matter as a most urgent grievance. In the main we agree with the recommendations of the Viceregal Commission. Some of them will no doubt lead to differences of opinion, such, for instance, as the recommendations as to the method in which the new medical service is to be created, and matters of that kind. These are matters about which there would be difference of opinion, and a good deal of discussion. But putting on one side four or five matters of that kind, in the main we on these benches approve of the recommendations of the Commission. We say that the present Poor Law system is a scandal and is injurious to Ireland, that it ought never to have been forced upon the country, and that it is a standing reproach to the Government. The Government ought to deal with the matter. We are in agreement upon the point that the grievance is an urgent one, and in the main we agree with the recommendations of the Commission. But if this Bill goes to a division it will be impossible for us to vote for it, and I for one, will walk out of the House.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): I have listened with great interest to the exceedingly clear, sensible, and able speech made by the hon. Gentleman opposite, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. I can assure him, for the present at least, I am at one with him in the object which he has at heart. We are all agreed about this subject. I will not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down in the very interesting remarks which he has made, but certainly nobody can

837
make himself acquainted, as it has been my business to do, either with the past history of Poor Law administration in Ireland, or any such subject, without discovering that on such points agreement has usually existed among Irishmen, whatever may be the colour of their political opinions, and that in the early days they had their own plans and their own views of the soundest character and description, not only on the Poor Law question, but also for dealing with the vexed question of the land. Their views were disregarded and put on one side in obedience to the overwhelming opinion of England. That, certainly, is perfectly plain with regard to this Poor Law question and many others. The union of O'Connell and Castlereagh is to-day repeated, and we find hon. Gentlemen above and below the gangway united in urging that the Poor Law system as it now exists and has existed for so many years in obedience to English wishes and opinions, shall be set on one side. I scarcely need to say that I entirely concur with that view. I rejoice very much that this question should have been discussed to-day on the floor of the House. There are in Poor Law questions one or two things upon which both in England and Ireland there is an unusual agreement of opinion. One relates to classification of inmates of workhouses, another to the boarding-out of children. Any legislation that we have, either for England or for Ireland, dealing with Poor Law administration will, we know, proceed upon these two rational and humane principles. How they came to be overlooked for so long must be a matter of surprise, but then we all know with what little wisdom the world is governed. The necessity for the removal of children from workhouses to proper homes outside is one of the obvious things which must appeal to every really humane man. Nobody who has seen the different spirit and temper of poor children living in proper homes and moving backwards and forwards to schools where they meet the children of the neighbourhood—the different tone, temper, and spirit which enters into their lives, cannot but be overwhelmed with sorrow that the children of either England or Ireland have been
838
submitted so long to a different state of things. Happily a child's lightness of heart prevails over almost everything, but the dullness, degradation, shame, and misery of workhouse life it is not strong enough to contend with. Therefore, on this point we are all entirely agreed. I do not want to say a word against the measure which has been introduced in so excellent a speech by the hon. and gallant Member, but I must point out—and I think the hon. Member will agree with me—that this Bill proposes to set up a different kind of Commission from that suggested in the Poor Law Commission's Report. It proposes to set up a Commission before the Bill has been passed which really enables the reforms to be carried out and before Parliament has laid down the lines upon which those reforms are to be carried out. I am sorry that that should be so. If this were a thing which could be done piecemeal and if a Bill could be passed which would in no way interfere with a subsequent larger measure, and only do a little bit of work, that would be an excellent thing; but the Commission it is proposed to set up will of necessity be a costly body. It will have all sorts of duties; it will in fact have the very duties which the Poor Law Commission suggested should be conveyed to a temporary Commission if a Bill were passed before that Bill has been passed and before anyone knows what shape or form the Bill will assume. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to the very vexed question of the areas. That vexed question of the areas and rateable authority lies at the very root of the whole question, and until we determine what those areas are to be and upon whom the charges are to be made—whether they are to be the union or county areas—it is impossible to set loose a Commission travelling about the country to determine what institutions shall be set up when they will not know to whom they will be chargeable.
MR. MOORE: We can settle that by agreement.
MR. BIRRELL: I am afraid not. I quite agree that in this Poor Law matter there is no question outstanding, and, no controversy introducing the least bit

839
of party spirit, but I know enough about the matter to know that there is a very considerable difference of opinion. It found expression in the Minority Report signed by the lion. Member, and there are many reasons pro and con to determine with regard to the question whether they shill have large or small areas. The Viceregal Commission suggested different areas in different cases, and proposed that the expenditure in regard to sick, aged, infirm, lunatics, and unmarried mothers shall be defrayed out of the county rate, but that the area of charge for children in industrial schools and other purposes shall be the electoral division, and until we have determined these things it will not., I think, help but rather hinder to set up a Commission.
MR. MOORE: Under the Bill nothing can be done unless interests agree as to the area.
MR. BIRRELL: I am afraid in that case nothing will be done. I do not think it will be easy to ask me to go to the Treasury, and I do not want to do it unless I am asked, for the great expenditure necessary in setting up machinery of this sort, unless we can satisfy them that it is going to end in doing something, and not in doing nothing. The matter has to be faced and we have to determine the principles on which the country is to be marked out for rating responsibilities in respect of all these most important subjects. When that has been done, I do not doubt that it will be found necessary to appoint a Commission as suggested in the Poor Law Report in order to go over the country and arrange the admirable things set oat in the clauses of the Bill. I am certain that at present no good result will follow from reading the Bill a second time. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford has naturally asked me what I am going to do. I fully recognise the justice of that question. I am always sorry when I hear anyone say that he is going to read extracts from my speeches, but I am not in any way ashamed of the remarks I have made with regard to the Commission's Report, and which the hon. Member has quoted. It is only fair,
840
however, to remember that one has to choose between subjects in the House. You cannot have a King's Speech in which there is nothing but Ireland from one end to the other, and as I cannot arrange that, I have to make choice between pressing subjects and I believe that the majority of those I have attempted to legislate upon—although one or two of the measures no doubt have given rise to angry feelings—will after discussion and full deliberation receive the general support of hon Members from Ireland irrespective of Party. Controversial subjects have a knack of pushing themselves to the front; and having, in addition to such subjects as I have already attempted to legislate upon, the embroglio of the land question and the necessity of land reform staring me in the face, I cannot admit that I have been neglectful in my duty in getting time for Irish affairs. I am, however, prepared to say that I see no reason whatever why in the next session of Parliament a Bill proceeding upon the lines of the Bill just moved and carrying out the purport of the Royal Commission's Report should not be the first measure to receive the attention of Parliament and to be sent upstairs to a Committee after its Second Reading to be considered in all its details. All I can say in the absence of everybody from the Treasury Bench is that if hon. Gentlemen opposite, on both sides, continue to press these points upon me, as no doubt they will, I will do my very best so far as I am personally concerned to secure that a Bill, carrying out the reforms recommended in the Report of the Poor Law Commission and proceeding on the lines of the Bill discussed this afternoon a d which has received general support on both sides of the House and from all parties in Ireland, shall be made a Government measure. Such a measure kill, I conceive, be one of the first importance, and there is none next to the University Bill I introduced the other day with which I should better like to have my name however slightly connected and which will receive my more enthusiastic support.
MR. WALTER LONGI confess that we must all feel a little

841
disappointment that the Chief Secretary has not been able to make a reply of a somewhat more gratifying character than that to which we have listened. This is a subject on which I may claim to speak with some knowledge because I was for many years at the English Local Government Board where the same question incidentally arose, and I can go back to the earlier days when it was not only a question of the rearrangement of areas for Poor Law administration, but we had to deal with English counties which had detached portions of areas all over the county, which led to the utmost confusion in the incidence and collection of rates. The Chief Secretary admitted that the question of area was, if not the most important, probably the one which underlies the settlement of this whole question, and he said with great force—and I have myself used the same argument—that Parliament ought not to create a Commission and lay upon them a certain duty unless Parliament has first of all laid down the lines upon which that Commission is to proceed. Up to a certain point I entirely agree with the Chief Secretary, but he has not had what I have had, viz., practical experience in trying to deal with this question as a Minister in Parliament, and I do not believe that until you have set up this Commission you will make progress. It is probable that what is proposed by the Bill of my hon. and gallant friend, the Second Reading of which he moved in a speech which I was glad to hear the Chief Secretary speak of in such generous and well-deserved terms, as it seemed to me to be admirable, may be open to some of the criticisms passed upon it by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. It may be thought that the Commission in its constitution would not meet with all the confidence it should meet with if it is to do good work in Ireland, but I am convinced that, if the Chief Secretary had seen his way to let the Bill be read a second time on the clear understanding that it went to a Select Committee and that the only object was to set up a Commission with certain powers, it is only by some method of that kind that you you can get this vexed question settled.
842
I have read the interesting Report of the majority of the Commission, and also the minority Report of the hon. Member for Mid. Tyrone, and I may be pardoned for saying that. I do not suggest anything improper when I say I am able to read between the lines of the Report. I know the sources from which many of the criticisms in that Report have come. They have come, not from the people who pay the rates and whose condition would be worsened, not from the people whose position would be improved if the areas were enlarged, but from those who are connected with the municipal bodies who are always able to advance arguments of a most potent character when any particular principles are involved. It is a class of vested interest which makes it almost impossible to proceed with reforms of this kind. What is the hope held out to us by the Chief Secretary? I accept it with the utmost gratification so far as it goes. It is that the Government hope to be able to deal with this question in a Government Bill next year. My hon. friends behind me who are interested in this Bill would be the first to admit that between the chances of this measure and those of a measure in the charge of the Government there is no comparison, and they have no doubt as to which they ought to accept. But by the admission of the Chief Secretary, and all those who have had to deal with this question, it is almost certain that unless some preliminary steps are taken by setting up a Commission, the Government will be unable next year to bring in a Bill of such a non-controversial nature that it would not raise a great discussion. The Chief Secretary said that the Commission recommended not one principle for the extension of the areas, but various principles adapted to different parts of the country. But in Paragraph 263 of the Report the whole centre of the difficulty is pointed out. It is pointed out that a rate of 1d. in the £ in a Poor Law union in Ireland only produces £45 11s. 10d. That is the crux of the question. But take the case of England where you have a union like the Toxteth Division of Liverpool and the old City of Liverpool Union. There you find that without any

843
change in the law, the guardians have been able to carry out every one of the recommendations of this Report in regard to separating the classes, separate provision for labour homes, separate provisions in the workhouse for those who have come to a state of pauperism from no fault of their own, and others. Not only do they live in the building under different rules, but have different hours, and wear their own clothes. The children are not only boarded-out, but in many cases are living in separate houses, where twenty-five are boarded-out under the charge of a foster-mother. You can have exactly the some change with regard to the insane. But that is not the general condition of things in England. It is true that in other unions you find the same melancholy condition of things that has been described by my hon. friends. What is the reason of that? You can erect splendid buildings and make most admirable provision for the poor. But while you can do these things in the big towns where the high rateable value for the district allows it to be done, you cannot do it in small areas where the result of a 1d. rate produces only £50. In those cases the only thing to be done is to get Parliament to make up its mind that there shall be a rearrangement of areas, and you must have regulations which shall apply to county areas whether large or small. I believe there is no reform wanted so much in England, Wales, and Ireland at this moment, and there is no shame so great to our civilisation as the workhouses of the country. I myself brought in a Bill having for its object the rearrangement of the representation of the areas of the country. What was the result? Many Members who, if they had acquainted themselves with the subject, would have supported it, were constrained to oppose it because of the agitation raised in their constituencies. That may be an immoral state of things, but hon. Members will admit that when a constituency has become fully roused, a Minister has great difficulty in persuading his friends to risk that agitation and support him. It is not until you get the support of a Commission that you will get Parliament to adopt the proposal. The Act of 1888 which we carried, it is true followed the recommendations of the Commission, in the
844
redistribution of areas. But that Commission was in actual operation, and its recommendations were in the hands of Parliament before the Act was passed. We were able to set up in 1888 an Act which gave effect to the Report of that Commission which could not have come properly into force for many years to come. It is, therefore, inaccurate to say that advantage has not been taken on this question to make a step forward. The Chief Secretary at Belfast said that this was one of the most pressing needs of Ireland and he has told us that they had not the time to pass such a Bill. But there is an answer to that. Although there is no time to pass this particular Bill, Ministers went through the country last year saying they had carried sixty-five Bills that year, and seventy the year before. The answer is that in connection with a great many of the measures brought in it would be well if the Government considered how far they could be made as little controversial as possible rather than how much they could be made in the interests of one Party. The Chief Secretary could have done much and relief could be given—if Irish Members were united great things could be done. Although the hon. and learned Member for Waterford told us he could not support the Bill he spoke well of it, and said he would not oppose it. What advice I ought to give to my hon. friends behind me I do not know. They are certainly interested in this Bill, which does contain recommendations based on the Report of the Royal Commission. I would advise them to do their best to meet the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, and see if this Commission is to be started that some further consideration is given to its composition. It would be worse than useless unless the Commission commanded support in Ireland. I myself care very little how much of the Bill remains after it has been before a Select Committee, so long as that part of it is adopted which I consider of the greatest importance, namely, the establishment of a tribunal which could inquire and report and give the Government some definite plan. With the authority of such a Commission behind them the Government could come to Parliament next session and bring in a Bill which

845
would be of such a character as to avoid much of the controversy which may otherwise arise. I do not want just now to recall the advantages of the legislation proposed in this Bill. I know that many questions of reform in Ireland are considered of the utmost importance by hon. Members, but surely this question must come before all others. Just take the boarding-out question, for instance, take the children out and educate them in the national elementary schools, or, if there are too many, in separate establishments, and you get rid of that difficulty. Then there is the herding together of people whose pauperism is the result of vice or of physical and mental inferiority, that is a cruel hardship which should be terminated with the least possible delay. Any change of this kind must take time, even though the Bill were allowed to go through this House practically without any opposition at all, for you have to rearrange your areas, make new provisions for buildings, and bring your new law into operation in all the areas, and all the it takes time. If a Bill of this kind were passed without opposition this session, it would not be possible to give effect to these reforms under a period of two years. If Clause 6 alone, amended in what way you like, were taken over by the Government, and rearranged so as to make the Commission one they could rely upon, and if they said: "We will send it to a Committee, and insist on such alterations as are necessary, and then we shall at all events prepare the way by this Commission for a large measure of reform for which we will be responsible in another session,"—if that had been the course adopted by the Government, I should have no hesitation in advising my hon. friends not to go to a division on the Second Reading. But they are keenly interested in this question, and I for one deeply regret that our Parliamentary system makes it often the case on a Friday that a question vitally affecting the welfare of our people should be discussed in such an empty House, but that we cannot help. This discussion, such as it is, has been marked by a much greater unanimity and agreement on the common principles of the Bill than you often hear in this House on Irish questions. There has been evinced a profound desire
846
that some definite step should be taken to secure a reform on which we are all agreed, and if my hon. friends decide to press the Second Reading of their Bill, I shall most certainly support them in the lobby, because I believe they will be giving by their votes the only practical effect open to them to their conviction that unless you take some steps, however small, and unless Parliament sets up some tribunal which can give Parliament the information required, you will make no advance on this question, which I regard as one more nearly connected with the happiness of our people—the poorer and more suffering among them—than any other to which the attention of Parliament could be given.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid his colleagues and himself regretted that the Chief Secretary could not see his way to support the Second Reading of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford had asked them a definite question, as to whether they looked upon these proceedings as a mere academic discussion of the question or whether they seriously intended to press for the Second Reading of the Bill. He could tell the hon. and learned Member that they did intend to press for the Second Reading of the Bill, if for no other reason than to show how desirous they were that the whole matter of Irish Poor Law reform should be pushed forward. He was unable to follow the Chief Secretary when he informed them that as the Bill was drafted, they really would be gaining nothing if they set up the proposed Commission. The Report of the Commission on which the Bill was founded, on page 76, said that the Commissioners believed that a temporary Commission, working with the Local Government Board and the local bodies, would be necessary for the purpose of carrying into effect the changes incidental to the recommendations made in the Report, and that such a Commission, acting in subordination to the Local Government Board, might discharge the following duties, such as suggesting the areas to be assigned to the various institutions, suggesting the draft scheme for the reapportionment of Parliamentary grants

847
proposals for the employment of Poor Law officials whose services would be retained and compensation for officials whose services would be dispensed with, and for carrying out the adjustment of various other matters incidental to the changes provided for. The Bill, so far as he could see, followed out that recommendation exactly. It set up a Commission, gave it power to draft schemes, prescribed the method by which notice of those schemes was to be given, and the manner in which they were subsequently to be laid before the Lord-Lieutenant, and, in the absence of objection, to have the force of law by receiving an Order in Council. He did not see how the Chief Secretary could contend that it was necessary to have previous legislation before that could be done. It seemed to him that, even presuming the Chief Secretary was right, he had not given them any good reason why the Bill should not be allowed to go to Committee. All the previous speakers had admitted that the matter was one of urgent importance, which could only be benefited by a free and open discussion. Not one of the Grand Committees was at present occupied with any Bill, and there was, therefore, an excellent opportunity to allow the Bill to be referred to a Grand Committee. His hon. and gallant friend had pointed out that when he was lucky in obtaining a place in the ballot, and when it had been decided between him and his colleagues that this question should be brought before the House in the form of a Bill, it gave them all a considerable amount of anxiety and consideration as to how they should approach the matter. The Chief Secretary had informed them that the form of the Bill was such that it would not carry out their objects. When they came to examine the Report for the purpose of drafting the Bill, they found that it covered a very large area, and it became evident to them that if they wanted to introduce a Bill which would deal in a piecemeal way with the recommendations of the Commission they would not, possibly, get further than dealing with one or two, possibly the least important, points in the Report; and to show how that consideration was borne in upon them, it was only necessary to consider the
848
numerous and complicated matters with which the Report of the Commission dealt. If they had attempted to draft a. Bill dealing individually with the various questions considered they would have such questions as the erection of poorhouses and lunatic asylums, the making of areas, the segregation of classes, and outdoor relief; and if they attempted to legislate on those lines it would give them very much more trouble than in legislating for the whole of the case in the method suggested by his hon. and gallant friend. They saw at once that if they were to do anything at all it was necessary to deal with it in a general way, and to set about finding out what was the best way to do so, and his hon. and gallant friend hit upon the precedent to which he had referred. The [question of the endowed schools was more controversial than that with which they were now dealing, yet a Commission was set up and dealt with in a most satisfactory way. So far as he could see, there was really no insuperable difficulty in the way. The labour would, no doubt, be very great, but the main questions of this reform were of such a non-controversial nature, and public opinion had so often expressed itself as to the way in which these questions of the segragation of classes, outdoor relief, lunatic asylums, etc., should be dealt with, that there ought at this stage to be very little difficulty for the Commission in dealing with those points. It seemed to him that the Report of the Commissioners was so plain, and that they had covered the whole area so completely, that, the work of the Commissioners set up under the Bill would be very greatly simplified. The Report, he would remind the House, had been in the hands of Irishmen since October, 1906, nearly a year and a half, and they might be quite sure that it had been criticised, canvassed, and discussed, not only by every person connected with the Poor Law in Ireland, but also by the public Press, and so far as he knew there had been no serious exception taken to the findings of the Commission in any part of Ireland. It had been pointed out that the recommendations of the Commission had been acquiesced in by both parties in Ireland.

849
As had been very properly remarked, this was not a question of party at all, and he was somewhat surprised to find that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford was not prepared to support the Second Reading. To him the reasons of the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be very slender ones. The hon. Gentleman rested his defection, so far as he could see, on one point, which, after all, could be dealt with in Committee, namely, the composition of the Commission who were to carry out the recommendations of the Report. But the constitution of that Commission could not in any way be called a principle of the Bill; it was a gallant friend would be glad to receive any suggestion from the hon. and learned Gentleman or from anybody else. They wanted a strong Commission which would have the confidence of all parties. It seemed to him that the question of the composition of the Commission was a matter for arrangement; it was obviously a purely administrative matter. There was no political, religious, or party interest mixed up in it at all, therefore he could not conceive why the hon. and learned Gentleman should feel the slightest difficulty in coming to an agreement as to what the composition of the Commission should be. He thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have given them his unqualified support in the matter. He had given a certain sort of modified support, but he thought that if the poor in Ireland, and if the consumptives of Ireland who had been so feelingly referred to in the Report, were to be benefited, the hon. And learned Gentleman should have given them his assistance in hastening the passage of what was admitted by all parties to be an absolutely non-political and non-party measure. He had intended to go more fully into the details of the Bill, and particularly he had intended to make some reference to what he considered to be the most pitiable class of persons dealt with by this measure, namely, the consumptives. When they read the Report and found how consumption was increasing in Ireland, whereas it had decreased in the last few years in England and Scotland by 50 per cent.—when
850
they found that in Ireland persons suffering from all stages of consumption were taken to the ordinary workhouses, where they slept in the same rooms with healthy persons and thus spread the ravages of the dreadful disease, he really thought anything which would have the effect of concentrating public attention and the attention of the Government on the question of reform of the Poor Law in Ireland ought to be speedily done. He could not help deeply regretting that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had not seen his way to join them in this attempt to bring the matter to fruition as soon as possible. The Chief Secretary had given them a qualified promise that next year he would bring in a Bill dealing with this question. Of course they thanked him for that promise, but, unfortunately, they knew that a promise in Parliament, unless it was absolute, was not of much value. If a Minister qualified his promise by such phrases as: "If there was time or opportunity," the promise was not worth a great deal. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman might be able to carry out his promise, but he able to carry out his promise, but he could only regret that he had not seen his way to allow the Bill to go through at least another stage, because by so doing any defect that might exist in the measure would have been remedied, and they would then have had more information from the right hon. Gentleman as to the particular line he proposed to pursue when he himself brought in a Bill next year.
*MR. SUMMERBELLsaid he could not but regret the smallness of the attendance that afternoon, for it did not encourage the initiation of any proposals so far as private Members were concerned. Of course, this was a purely Irish matter, as the Bill did not apply to England, but, inasmuch as a division was to be challenged, he thought it right to say a few words so far as the Labour Members were concerned. He had the fullest sympathy with all that had been said with regard to the necessity for the reforms which were proposed. He regretted the wasteful administration, and it was certainly a disgrace to the country that so much should go in

851
that direction and. so little reach the poor. He also regretted that honest men who were out of employment should have to mix with wasters in the workhouses; in fact, the whole system required fresh legislation for its reform. They were hoping that the time would come when the boards of guardians would be done away with and the administration of the Poor Law placed in the hands of the county and borough councils. The Members of the Labour Party, however, did not think that the Bill now under discussion would. by the machinery it set up effect the very desirable reforms about which they were unanimous in all parts of the House; but inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench had promised legislation next year—[Cries of "No; qualified"]—he had heard the speech, and he certainly thought that the right hon. Gentleman was definite regarding the promise of legislation next year which would meet all that the promoters of this Bill desired.
CAPTAIN CRAIG: If such a promise has been made by the Chief Secretary, I certainly accept it at once.
MR. BIRRELL: Of course, I am not in a position to make a definite promise, because I have no control over the business of the House. But I do not complain of the conclusion come to by the hon. Member below the gangway who heard my speech. What I said was that I should do my very best to accomplish that purpose, and I am very confident I shall succeed, but further than that I cannot go.
MR. SUMMERBELLsaid that in view of a promise of that character and the sympathy which the right hon. Gentleman had in regard to these many reforms which they all desired, he thought the promoters of the Bill would be well advised not to press it to a division. If it were pressed to a division, they on those benches would be obliged to vote against the Second Reading.
MR. BARRIEsaid it was with some disappointment that they had listened to the hon. Member who had just sat down. The words of
852
the Chief Secretary had, not without reason, been quoted. Speaking at Belfast on 24th October, 1907, and dealing with this particular question he said—
"I say the country is ripe and ready for legislation upon those lines, but whether it will be obtained I do not know. All I can say is that if the Irish people would only unite on questions of this kind instead of disuniting upon other questions, good progress for the betterment of the country would be made."
He endorsed the comment of the hon. Member for Waterford, who on 26th October made the following remarks—
"I confess I read that statement with a feeling of some resentment because that statement, if it meant anything, meant this: That the delay in the settlement of these questions, these social reforms, was due to the action of the Irish people themselves and not due to the fault of the English Government. No man living to-day knows better than Mr. Birrell does how false such a suggestion would be."
The hon. and learned Member, in the same speech, dwelt eloquently and insistently upon the great urgency of the question, and yet that afternoon they had him taking a technical objection to some part of the machinery, which might easily have been got over in Committee, and refusing to lend his influence in supporting the Bill, and thus practically destroying its chance of becoming law. In another speech the hon. and learned Member, after dealing with the housing of the working classes in Ireland, proceeded—
"I may remind you the Irish Party has already taken action. We have put before the Government our suggestions for the benefit of artisans in towns…and we will also put in concrete form our suggestions for the settlement of this Poor Law system."
He ventured to suggest to the hon. and learned Member that he would have no better opportunity than he had enjoyed that afternoon of putting in concrete form whatever suggestions he might have to offer for dealing with that important subject. He had, up till that day, refused to see any political difference in Ireland with regard to this subject, because from one end of the country to the other the Poor Law administration urgently called for reform. Perhaps he might be allowed to give an illustration of what they were suffering by referring to that county a portion of which he had the honour to represent. The Joint Committees of the Coleraine

853
and Magherafelt Boards of Guardians, and several members of the Limavady Board, came together and discussed the whole subject of promoting economy and efficiency, and he would quote very briefly from the Report unanimously adopted by those three boards of guardians. It disclosed the state of things then existing in the county—
"The average number of inmates in the last half-year for which the figures have been published, gives a total of only 341 inmates; the buildings being certified as providing full accommodation for 2,342 inmates; or, to put it another way, any one of the three workhouses is certified to hold double the number of inmates presently contained in the whole three. For the half-year ending 31st March, 1899, we find what is called the expenses of establishment, which included the cost of four officials, and the maintenance of buildings for the three workhouses, were £1,789, whereas the cost of food and clothing for the whole of the inmates for the like period is only £1,475. Thus we think our system of relief has been greatly abused through our workhouses being so numerous and so convenient. Take the tramp nuisance, for instance. It is in a large measure the creation of a system which provides them with a good temperance hotel at the end of an easy day's journey. With fewer workhouses we may rest assured there will be fewer tramps. We have another class which periodically pass in and out of the workhouses largely because of their being situated so conveniently. We have quite a number of this class, and in our infirmary there are a good many inmates of a class who are quite able-bodied, and who when out of the workhouse misconduct themselves and use our workhouse infirmary solely for recuperative purposes. We are satisfied that were our workhouses some distance from town this class would decrease very rapidly."
He would conclude with a final extract from this Report—
"And we think the time is not far distant when for the middle and southern portion of the country a small hospital of the most modern type should be erected in an isolated situation with one wing for non-paying patients and with another wing where those who are willing and able to pay for the highest medical skill and nursing would be eared for under the best conditions. Many of us believe many of our county workhouses could with advantage be refitted without much expense as auxiliary ayslums, and that, by this means the prospect of a heavy charge for a new county asylum would be altogether done away with."
His object in reading these few extracts from that Report, which was adopted by the three large boards of guardians concerned almost with unanimity, was to give the later history of the movement which he thought showed the urgency
854
for legislation on the subject. The three boards of guardians were practically agreed as to the necessity for closing some of their workhouses, but when the question came to be considered which of the workhouses should be closed, the unanimity was at an end, and until they had legislation such as was proposed by this Bill, they could not make further progress in effecting that great economy The hon. and learned Member in introducing the Bill had referred to it as Utopian, and while gladly supporting it he felt that as regarded some of the minor suggestions that description might be aptly applied. The greatest difficulty in carrying out the recommendations of the Commission would be the admittedly large initial expenditure. He submitted to the House that if the Bill had been allowed to go to a Committee it would have been found practicable to adopt many of the suggestions, the cost of carrying out which would have been comparatively small. Reference had been made, and he was glad to hear it, to the value of the class of cottage hospital which was springing up in different parts of the country. While their county and workhouse hospitals in times past had not been as well equipped, they were not able to do the best medically for their inmates at all times, but a very great improvement in that respect had taken place. He would strongly emphasise that part of the Report which advocated in sparsely populated districts an increase of the number of purely cottage hospitals. He thought that was the most valuable part of the Report. It was not specifically referred to in the recommendations, but a very great improvement, even under the present adverse conditions in Ireland, had taken place since the law gave them lady members of guardians. Their election to the local boards was looked upon somewhat coldly at the start by male members of the boards, but he was bound to say, speaking with practical experience, that the ladies had amply justified the forward movement which had elected them to that service, and they had made their influence felt in many ways; first and chiefly, in ameliorating many of the depressing and unpleasant conditions of workhouse

855
life, and secondly, by bringing skilful attention to the nursing staff of the workhouses and hospitals. In. that connection might he also say that during recent years the class of nurses that had been induced to come forward for those positions had also visibly improved, greatly to the benefit of the patients. Lastly, the question had an important bearing on the great scourge of tuberculosis in Ireland. Many of them were anxious that there should be grants in aid for the provision of the necessary sanatoria in groups of counties. There had been a great revival in the movement on that subject in Ireland during the last six months. He was always glad to acknowledge the impetus which had been given to the movement by the Countess of Aberdeen, and it had been greeted in all parts of Ireland with equal enthusiasm. Branches of the Women's Health Association had been founded in the North and South, and there was great hope that in a very short time those who had been stricken with the disease might get out of their heads the prevailing idea in Ireland that there was practically no hope of recovery. If under such a measure as this it was made permissible for county councils to give a small grant in aid for the provision of sanitoria a most valuable work would be done for the whole country. He regretted exceedingly that they had not had a more definite promise from the Chief Secretary. He hoped, in view of the fact that they were so unanimous in the matter, that the right hon. Gentleman would at least feel it his duty to urge upon the Government that that should be the first legislation for Ireland next session. He said that in all sincerity and with the utmost earnestness. The question of deportment had also been touched upon. Their able-bodied men went to England and Scotland, and if they broke down there, without having secured the necessary settlement, they were packed home to Ireland and had to be supported in the workhouses there. That was a real hardship which would be remedied under the Bill. As regarded lunatic asylums the local boards had been feeling the pressure of the burden of getting them up to the necessarily high standard prevailing in all
856
such institutions. In England, of course, they were conducted at very great expense, but he thought in Ireland they had quite as much efficiency at vastly less expense, and he felt that under a reform such as they were now considering their auxiliary asylums might find suitable habitations in the workhouses and make for still greater and substantial economy. He hoped his hon. and gallant friend would persist in going to a division and he should be most happy to support him.
*MR. FETHERSTONHAUGHsaid the reception of the measure by the Chief Secretary had been a little discouraging. When he was taking the Irish Liberal Party on a personally conducted tour through the North of Ireland last slimmer he advised Irishmen that if they were unanimous on certain matters they would be sure to succeed. Differences were much more common in Ireland than unanimity, but here they had a subject on which, not only were all parties unanimous, but, as was shown by the history given by the hon. Member for Waterford, they had been unanimous for about seventy-five years. It was certainly the only question that he could remember of which anything like that could be said. In 1833 people of such different opinions as the then Lord Castlereagh and Daniel O'Connell were united in their opposition to the Poor Law schemes put forward upon the authority of that execrated individual, Mr. Nicholls. Ever since then every person who had taken any interest in the Poor Law administration in Ireland had been abusing Nicholls, and he had no doubt that had he lived in Ireland he would have been boycotted, but he was wise enough to live in England. Although they had been all the tine objecting to his system a one unsuitable to their country, and although they were now agreed that legislation should be introduced to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission which reported so long ago as October, 1906, when they brought forward a. Bill it did not receive the support which he thought they had a right to expect from the Government. He quite admitted that the Bill was open to considerable criticism. None of them imagined that it

857
was at all perfect or that it would be likely to become law in its present form, but they were not prepared to differ from the views of Gentlemen below the gangway on any mere question of the personnel of the Commission, and that subject might be considered removed from the area of contention. It was necessary to suggest some form for the personnel of the Commission in order that the matter might be discussed, but they had never suggested that it was part of the essentials of the scheme. If any proposal had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford to substitute any other persons for Judges of the High Court they would have been glad to agree to it, and he was certain no opposition would have come from the Judges, because he noticed that the Bill did not provide any remuneration for them. Recognising as he did that the Bill would possibly require very considerable alteration, and possibly that it would be inexpedient or impossible to carry it into law this session, he regretted that the Government did not allow it to go as far as Committee, because by discussing it in Committee they might have learnt a great deal as to the views of different parties in Ireland on matters of detail, and many valuable suggestions, no doubt, would have been made. The Government, apparently, would not take that course, and therefore, although they would go to a division, he supposed there was no prospect of securing the Second Reading. He did not propose to deal with matters of detail, but there was one circumstance which reconciled him to the prospect of the Bill's not becoming law, and that was that he would be glad to see it deal more fully with the position of the Poor Law medical officers, which was a disgrace to civilisation. The matter, which was very fully dealt with in the Report, was one of very urgent importance, and he hoped when the Chief Secretary came to frame his measure next session he would give it careful attention. The conditions under which the medical officers were elected were degrading to medical men, and everyone knew that the best men were not secured owing to local narrowness; what was more serious, they were not free agents, and as a result the administration of the Public
858
Health Acts was in a very miserable condition. They had to complain of the sanitary condition of houses owned by the very people to whom they owed their appointment, two whom they looked for continuance in that employment, and to whom they must crawl if they wanted to get a pension at the end of their service however long and meritorious. These conditions were absolutely fatal to the independence and efficiency of the Poor Law medical officers, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would carefully consider their claims and the interests of the public which were very much sacrificed by existing conditions. They would go to a division to show that they were in earnest in bringing the Bill forward, and he hoped that although the Bill got no further it would not have been in vain that they had called attention to and discussed the matter.
MR. MOOREwanted to say a very few words on the present situation, because undoubtedly there would be very general disappointment in Ireland that no further step had been taken in the matter of these reforms which every section of opinion in Ireland ardently desired. The first and the only practical step that had been recommended by the Commission to which other speakers had referred was the appointment of a temporary Commission, and the only practical step in this Bill was the appointment of such a Commission, and its objects and powers were set out in practically the words of the Viceregal Commission's Report. That Report, which had been so universally praised, stated that nothing practical could ever be done until a temporary Commission had been appointed, held local inquiries, and prepared schemes Whether there was going to be legislation this year or next or in any succeeding year it was perfectly obvious that that House could never pass a cast iron scheme or rules and regulations for schemes in an Act of Parliament which would apply to the varying circumstances in every part of the country. It was perfectly obvious therefore, to any man of experience in the ordinary working of things, that if these reforms were ever to be brought into force it would only be by a local system under which a Commission

859
could go through the country, hold inquiries, and prepare schemes adapted to local needs and approved by local agreement. It being the beginning and end, the Alpha and Omega of the Report, that a temporary Commission should be appointed, and that being the practical thing in this Bill, he thought when that was refused they should understand on whose heads the responsibility lay and from whom the objection came. They had heard a good many professions of sympathy for the Bill, and at the same time they found a Member of the Party opposite trying to count out the House. That was a typical example of Liberal sympathy with Irish reform. The objection raised by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford was that no member of the Commission was to be popularly elected. There would have been no difficulty on the part of the promoters in meeting that objection. That was much too small a peg upon which to hang the rejection of the Bill, which was simply proposing to carry out the most practical recommendation of the Viceregal Commission. The Chief Secretary for Ireland did not want the Bill because it came from the Unionist Benches.
MR. BIRRELL: No, no.
MR. MOOREsaid the only objection the right hon. Gentleman had raised to the Bill was on account of the expense. He did not think the Chief Secretary ought to raise that objection at a time when he was increasing the Irish Estimates by £85,000 and was going to spend another £200,000 on University education in Ireland. The objection taken by the Chief Secretary was that the expenditure under the Bill would be enormous, and that it would be useless. It was true that the period fixed for the Act to remain in operation was five years, but they would in most cases be able to find out in twelve months whether local agreement was likely
to be brought about. They might appoint the Commission for one year instead of five, and that might be a perfectly reasonable Amendment to make. As to the objection that it was going to be enormously expensive, he would point out that two out of the five Commissioners would not receive any remuneration at all. He presumed that one member of the Commission would be an experienced Civil servant representing the Local Government Board, and that would leave two members for one year to be paid. If they paid two members of the Commission £600 a year each, £500 to a secretary and allowed £1,000 for expenses, that would amount to £2,700. At any rate, £3,000 would be ample, and that was the enormous sum which the Chief Secretary stated would prevent the Government giving effect to the Bill with the object of which they professed to sympathise. That was a shabby excuse—a flimsy excuse to make for rejecting it, although it was on all fours, and practically word for word, with the Report of the Viceregal Commission. By reason of the attitude of the Government they could not get any farther with the Bill. Disappointed people would still see infirm old paupers herded with an undesirable class, mothers of illegitimate children were still to be allowed to contaminate the virtuous in the same institution, and all the evils about which all those acquainted with the social system of Ireland were crying out would be permitted to go on because this Bill was introduced from the Unionist Benches, and because the Government would not risk a sum of £3,000 to carry out what every thinking man in Ireland desired. They on the Unionist Benches had not been fairly treated. It was one of the many instances in which the Government had turned a deaf ear to an Irish demand.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 35; Noes, 89. (Division List No. 71.)

AYES.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N

Bowles, G. Stewart

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

Kimber, Sir Henry

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Renton, Major Leslie

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Younger, George

Fletcher, J. S.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Gretton, John

Moore, William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Helmsley, Viscount

Morpeth, Viscount

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Hunt, Rowland

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Viscount Valentia.

NOES.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hudson, Walter

Rowlands, J.

Baring, Godfrey (IsleofWight)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Runciman, Walter

Barker, John

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Russell, T. W.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Kekewich, Sir George

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Barnes, G. N.

Kelley, George D.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Laidlaw, Robert

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Bennett, E. N.

Lamont, Norman

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

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

Lough, Thomas

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

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Bowerman, C. W.

Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Spicer, Sir Albert

Brigg, John

Maenamara, Dr. Thomas J

Stewart, Halley (Greenock

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Mallet, Charles E.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Massie, J.

Summerbell, T.

Cameron, Robert

Masterman, C. F. G.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Carr-Gomm. H. W.

Menzies, Walter

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Verney, F. W.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Napier, T. B.

Wadsworth, J.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doneast'r

Waring, Walter

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wason, Rt. Hn E (Clackmannan

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

O'Grady, J.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Dobson, Thomas W.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Waterlow, D. S.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Perks, Robert William

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

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

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Gill, A. H.

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

Whitehead, Rowland

Grant, Corrie

Radford, G. H.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Hart-Davies, T.

Raphael, Herbert H.

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

Higham, John Sharp

Rees, J. D.

Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Holt, Richard Durning

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, W.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Whiteley and Mr. Herbert

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Lewis.

CORONERS' INQUESTS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. HIGHAMin moving the Second Reading said that the object of the Bill was a very simple one. The present state of the law was that the jury must view the body, however repulsive it might be or however great the danger from infection. The essence of the Bill was that the viewing should not be compulsory as provided by the Act of 1887, but optional at the discretion of the coroner. There might be cases in which the viewing of the body was essential, but the experience of a good many years and the opinion of many coroners was favourable to such an alteration in the law as was foreshadowed by the Bill. He had
862
known cases where infectious diseases had been transmitted through the act of viewing a body. In many cases the viewing of the body under the present law was a mere pretence, for they kept as far away from the body as they possibly could, and that was a breach of the oath they took. The object of the Bill was quite in harmony with the whole tendency of modern times, because the compulsory viewing of a body was almost on a level with the idea of public executions and other barbarous methods in vogue centuries ago. With the option given to the coroner to avoid possibilities of going wrong, and other safeguards, he thought the House might safely and advantageously pass the Bill which he had now the honour of moving.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Higham.)
*MR. LUKE WHITEsaid the Bill had been before Parliament for several years. In 1897 a Committee of the House reported in favour of doing away with the compulsory viewing of bodies by coroners' juries. His experience as a coroner had induced him to introduce the Bill two years ago. Three-fourths of the coroners in the country were in favour of the Bill. The measure did not do away with the viewing of the body in cases where the coroner or a majority of the jury considered that a view was necessary. He had received a great many letters from coroners, doctors, and jurymen, and, so far as he could gather, opinion throughout the country was almost unanimous in favour of passing the Bill. He could give instances which would assure the House that it was cruel to compel jurymen to view bodies. None could speak better regarding the measure than the members of the Labour Party. He had had communications from a great number of trade unions in districts where frightful catastrophes had taken place, and where jurymen were obliged to examine bodies in conditions under which the duty ought not to be imposed upon them. He hoped the House would read the Bill a second time.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he had listened to the two hon. Members who had spoken in favour of the Bill in the hope that he should hear some valid arguments in its support, but the only argument which they had brought forward was that coroners' juries should not be compelled to perform the disagreeable duty of viewing bodies, He was not surprised that the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading should advance that argument, but he was rather surprised to hear it
864
from the hon. Member for Buckrose Division, who was himself a coroner. It was not, he contended, a valid reason for asking the House to pass the Second Reading of the Bill to say that it was disagreeable for the jury to perform their duties. There were many duties cast upon men in this country, and in all countries, which were disagreeable, but which they had to carry out. One the conditions of having the franchise was that the electors had to act as jurymen. Hon. Gentlemen below the gangway were always insisting that everybody ought to have the franchise, and yet, while people exercised the privileges of the franchise, there was an objection on the part of some to discharge the disagreeable duties connected with it. No doubt it was disagreeable for coroners' juries to view bogies, but it did not at all follow that they ought to shirk that which was disagreeable. He had always understood that the more disagreeable a thing was the more willing a person should be to carry it out, if, by so doing, he was assisting the welfare of the country. He had a letter from a coroner telling him that it would be a very great obstacle to the detection of crime if the compulsory viewing of the body by the coroner's jury was abandoned. He himself did not pretend to be able to say whether that statement was well founded or not, but it had been sent to him unsolicited. It seemed to him to have some probability of being correct. He was not in the House at the time the law was passed, and he did not know what the object was, but he presumed that the object was that there should be additional means placed before the jury for determining whether or not a crime had been committed. The viewing of the body went a long way in that direction. The hon. Member for the Buckrose Division said that the Bill, supposing it became law, would not prevent the coroner from insisting upon the jury viewing the body if he thought it necessary that they should do so. His

865
answer to that was that there would be cast upon the coroner a very unpleasant and invidious duty.
*MR. LUKE WHITE: Or a majority of the jury.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that a majority of the jury could demand to view the body, but the Bill provided that they could only do so "at the first sitting of the inquest." He had no hesitation in saying that in many of the cases where an inquest was held, the real facts as to the cause of death were not disclosed until the second or third sitting.
*MR. LUKE WHITEsaid a body could not be interred without a burial certificate.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. Member was well aware that there had been many cases in which burial certificates were given, and, later on, when the bodies were disinterred, it was found that the burial certificates were absolutely incorrect. If the hon. Member founded his case on the burial certificates, why have any inquest at all? The coroner could insist on the jury viewing the body, according to Clause 1 of the Bill. If the jury considered it unnecessary that they should view the body, there might be a wrangle between the jury and the coroner as to whether or not the body should be viewed. He believed he was correct in saying that there had been on many occasions unseemly wrangles between coroners and juries.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present.
*MR. SPEAKER: The recent division has shown that considerably more than forty Members are in attendance.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the jury in the case he had supposed would go to view
866
the body, not with the idea of giving a proper verdict on the question, but with their minds rankling; because the coroner had forced them to do something which was in their opinion unnecessary. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading had referred to cases in which jurymen had deliberately made excuses for not going on a jury. The fact that jurymen did not like to go through the disagreeable duty of viewing the body was not a valid reason for not serving on a jury. He was sorry the Bill had come on now, for he thought it cast a lurid light on the motives which actuated juries. Of late he had not had that confidence in juries which Englishmen were supposed to have, and, if the statements which the hon. Member had made were correct, he would have no confidence in them at all. He would hesitate to introduce any change in the law which would cast doubt on the integrity of juries, and on their determination to do their duty, however disagreeable the duty might be. He did not see the object of the Bill unless the promoters, while wishing to abolish the viewing of the body altogether, did not like to go so far as to say so. The Bill might not appear to have that object, but that would be the ultimate effect. It was evident from what the lion. Member for the Buckrose division had said that he would not ask a jury to view a body unless he had grave suspicion that serious foul play had occurred. It might be very difficult for the hon. Member to form an opinion as to how death came about until he had heard all the evidence, and it might be then too late to view the body. Inquests were often protracted, and he would like to know what advantage a jury would gain by viewing a body four weeks after death when in all probability marks of foul play would have disappeared owing to the process of decomposition. All that showed the disadvantage of legislation by private Members on a Friday afternoon when, as the last division showed, there were only

867
124 Members in the House. He ought to have added Mr. Speaker, who unfortunately was debarred from taking part in the debates. He had not the slightest doubt that Mr. Speaker would have been on his side if he had been able to take part in the debate. There were 545 Members of the House who did not in the least know what was going on. [An HON. MEMBER: That is their fault.] Yes, that was their fault. He would point out that of the 500 Members of the Government and their supporters only eighty - nine had attended the discussion of a measure which had for its object the amendment of the system of Poor Law administration in Ireland, and of the Bill now before the House in regard to coroners' inquests, which after all affected the great body of the working classes. Hon. Gentlemen below the gangway had better not call attention to the lax manner in which the followers of the Government were performing their duty. To sum up, his objections to the Bill were, first, that investigations into crime might possibly be prevented; secondly, that if the coroner endeavoured to force the jury to view the body under this Bill, he would have an extremely difficult duty to perform, because the jurymen would consider that they had been forced by the coroner to do something which they were not bound to do; and thirdly, that anything which would relieve people from the discharge of a disagreeable duty, simply because it was disagreeable, ought not to be allowed. The tendency of modern times was to do nothing that was unpleasant; to take no trouble to do anything; to put all responsibility on other people's shoulders; to work only eight, six, or even less hours, whereas the tendency in the old days was for a man to do work to the utmost of his capacity. That was what ought to be the spirit now-a-days, and he regretted that the old energy once characteristic of the English race had departed, and that the old ideal
868
"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with all thy might," was now supplanted by: "Do as little as you possibly can." Under these circumstances he hoped the Bill would not have a Second Reading.
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,)said that the hon. Baronet's argument seemed to amount to this, that so long as a task was disagreeable it ought to be imposed in order to strengthen the national character, and, further, that crime might not be detected unless the body was viewed by the coroner and his jury.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that what he had stated was that he had received a letter, quite unsolicited by him, from a coroner who gave utterance to the opinion that crime would not sometimes be detected unless the body was viewed.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that the cases in which the crimes were detected by viewing the body by the jury must be excessively rare. He had gathered from the more eloquent passages in the speech of the hon. Baronet that in his opinion the discharges of a disagreeable duty tended to the virility of our national character. Be that as it might, there was undoubtedly a very strong body of public opinion in support of this Bill. The duty of viewing the body at an inquest was a very disagreeable one, and at times it might become far more than disagreeable—exceedingly painful in particular cases. Moreover, there was a certain risk of infection, rare he admitted, in viewing the body in cases where death had been caused by infectious disease. Another drawback to the existing system which, though slight, should not be left out of account, was that it frequently entailed on busy men like coroners and members of juries a very considerable and quite unnecessary waste

869
of time. The places where the inquests were held were often in a different locality from those in which the bodies were lying. An adjournment therefore had to be made from the court-house to the mortuary, and the amount of time occupied by the coroner and jury over an inquest might be doubled or trebled. Again, where large juries had to be brought together, burials in some cases might have to be delayed owing to the custom of viewing the body, and that might be a very great disadvantage and even prove to be a public danger. For all these reasons there was undoubtedly a strong case to be made for the Bill. On the other hand, there was not in his view, any powerful argument to be advanced against it. The chief objection to the proposed change was that the present system did make the juries take a serious view of their functions, or at any rate it tended to do so. Coroners' juries, it was true, were sometimes inclined to regard their duties too lightly, and that tendency was counteracted by the somewhat solemn ceremony of viewing the body. But, apart from that, there was very little to be said against the change. The argument had been advanced that it was an ancient custom and ought not to be lightly abolished. The office of coroner was indeed one of the most ancient in the State; its origin was lost in the mists of antiquity. The hon. Baronet opposite said that he was not in the House when the law establishing this practice of viewing the body by the coroner's jury was passed. That was very true, for it dated probably from before the Norman Kings, sometime between the reign of Alfred the Great, and William the Conqueror; and the hon. Baronet, though an old Member of the House, was not quite so old as that. The purpose for which the custom was originally established was that the neighbours might be called together to identify the body of a person who had died,
870
the jury being regarded as the representative men of the neighbourhood. Further, in those simple days the average man was as well able to declare what was the cause of death as anyone else. Both of those functions were obsolete and useless now, because the cases in which the juries were acquainted with the person whose body they were called upon to view were very rare; and in these days no jury would venture, merely from their own observation from viewing the body, to say what was the cause of death. He found that the Coroners' Society was in the main in favour of this change, and the hon. Member for Buckrose, who had been a coroner himself, and than whom no one was better entitled to express an opinion, shared that view, and supported the Bill. For all these reasons the Government saw no objection to the Second Reading of the Bill, and carrying it a stage further by sending it to a Committee upstairs for further consideration. The proposed exemption of the coroner as well as of the jury from the duty of viewing the body was a matter which should be very carefully examined in Committee before Parliament was asked to accede to it. Then it was said that a majority of the jury should have the right of demanding that the body should be viewed; whether that right should not be conferred on a smaller proportion would require to be considered. In dealing with this matter they were touching one aspect of a somewhat complicated body of law His right hon. friend the Home Secretary had long since had his attention called to the working of the law relating to coroners' inquests and the possibility of its amendment in many directions, and he had had under consideration the advisability of appointing a Committee to inquire into various matters—whether it was necessary to have so many jurors as twelve, the methods by which the juries were now summoned,

871
whether unnecessary inconvenience was sometimes caused under existing arrangements, whether in some cases juries might not be dispensed with altogether, whether the discretion of coroners as to holding inquests might be enlarged beyond what the law now allowed, how coroners' salaries were paid—in boroughs they were paid by fees and in counties by salaries—and which was the best method in the interests of the administration of the law. All these were matters which demanded inquiry. But perhaps more important than all was the suggestion that coroners should be empowered to hold inquests, not only in cases of death, but also in cases of fires which did not result in death. That suggestion had been urged on the Government by the Association of Municipal Corporations, and the Association of Chambers of Commerce. In the City of London there was at the present time an Act in operation which permitted the City coroner to hold investigations on his own initiative or when requested by the Lord Mayor or certain other personages; and many inquests had been held, the causes of fire had been discovered, and valuable suggestions made for the better protection of property. It was a question for consideration whether the coroner was the right person to undertake such inquiries, or whether it should be some other official, and whether a jury should sit with him, or expert assessors. These and other questions of detail called for investigation and settlement. Therefore, though there was no objection on the part of the Government to this Bill passing into law, perhaps in a modified form, if it failed to do so the subject would not be lost sight of, but would form a subject of consideration for the Committee to which he had referred.
*SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid that twenty years ago he had introduced a somewhat similar Bill, and he thought it would be clearly
872
in the interest of the juries, of the coroners, and of the public at large that this measure should receive a Second Reading and go to a Committee upstairs for detailed consideration. The duties of coroners' jury were numerous and onerous, and it was the duty of the House to do its utmost to lighten those duties in a way which would not conduce to public injury. From a long experience of coroners' courts and juries he had felt the very serious inconvenience and trouble to which juries were put in attending inquests and viewing bodies. In all cases the duties were troublesome and disagreeable, and in many instances local some. He thought that the hon. Baronet had taken a far too narrow view of the question, and he was afraid that the hon. Baronet had never attended a coroner's court, or acted as a juryman. If he had, he would have had a better idea of the difficulties which arose than was indicated by the speech which he had made. There were three grounds on which he thought this Bill should pass into law. In the first place, the duty of viewing the body was a disagreeable task to impose in all cases on men who were giving their time and money in order to perform a public service; and if they could make that service less objectionable the House was bound to do so. In the second place, it exposed these men to possible infection, and that was by no means such a small danger as h id been represented by sonic of the speakers. And in the third place, the duty of viewing the body was an exceedingly painful one, from which the jurors might well be spared, especially in cases of accidents in mines and factories, when the mutilated body of a comrade had to be viewed. The Bill which he brought in in 1888 had then the support of the great majority of the coroners of the country, and when a body of men like these came to the House with a request for a change in the law they ought to recognise that their opinion was worthy

873
of attention and respect. When three-fourths of the coroners of the country came to the House with a suggestion of that kind, as in the case of the present Bill, they ought to consider it. When the Bill went into the Committee it could be improved, and he thought the responsibility should still remain with the coroner to view the body upon which he NV S to hold the inquiry. The jury, however, stood in quite a different position. He did not think the House ought to postpone this useful Bill which so many of the coroners of the country supported.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid the House had had the advantage of hearing three speeches in favour of the Bill, including that of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. But those speeches contained only the one argument that the viewing of the body was a disagreeable and painful duty. The Under-Secretary it was true had advanced the argument that viewing the body might expose the jurymen to the risk of infection, but those cases surely must be very few and far between, because in the majority of cases where death ensued from infectious diseases there was no coroner's inquest, and burial took place upon a medical certificate. Even if that were not so, it would be easy to take precautions against infection. It was quite possible to arrange that such a body should be viewed through glass or in some other manner by means of which there would be prevented any exposure to infection. That it was a painful and disagreeable duty to jurymen no one would deny, nevertheless he agreed with the hon. Baronet and did not think the argument was sufficient to do away with such an ancient custom,
874
and if that was the only argument in its favour he should vote against the Bill. The Under-Secretary having mentioned that argument in its favour proceeded to mention others which were stronger in opposition to the Bill. It was surprising that after he had mentioned those he did not conclude by saying the Government could not support the Bill, and asking the House to vote against the Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the duty gave the jury a serious view of their functions, and that taken alone was a very strong argument against the Bill. It was most important that jurors, upon whose verdict depended perhaps the discovery of a criminal, should have the importance of their functions impressed upon them. If the viewing of a body had that effect it was an exceedingly important part of the coroner's inquest. But there might be in this very ancient law a sounder reason for its continuance. The Under-Secretary had said it was not necessary for the purposes of identification; that no jury nowadays could identify the body, that others identified the body and no jury could say what the cause of death was. But of the law originally was to certain that there was person whose death it was necessary to investigate. Everyone knew that there were cases of conspiracy to be considered. Supposing a man desired that it should be believed that he was dead when in fact he was not, and that he could get a sufficient number of corrupt people to aid him in his object, if the viewing of the body were done away with he would have no difficulty in carrying out his purpose. The viewing of the body being done away with the

875
thing would become very easy. It was not a case that would often occur, but that it might occur everybody knew from what had taken place in a recent case. He did not suggest that the jury would not be above suspicion. It was for that reason that he desired that they should continue to view the body. He wished to prevent a corrupt witness coming forward and saying he had drawn the dead man out of the water, for instance, and others saying they had seen the body. That might have been one of the reasons why the viewing of the body was imposed upon the jury and why it was retained upon the Statute-book when the Coroners' Acts were consolidated in 1877. The Under-Secretary of State had given a stronger reason still against the present Bill being passed. He had said there were many points in Coroners' Acts that needed amendment—that the whole question needed a Committee of inquiry in order to see in what way they could be best amended. He could not, therefore, see the object of passing this measure, which would only deal with a fraction of the question, when very shortly, as the Under-Secretary of State had said, the whole question would have to come up for review. Of course, if the Bill was to be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, no possible harm could result from its being read a second time. If, on the other hand, it was to be referred to a Committee upstairs, then he thought it would be a great waste of time to send to a Committee a Bill which in the opinion of the Government was not very desirable, especially when the Committees had plenty of work to do in examining and discussing other matters
876
which were of some importance. If the `suggestion that the Bill should be I amended in such a way that the coroner should always be compelled to view the body were acted upon a great part of his objection would disappear, and had the Bill been introduced in that fashion he would perhaps not have been prepared to oppose it.
*MR. C. DUNCANsaid he had himself had some experience on inquests, and although the House had been told that the viewing of the body induced jurymen to take a serious view of the inquest, so far as his experience went there never was any flippancy displayed by the people empannelled upon the juries, or any suggestion that they were not likely to take as serious a view of their functions as any Member of the House. He thought the Bill was an extremely modest one and had a very reasonable object. Some of the duties which fell upon those who sat upon juries were of an extremely loathsome character. The case quoted by the hon. Baronet where at the first meeting of the jury one juror was taken so ill that the body could not be viewed for some weeks was one of the strongest arguments in favour of the Bill. Accidents also happened. Supposing an accident happened in a mine and a large number of men were killed. In such places the community was a very small one, and it seemed to be a pitiful thing to compel a jury sitting on an inquest of such a kind t look at the bodies, very often of their friends, torn, burnt, and riven in all directions. Then let them take the case of a man who had been drowned. He knew of such a

877
case where the body had been in the water three months. Could anything be more loathsome than to compel a jury by law to view a body of that kind which had been bloated and swollen to three times its natural size? Hon. Members who had opposed the Bill had had no experience of these things, and therefore should be the last to oppose such a measure. If they had had his experience they would have been strongly in favour of the Bill. The hon. Baronet had told
the House that hon. Members below the gangway would be unable to reply to his argument: there might be some truth in that, for he did not think anyone would be able to reply to him until votes were granted to women and women sat on the floor of the House.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 118; Noes, 45. (Division List No. 72.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Holt, Richard Durning

O'Dowd, John

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Grady, J.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Hudson, Walter

O' Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Barker, John

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Barnes, G. N.

Joyce, Michael

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

Beale, W. P.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

Bennett, E. N.

Kekewich, Sir George

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Waldon)

Kelley, George D.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Kilbride, Denis

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Boland, John

Laidlaw, Robert

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Bowerman, C. W.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Branch, James

Lehmann, R. C.

Russell, P. W.

Brigg, John

Lewis, John Herbert

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Lyell, Charles Henry

Seaverns, J. H

Cameron, Robert

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Summerbell, T.

Causton, Rt. Hn RichardKnight

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Mallet, Charles E.

Ure, Alexander

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Verney, F. W.

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

Meehan, Francis E.(Leitrim, N.

Wadsworth, J.

Crean, Eugene

Menzies, Walter

Walters, John Tudor

Delany, William

Montagu, E. S.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Devlin, Joseph

Mooney, J. J.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Morrell, Philip

Waterlow, D. S.

Donelan, Captain A.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Muldoon, John

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Whitehead, Rowland

Fletcher, J. S.

Murray, James

Whiteley, Rt. Hn. G. (York, W.R

Flynn, James Christopher

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Wiles, Thomas

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Nolan, Joseph

Wills, Arthur Walters

Gill, A. H.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Grant, Corrie

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Higham and Mr. LukeWhite.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Doherty, Philip

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Bowles, G. Stewart

Anstruther-Gray, major

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

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

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Thornton, Percy M.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Moore, William

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morpeth, Viscount

Waring, Walter

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

Fell, Arthur

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Gretton, John

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Hamilton, Marquess of

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Viscount Helmsley and Sir

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Frederick Banbury.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Lamont, Norman

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

BALLOT ACT (1872) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. DUNNformally moved the Second Reading.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid that the Motion had taken hon. Members entirely by surprise, and he considered that it was not very courteous to the House of Commons at ten minutes past four o'clock on a Friday afternoon to introduce so important a Bill in such a summary fashion. A Bill of this kind ought to be introduced by the Government or with Government sanction. He felt very strongly on the point and there were a large number of hon. Members who took a considerable interest in the Bill, in regard to which very divergent opinions were held. Did the promoters of the Bill think they would get the measure through the House any sooner by such discourteous treatment? It was not as if it were late at night and it was necessary to resort to such tactics. To the best of his ability he should show the House what they would be doing if they allowed the Bill to go through. The feeling on that side of the
880
House was that the principle might be satisfactory, whereas, in the case of some constituencies, there was a fairly equal division of opinion. The case of Croydon would, he thought, be a very good example. At the last general election the figures showed 8,200 Unionists, 7,200 Liberals and 4,100 Labour voters. In cases of that sort the Bill would undoubtedly introduce no great hardship. But there were cases in which great hardship would occur, and he was glad to have the opportunity of quoting the figures in a city which was the opposite case to that of Croydon. In West Belfast, where at the last general election they had a very close contest, or one which would have proved a very close contest but for a certain occurrence, they had 4,138 Nationalist voters, the Unionist candidate polled 4,122, and they had a nominee of the present Government polling 153.
MR. STANLEY WILSONcalled attention to the fact that forty Members were not present.
House counted, and forty Members not being present—
The House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Four of the Clock till Monday next.